Produced by Stan Goodman, Amy Overmyer, Robert Prince, Shawn Wheeler
and PG Distributed Proofreaders





THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER

BY The American Anti-Slavery Society

1836






    No.  1. To the People of the United States; or, To Such Americans
            As Value Their Rights, and Dare to Maintain Them.

    No.  2. Appeal to the Christian Women of the South.

    No.  2. Appeal to the Christian Women of the South. Revised and
            Corrected.

    No.  3. Letter of Gerrit Smith to Rev. James Smylie, of the State
            of Mississippi.

    No.  4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into the
            Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human
            Rights.

    No.  4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into the
            Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of
            Human Rights. Third Edition--Revised.

    No.  4. The Bible Against Slavery. An Inquiry Into the
            Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human
            Rights. Fourth Edition--Enlarged.

    No.  5. Power of Congress Over the District of Columbia.

    No.  5. Power of Congress Over the District of Columbia. With
            Additions by the Author.

    No.  5. Power of Congress Over the District of Columbia. Fourth
            Edition.

    No.  6. NARRATIVE OF JAMES WILLIAMS, AN AMERICAN SLAVE.

    No.  7. EMANCIPATION IN THE WEST INDIES.

    No.  8. CORRESPONDENCE, BETWEEN THE HON. F.H. ELMORE, ONE OF THE
            SOUTH CAROLINA DELEGATION IN CONGRESS, AND JAMES G.
            BIRNEY, ONE OF THE SECRETARIES OF THE AMERICAN
            ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.

    No.  9. LETTER OF GERRIT SMITH, TO HON. HENRY CLAY.

    No. 10. EMANCIPATION In The WEST INDIES, IN 1838.

            THE CHATTEL PRINCIPLE THE ABHORRENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AND
            THE APOSTLES; OR NO REFUGE FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY IN THE NEW
            TESTAMENT. 1839.

    No. 10. American Slavery As It Is: Testimony of a Thousand
            Witnesses.

    No. 10. Speech of Hon. Thomas Morris, of Ohio, in Reply to the
            Speech of the Hon. Henry Clay.

    No. 11. The Constitution A Pro-Slavery Compact Or Selections
            From the Madison Papers, &c.

    No. 11. The Constitution A Pro-Slavery Compact Or Selections
            From the Madison Papers, &c. Second Edition,
            Enlarged.

    No. 12. Chattel Principle The Abhorrence of Jesus Christ
            and the Apostles; Or No Refuge for American Slavery
            in the New Testament.

            On the Condition of the Free People of Color in the
            United States.

    No. 13. Can Abolitionists Vote or Take Office Under the United
            States Constitution?

            Address to the Friends of Constitutional Liberty, on the
            Violation by the United States House of Representatives
            of the Right of Petition at the Executive Committee of
            the American Anti-Slavery Society.




THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER



VOL. I. AUGUST, 1836. NO. 1.



TO THE

PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES;

OR, TO SUCH AMERICANS AS VALUE THEIR RIGHTS, AND

DARE TO MAINTAIN THEM.


FELLOW COUNTRYMEN!

A crisis has arrived, in which rights the most important which civil
society can acknowledge, and which have been acknowledged by our
Constitution and laws, in terms the most explicit which language can
afford, are set at nought by men, whom your favor has invested with a
brief authority. By what standard is your liberty of conscience, of
speech, and of the press, now measured? Is it by those glorious charters
you have inherited from your fathers, and which your present rulers have
called Heaven to witness, they would preserve inviolate? Alas! another
standard has been devised, and if we would know what rights are conceded
to us by our own servants, we must consult the COMPACT by which the
South engages on certain conditions to give its trade and votes to
Northern men. All rights not allowed by this compact, we now hold by
sufferance, and our Governors and Legislatures avow their readiness to
deprive us of them, whenever in their opinion, legislation on the
subject shall be "necessary[A]." This compact is not indeed published to
the world, under the hands and seals of the contracting parties, but it
is set forth in official messages,--in resolutions of the State and
National Legislatures--in the proceedings of popular meetings, and in
acts of lawless violence. The temples of the Almighty have been sacked,
because the worshipers did not conform their consciences to the
compact[B]. Ministers of the gospel have been dragged as criminals from
the altar to the bar, because they taught the people from the Bible,
doctrines proscribed by the compact[C]. Hundreds of free citizens,
peaceably assembled to express their sentiments, have, because such an
expression was forbidden by the compact, been forcibly dispersed, and
the chief actor in this invasion on the freedom of speech, instead of
being punished for a breach of the peace, was rewarded for his fidelity
to the compact with an office of high trust and honor[D].

[Footnote A: See the Messages of the Governors of New-York and
Connecticut, the resolutions of the New-York Legislature, and the bill
introduced into the Legislature of Rhode Island.]


[Footnote B: Churches in New-York attacked by the mob in 1834.]


[Footnote C: See two cases within the last twelve months in New
Hampshire.]


[Footnote D: Samuel Beardsley, Esq. the leader of the Utica riot, was
shortly afterwards appointed Attorney General of the state of New-York.]


       *       *       *       *       *


POSTAGE--This Periodical contains one sheet, postage under 100 miles, is
1 1-2 cents over 100 miles, 2 1-2 cents.

"The freedom of the press--the palladium of liberty," was once a
household proverb. Now, a printing office[A] is entered by ruffians, and
its types scattered in the highway, because disobedient to the compact.
A Grand Jury, sworn to "present all things truly as they come to their
knowledge," refuse to indict the offenders; and a senator in Congress
rises in his place, and appeals to the outrage in the printing office,
and the conduct of the Grand Jury as evidence of the good faith with
which the people of the state of New York were resolved to observe the
compact[B].

[Footnote A: Office of the Utica Standard and Democrat newspaper.]


[Footnote B: See speech of the Hon. Silas Wright in the U.S. Senate of
Feb. 1836.]

The Executive Magistrate of the American Union, unmindful of his
obligation to execute the laws for the equal benefit of his fellow
citizens, has sanctioned a censorship of the press, by which papers
incompatible with the compact are excluded from the southern mails, and
he has officially advised Congress to do by law, although in violation
of the Constitution, what he had himself virtually done already in
despite of both. The invitation has indeed been rejected, but by the
Senate of the United States only, after a portentous struggle--a
struggle which distinctly exhibited the _political_ conditions of the
compact, as well as the fidelity with which those conditions are
observed by a northern candidate for the Presidency. While in compliance
with these conditions, a powerful minority in the Senate were forging
fetters for the PRESS, the House of Representatives were employed in
breaking down the right of PETITION. On the 26th May last, the following
resolution, reported by a committee was adopted by the House, viz.


    "Resolved, that all Petitions, Memorials, Resolutions and
    Propositions relating in any way, or to any extent whatever, to
    the subject of Slavery, shall without being either printed or
    referred, be laid on the table, and that no further action
    whatever shall be had thereon." Yeas, 117. Nays, 68.


Bear with us, fellow countrymen, while we call your attention to the
outrage on your rights, the contempt of personal obligations and the
hardened cruelty involved in this detestable resolution. Condemn us not
for the harshness of our language, before you hear our justification. We
shall speak only the truth, but we shall speak it as freemen.

The right of petition is founded in the very institution of civil
government, and has from time immemorial been acknowledged as among the
unquestionable privileges of our English ancestors. This right springs
from the great truth that government is established for the benefit of
the governed; and it forms the medium by which the people acquaint their
rulers with their wants and their grievances. So accustomed were the
Americans to the exercise of this right, even during their subjection to
the British crown, that, on the formation of the Federal Constitution,
the Convention not conceiving that it could be endangered, made no
provision for its security. But in the very first Congress that
assembled under the new Government, the omission was repaired. It was
thought some case might possibly occur, in which this right might prove
troublesome to a dominant faction, who would endeavor to stifle it. An
amendment was therefore proposed and adopted, by which Congress is
restrained from making any law abridging "the right of the People,
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances." Had it not been for this prudent jealousy of our Fathers,
instead of the resolution I have transcribed, we should have had a LAW,
visiting with pains and penalties, all who dared to petition the Federal
Government, in behalf of the victims of oppression, held in bondage by
its authority. The present resolution cannot indeed consign such
petitioners to the prison or the scaffold, but it makes the right to
petition a congressional boon, to be granted or withheld at pleasure,
and in the present case effectually withholds it, by tendering it
nugatory.

Petitions are to inform the Government of the wishes of the people, and
by calling forth the action of the Legislature, to inform the
constituents how far their wishes are respected by their
representatives. The information thus mutually given and received is
essential to a faithful and enlightened exercise of the right of
legislation on the one hand, and of suffrage on the other. But the
resolution we are considering, provides that no petition in relation to
slavery, shall be printed for the information of the members, nor
referred to a committee to ascertain the truth of its statements; nor
shall any vote be taken, in regard to it, by which the People may learn
the sentiments of their representatives.

If Congress may thus dispose of petitions on one subject, they may make
the same disposition of petitions on any and every other subject. Our
representatives are bound by oath, not to pass any law abridging the
right of petition, but if this resolution is constitutional, they may
order every petition to be delivered to their door-keeper, and by him to
be committed to the flames; for why preserve petitions on which _no
action can be had_? Had the resolution been directed to petitions for an
object palpably unconstitutional, it would still have been without
excuse. The construction of the Constitution is a matter of opinion, and
every citizen has a right to express that opinion in a petition, or
otherwise.

But this usurpation is aggravated by the almost universal admission that
Congress does possess the constitutional power to legislate on the
subject of slavery in the District of Columbia and the Territories. No
wonder that a distinguished statesman refused to sanction the right of
the House to pass such a resolution by even voting against it[A]. The
men who perpetrated this outrage had sworn to support the Constitution,
and will they hereafter plead at the bar of their Maker, that they had
kept their oath, because they had abridged the right of petition _by a
resolution_, and not by law!

[Footnote A: Mr. J.Q. Adams, on his name being called, refused to vote,
saying, "the resolution is in direct violation of the Constitution of
the United States, and the privileges of the members of this House."]

This resolution not only violates the rights of the people, but it
nullifies the privileges and obligations of their representatives. It is
an undoubted right and duty of every member of Congress to propose any
measure within the limits of the Constitution, which he believes is
required by the interests of his constituents and the welfare of his
country. Now mark the base surrender of this right--the wicked
dereliction of this duty. All "resolutions and propositions" relating
"in _any way_ or to _any extent_ whatever to the subject of slavery,"
shall be laid on the table, and "no further action _whatever_ shall be
had thereon." What a spectacle has been presented to the American
people!--one hundred and seventeen members of Congress relinquishing
their own rights, cancelling their own solemn obligations, forcibly
depriving the other members of their legislative privileges, abolishing
the freedom of debate, condemning the right of petition, and prohibiting
present and future legislation on a most important and constitutional
subject, by a rule of order!

In 1820, the New-York Legislature instructed the representatives from
that state in Congress, to insist on making "the prohibition of slavery
an indispensable condition of admission" of certain territories into the
union. In 1828, the Legislature of Pennsylvania instructed the
Pennsylvania members of Congress, to vote for the abolition of slavery
in the district of Columbia. In vain hereafter shall a representative
present the instructions of his constituents, or the injunctions of a
sovereign state. No question shall be taken, or any motion he may offer,
in _any way_, or to _any extent_, relating to slavery!

Search the annals of legislation, and you will find no precedent for
such a profligate act of tyranny, exercised by a majority over their
fellow legislators, nor for such an impudent contempt of the rights of
the people.

But this resolution is no less barbarous than it is profligate and
impudent. Remember, fellow countrymen! that the decree has gone forth,
that there shall be no legislation by Congress, _in any way_, or to _any
extent whatever_, on the subject of slavery. Now call to mind, that
Congress is the local and only legislature of the District of Columbia,
which is placed by the Constitution under its "exclusive jurisdiction
_in all cases whatsoever_." In this District, there are thousands of
human beings divested of the rights of humanity, and subjected to a
negotiable despotism; and Congress is the only power that can extend the
shield of law to protect them from cruelty and abuse; and that shield,
it is now resolved, shall not be extended in any way, or to any extent!
But this is not all. The District has become the great slave-market of
North America, and the port of Alexandria is the Guinea of our proud
republic, whence "cargoes of despair" are continually departing[A].

[Footnote A: One dealer, John Armfield, advertises in the National
Intelligencer of the 10th of February last, that he has three vessels in
the trade, and they will leave the port of Alexandria on the first and
fifteenth of each month.]

In the city which bears the name of the Father of his country, dealers
in human flesh receive licenses for the vile traffic, at four hundred
dollars each per annum; and the gazettes of the Capital have their
columns polluted with the advertisements of these men, offering cash for
children and youth, who, torn from their parents and families, are to
wear out their existence on the plantations of the south.[A] For the
safe keeping of these children and youth, till they are shipped for the
Mississippi, private pens and prisons are provided, and the UNITED
STATES' JAIL used when required. The laws of the District in relation to
slaves and free negroes are of the most abominable and iniquitous
character. Any free citizen with a dark skin, may be arrested on
pretence of being a fugitive slave, and committed to the UNITED STATES'
PRISON, and unless within a certain number of days he proves his
freedom, while immured within its walls, he is, under authority of
Congress, sold as a slave for life. Do you ask why? Let the blood mantle
in your cheeks, while we give you the answer of the LAW--"to pay his
jail fees!!"

[Footnote A: Twelve hundred negroes are thus advertised for in the
National Intelligencer of the 28th of March last. The negroes wanted are
generally from the age of ten or twelve years to twenty-five, and of
both sexes.]

On the 11th of January, 1827, the Committee for the District of
Columbia, (themselves slaveholders) introduced a bill providing that the
jail fees should hereafter be a county charge. The bill did not pass;
and by the late resolution, a statute unparalleled for injustice and
atrocity by any mandate of European despotism, is to be like the law of
the Medes and Persians, that altereth not, since no proposition for its
repeal or modification can be entertained.

The Grand Jury of Alexandria presented the slave trade of that place, as
"disgraceful to our character as citizens of a free government," and as
"a grievance demanding legislative redress;" that is, the interposition
of Congress--but one hundred and seventeen men have decided that there
shall be "no action whatever" by Congress in relation to slavery.

In March, 1816, John Randolph submitted the following resolution to the
House of Representatives: "_Resolved_, That a Committee be appointed to
inquire into the existence of an _inhuman_ and illegal traffic of
slaves, carried on in and through the District of Columbia, and to
report whether any, and what measures are necessary for putting a stop
to the same." The COMPACT had not then been formed and the resolution
_was adopted_. Such a resolution would _now_ "be laid on the table," and
treated with silent contempt.

In 1828, eleven hundred inhabitants of the District presented a petition
to Congress, complaining of the "DOMESTIC SLAVE-TRADE" as a grievance
disgraceful in its character, and "even more demoralizing its influence"
than the foreign traffic. The petition concluded as follows: "The people
of this District have within themselves no means of legislative redress,
and we therefore appeal to your Honorable body as the _only one_ vested
by the American Constitution with power to relieve us." No more shall
such appeals be made to the national council. What matters it, that the
people of the District are annoyed by the human shambles opened among
them? What matters it, that Congress is "the only body vested by the
American Constitution with power to relieve" them? The compact requires
that no action shall be had on _any_ petition relating to slavery.

The horse or the ox may be protected in the District, by act of
Congress, from the cruelty of its owner; but MAN, created in the image
of God, shall, if his complexion be dark, be abandoned to every outrage.
The negro may be bound alive to the stake in front of the Capitol, as
well as in the streets of St. Louis--his shrieks may resound through the
representative hall--and the stench of his burning body may enter the
nostrils of the law-givers--but no vote may rebuke the abomination--no
law forbid its repetition.

The representatives of the nation may regulate the traffic in sheep and
swine, within the ten miles square; but the SLAVERS of the District may
be laden to suffocation with human cattle--the horrors of the middle
passage may be transcended at the wharves of Alexandria; but Congress
may not limit the size of the cargoes, or provide for the due feeding
and watering the animals composing them!--The District of Columbia is
henceforth to be the only spot on the face of the globe, subjected to a
civilized and Christian police, in which avarice and malice may with
legal impunity inflict on humanity whatever sufferings ingenuity can
devise, or depravity desire.

And this accumulation of wickedness, cruelty and baseness, is to render
the seat of the federal government the scoff of tyrants and the reproach
of freemen FOREVER! On the 9th of January 1829, the House of
Representatives passed the following vote. "_Resolved_, that the
committee of the District of Columbia be instructed to inquire into the
expediency of providing by law, for the gradual abolition of Slavery in
the District, in such manner that no individual shall be injured
thereby." Never again while the present rule of order is in force, can
similar instructions be given to a committee--never again shall even an
inquiry be made into the expediency of abolishing slavery and the
slave-trade in the District. What stronger evidence can we have, of the
growing and spreading corruption caused by slavery, than that one
hundred and seventeen republican legislators professed believers in
Christianity--many of them from the North, aye even from the land of the
Pilgrims, should strive to render such curses PERPETUAL!

The flagitiousness of this resolution is aggravated if possible by the
arbitrary means by which its adoption was secured. No representative of
the People was permitted to lift up his voice against it--to plead the
commands of the Constitution which is violated--his own privileges and
duties which it contemned--the rights of his constituents on which it
trampled--the chains of justice and humanity which it impiously
outraged. Its advocates were afraid and ashamed to discuss it, and
forbidding debate, they perpetrated in silence the most atrocious act
that has ever disgraced an American Legislature[A]. And was no reason
whatever, it may be asked, assigned for this bold invasion of our
rights, this insult to the sympathies of our common nature?
Yes--connected with the resolution was a preamble explaining its OBJECT.
Read it, fellow countrymen, and be equally astonished at the impudence
of your rulers in avowing such an object, and at their folly in adopting
such an expedient to effect it. The lips of a free people are to be
sealed by insult and injury!

[Footnote A:  A debate was allowed on a motion to re-commit the report,
for the purpose of preparing a resolution that Congress has no
constitutional power to interfere with slavery in the District of
Columbia; but when the sense of the House was to be taken on the
resolution reported by the committees, all debate was prevented by the
previous question.]

"Whereas, it is extremely important and desirable that the AGITATION on
this subject should be finally ARRESTED, for the purpose of restoring
_tranquillity_ to the public mind, your committee respectfully recommend
the following resolution."

ORDER REIGNS IN WARSAW, were the terms in which the triumph of Russia
over the liberties of Poland was announced to the world. When the right
of petition shall be broken down--when no whisper shalt be heard in
Congress in behalf of human rights--when the press shall be muzzled, and
the freedom of speech destroyed by gag-laws, then will the slaveholders
announce, that TRANQUILLITY IS RESTORED TO THE PUBLIC MIND!

Fellow countrymen! is such the tranquillity you desire--is such the
heritage you would leave to your children? Suffer not the present
outrage, by effecting its avowed object, to invite farther aggressions
on your rights. The chairman of the committee boasted that the number of
petitioners the present session, for the abolition of slavery in the
District, was _only_ thirty-four thousand! Let us resolve, we beseech
you, that at the next session the number shall be A MILLION. Perhaps our
one hundred and seventeen representatives will then abandon in despair
their present dangerous and unconstitutional expedient for tranquilizing
the public mind.

The purpose of this address, is not to urge upon you our own views of
the sinfulness of slavery, and the safety of its immediate abolition;
but to call your attention to the conduct of your rulers. Let no one
think for a moment, that because he is not an abolitionist, his
liberties are not and will not be invaded. _We_ have no rights, distinct
from the rights of the whole people. Calumny, falsehood, and popular
violence, have been employed in vain, to tranquilize abolitionists. It
is now proposed to soothe them, by despoiling them of their
Constitutional rights; but they cannot be despoiled _alone_. The right
of petition and the freedom of debate are as sacred and valuable to
those who dissent from our opinions, as they are to ourselves. Can the
Constitution at the same time secure liberty to you, and expose us to
oppression--give you freedom of speech, and lock our lips--respect your
right of petition, and treat ours with contempt? No, fellow
countrymen!--we must be all free, or all slaves together. We implore
you, then, by all the obligations of interest, of patriotism, and of
religion--by the remembrance of your Fathers--by your love for your
children, to unite with us in maintaining our common, and till lately,
our unquestioned political rights.

We ask you as men to insist that your servants acting as the local
legislators of the District of Columbia, shall respect the common rights
and decencies of humanity.--We ask you as freemen, not to permit your
constitutional privileges to be trifled with, by those who have sworn to
maintain them.--We ask you as Christian men, to remember that by
sanctioning the sinful acts of your agents, you yourselves assume their
guilt.

We have no candidates to recommend to your favor--we ask not your
support for any political party; but we do ask you to give your
suffrages hereafter only to such men as you have reason to believe will
not sacrifice your rights, and their own obligations, and the claims of
mercy and the commands of God, to an iniquitous and mercenary COMPACT.
If we cannot have northern Presidents and other officers of the general
government except in exchange for freedom of conscience, of speech, of
the press and of legislation, then let all the appointments at
Washington be given to the South. If slaveholders will not trade with
us, unless we consent to be slaves ourselves, then let us leave their
money, and their sugar, and their cotton, to perish with them.

Fellow countrymen! we wish, we recommend no action whatever,
inconsistent with the laws and constitutions of our country, or the
precepts of our common religion, but we beseech you to join with us in
resolving, that while we will respect the rights of others, we will at
every hazard maintain our own.

_In behalf of the American Anti-Slavery Society._


ARTHUR TAPPAN,      \

WM. JAY,             \

JNO. RANKIN,          \

LEWIS TAPPAN,          \

S.S. JOCELYN,           \

S.E. CORNISH,           |   _Executive Committee_.

JOSHUA LEAVITT,         /

ABRAHAM L. COX,        /

AMOS A. PHELPS,       /

LA ROY SUNDERLAND,   /

THEO. S. WRIGHT,    /

ELIZUR WRIGHT, JR. /



       *       *       *       *       *


Published by the American Anti-Slavery Society, corner of Spruce and
Nassau Streets.







THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.




VOL. I.     SEPTEMBER 1836.     No. 2.




APPEAL

TO THE

CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE SOUTH,




BY A.E. GRIMKÉ.

    "Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not within
    thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house more than all
    the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time,
    then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews
    from another place: but thou and thy father's house shall be
    destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom
    for such a time as this. And Esther bade them return Mordecai
    this answer:--and so will I go in unto the king, which is not
    according to law, and _if I perish, I perish._" Esther IV.
    13-16.


RESPECTED FRIENDS,

It is because I feel a deep and tender interest in your present and
eternal welfare that I am willing thus publicly to address you. Some of
you have loved me as a relative, and some have felt bound to me in
Christian sympathy, and Gospel fellowship; and even when compelled by a
strong sense of duty, to break those outward bonds of union which bound
us together as members of the same community, and members of the same
religious denomination, you were generous enough to give me credit, for
sincerity as a Christian, though you believed I had been most strangely
deceived. I thanked you then for your kindness, and I ask you _now_, for
the sake of former confidence, and former friendship, to read the
following pages in the spirit of calm investigation and fervent prayer.
It is because you have known me, that I write thus unto you.

But there are other Christian women scattered over the Southern States,
and of these, a very large number have never seen me, and never heard my
name, and feel _no_ personal interest whatever in _me_. But I feel an
interest in _you_, as branches of the same vine from whose root I daily
draw the principle of spiritual vitality--Yes! Sisters in Christ I feel
an interest in _you_, and often has the secret prayer arisen on your
behalf, Lord "open thou their eyes that they may see wondrous things out
of thy Law"--It is then, because I _do feel_ and _do pray_ for you, that
I thus address you upon a subject about which of all others, perhaps you
would rather not hear any thing; but, "would to God ye could bear with
me a little in my folly, and indeed bear with me, for I am jealous over
you with godly jealousy." Be not afraid then to read my appeal; it is
_not_ written in the heat of passion or prejudice, but in that solemn
calmness which is the result of conviction and duty. It is true, I am
going to tell you unwelcome truths, but I mean to speak those _truths in
love_, and remember Solomon says, "faithful are the _wounds_ of a
friend." I do not believe the time has yet come when _Christian women_
"will not endure sound doctrine," even on the subject of Slavery, if it
is spoken to them in tenderness and love, therefore I now address _you_.


       *       *       *       *       *


POSTAGE.--This periodical contains four and a half sheets. Postage under
100 miles, 6 3-4 cents; over 100 miles, 11 1-4 cents. Please read and
circulate.

To all of you then, known or unknown, relatives or strangers, (for you
are all _one_ to Christ,) I would speak. I have felt for you at this
time, when unwelcome light is pouring in upon the world on the subject
of slavery; light which even Christians would exclude, if they could,
from our country, or at any rate from the southern portion of it,
saying, as its rays strike the rock bound coasts of New England and
scatter their warmth and radiance over her hills and valleys, and from
thence travel onward over the Palisades of the Hudson, and down the soft
flowing waters of the Delaware and gild the waves of the Potomac,
"hitherto shalt thou come and no further;" I know that even professors
of His name who has been emphatically called the "Light of the world"
would, if they could, build a wall of adamant around the Southern States
whose top might reach unto heaven, in order to shut out the light which
is bounding from mountain to mountain and from the hills to the plains
and valleys beneath, through the vast extent of our Northern States. But
believe me, when I tell you, their attempts will be as utterly fruitless
as were the efforts of the builders of Babel; and why? Because moral,
like natural light, is so extremely subtle in its nature as to overleap
all human barriers, and laugh at the puny efforts of man to control it.
All the excuses and palliations of this system must inevitably be swept
away, just as other "refuges of lies" have been, by the irresistible
torrent of a rectified public opinion. "The _supporters_ of the slave
system," says Jonathan Dymond in his admirable work on the Principles of
Morality, "will _hereafter_ be regarded with the _same_ public feeling,
as he who was an advocate for the slave trade _now is_." It will be, and
that very soon, clearly perceived and fully acknowledged by all the
virtuous and the candid, that in _principle_ it is as sinful to hold a
human being in bondage who has been born in Carolina, as one who has
been born in Africa. All that sophistry of argument which has been
employed to prove, that although it is sinful to send to Africa to
procure men and women as slaves, who have never been in slavery, that
still, it is not sinful to keep those in bondage who have come down by
inheritance, will be utterly overthrown. We must come back to the good
old doctrine of our forefathers who declared to the world, "this self
evident truth that _all_ men are created equal, and that they have
certain _inalienable_ rights among which are life, _liberty_, and the
pursuit of happiness." It is even a greater absurdity to suppose a man
can be legally born a slave under _our free Republican_ Government, than
under the petty despotisms of barbarian Africa. If then, we have no
right to enslave an African, surely we can have none to enslave an
American; if it is a self evident truth that _all_ men, every where and
of every color are born equal, and have an _inalienable right to
liberty_, then it is equally true that _no_ man can be born a slave, and
no man can ever _rightfully_ be reduced to _involuntary_ bondage and
held as a slave, however fair may be the claim of his master or mistress
through wills and title-deeds.

But after all, it may be said, our fathers were certainly mistaken, for
the Bible sanctions Slavery, and that is the highest authority. Now the
Bible is my ultimate appeal in all matters of faith and practice, and it
is to _this test_ I am anxious to bring the subject at issue between us.
Let us then begin with Adam and examine the charter of privileges which
was given to him. "Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the
earth." In the eighth Psalm we have a still fuller description of this
charter which through Adam was given to all mankind. "Thou madest him to
have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things
under his feet. All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field,
the fowl of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through
the paths of the seas." And after the flood when this charter of human
rights was renewed, we find _no additional_ power vested in man. "And
the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the
earth, and every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the
earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they
delivered." In this charter, although the different kinds of
_irrational_ beings are so particularly enumerated, and supreme dominion
over _all of them_ is granted, yet _man_ is _never_ vested with this
dominion _over his fellow man;_ he was never told that any of the human
species were put _under his feet;_ it was only _all things_, and man,
who was created in the image of his Maker, _never_ can properly be
termed a _thing_, though the laws of Slave States do call him "a chattel
personal;" _Man_ then, I assert _never_ was put _under the feet of man_,
by that first charter of human rights which was given by God, to the
Fathers of the Antediluvian and Postdiluvian worlds, therefore this
doctrine of equality is based on the Bible.

But it may be argued, that in the very chapter of Genesis from which I
have last quoted, will be found the curse pronounced upon Canaan, by
which his posterity was consigned to servitude under his brothers Shem
and Japheth. I know this prophecy was uttered, and was most fearfully
and wonderfully fulfilled, through the immediate descendants of Canaan,
_i.e._ the Canaanites, and I do not know but it has been through all the
children of Ham, but I do know that prophecy does _not_ tell us what
_ought to be_, but what actually does take place, ages after it has been
delivered, and that if we justify America for enslaving the children of
Africa, we must also justify Egypt for reducing the children of Israel
to bondage, for the latter was foretold as explicitly as the former. I
am well aware that prophecy has often been urged as an excuse for
Slavery, but be not deceived, the fulfillment of prophecy will _not
cover one sin_ in the awful day of account. Hear what our Saviour says
on this subject; "it must needs be that offences come, but _woe unto
that man through whom they come_"--Witness some fulfillment of this
declaration in the tremendous destruction of Jerusalem, occasioned by
that most nefarious of all crimes the crucifixion of the Son of God. Did
the fact of that event having been foretold, exculpate the Jews from sin
in perpetrating it; No--for hear what the Apostle Peter says to them on
this subject, "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God, _ye_ have taken, and by _wicked_ hands have
crucified and slain." Other striking instances might be adduced, but
these will suffice.

But it has been urged that the patriarchs held slaves, and therefore,
slavery is right. Do you really believe that patriarchal servitude was
like American slavery? Can you believe it? If so, read the history of
these primitive fathers of the church and be undeceived. Look at
Abraham, though so great a man, going to the herd himself and fetching a
calf from thence and serving it up with his own hands, for the
entertainment of his guests. Look at Sarah, that princess as her name
signifies, baking cakes upon the hearth. If the servants they had were
like Southern slaves, would they have performed such comparatively
menial offices for themselves? Hear too the plaintive lamentation of
Abraham when he feared he should have no son to bear his name down to
posterity. "Behold thou hast given me no seed, &c., one born in my house
_is mine_ heir." From this it appears that one of his _servants_ was to
inherit his immense estate. Is this like Southern slavery? I leave it to
your own good sense and candor to decide. Besides, such was the footing
upon which Abraham was with _his_ servants, that he trusted them with
arms. Are slaveholders willing to put swords and pistols into the hands
of their slaves? He was as a father among his servants; what are
planters and masters generally among theirs? When the institution of
circumcision was established, Abraham was commanded thus; "He that is
eight days old shall be circumcised among you, _every_ man-child in your
generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any
stranger which is not of thy seed." And to render this command with
regard to his _servants_ still more impressive it is repeated in the
very next verse; and herein we may perceive the great care which was
taken by God to guard the _rights of servants_ even under this "dark
dispensation." What too was the testimony given to the faithfulness of
this eminent patriarch. "For I know him that he will command his
children and his _household_ after him, and they shall keep the way of
the Lord to do justice and judgment." Now my dear friends many of you
believe that circumcision has been superseded by baptism in the Church;
_Are you_ careful to have _all_ that are born in your house or bought
with money of any stranger, baptized? Are _you_ as faithful as Abraham
to command _your household to keep the way of the Lord?_ I leave it to
your own consciences to decide. Was patriarchal servitude then like
American Slavery?

But I shall be told, God sanctioned Slavery, yea commanded Slavery under
the Jewish Dispensation. Let us examine this subject calmly and
prayerfully. I admit that a species of _servitude_ was permitted to the
Jews, but in studying the subject I have been struck with wonder and
admiration at perceiving how carefully the servant was guarded from
violence, injustice and wrong. I will first inform you how these
servants became servants, for I think this a very important part of our
subject. From consulting Horne, Calmet and the Bible, I find there were
six different ways by which the Hebrews became servants legally.

1. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself, i.e. his
services, for six years, in which case _he_ received the purchase money
_himself_. Lev. xxv, 39.

2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e. his _daughters_,
in which circumstance it was understood the daughter was to be the wife
or daughter-in-law of the man who bought her, and the _father_ received
the price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as _white women_ were
in the first settlement of Virginia--as _wives_, _not_ as slaves. Ex.
xxi, 7.

3. Insolvent debtors might be delivered to their creditors as servants.
2 Kings iv, 1.

4. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were sold for
the benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.

5. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.

6. If a Hebrew had sold himself to a rich Gentile, he might be redeemed
by one of his brethren at any time the money was offered; and he who
redeemed him, was _not_ to take advantage of the favor thus conferred,
and rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55.

Before going into an examination of the laws by which these servants
were protected, I would just ask whether American slaves have become
slaves in any of the ways in which the Hebrews became servants. Did they
sell themselves into slavery and receive the purchase money into their
own hands? No! Did they become insolvent, and by their own imprudence
subject themselves to be sold as slaves? No! Did they steal the property
of another, and were they sold to make restitution for their crimes? No!
Did their present masters, as an act of kindness, redeem them from some
heathen tyrant to whom _they had sold themselves_ in the dark hour of
adversity? No! Were they born in slavery? No! No! not according to
_Jewish Law_, for the servants who were born in servitude among them,
were born of parents who had _sold themselves_ for six years: Ex. xxi,
4. Were the female slaves of the South sold by their fathers? How shall
I answer this question? Thousands and tens of thousands never were,
_their_ fathers _never_ have received the poor compensation of silver or
gold for the tears and toils, the suffering, and anguish, and hopeless
bondage of _their_ daughters. They labor day by day, and year by year,
side by side, in the same field, if haply their daughters are permitted
to remain on the same plantation with them, instead of being as they
often are, separated from their parents and sold into distant states,
never again to meet on earth. But do the _fathers of the South ever sell
their daughters?_ My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the
awful affirmative, Yes! The fathers of this Christian land often sell
their daughters, _not_ as Jewish parents did, to be the wives and
daughters-in-law of the man who buys them, but to be the abject slaves
of petty tyrants and irresponsible masters. Is it not so, my friends? I
leave it to your own candor to corroborate my assertion. Southern slaves
then have _not_ become slaves in any of the six different ways in which
Hebrews became servants, and I hesitate not to say that American masters
_cannot_ according to _Jewish law_ substantiate their claim to the men,
women, or children they now hold in bondage.

But there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be reduced to
servitude; it was this, he might he _stolen_ and afterwards sold as a
slave, as was Joseph. To guard most effectually against this dreadful
crime of manstealing, God enacted this severe law. "He that stealeth a
man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be
put to death[A]." As I have tried American Slavery by _legal_ Hebrew
servitude, and found, (to your surprise, perhaps,) that Jewish law
cannot justify the slaveholder's claim, let us now try it by _illegal_
Hebrew bondage. Have the Southern slaves then been stolen? If they did
not sell themselves into bondage; if they were not sold as insolvent
debtors or as thieves; if they were not redeemed from a heathen master
to whom they had sold themselves; if they were not born in servitude
according to Hebrew law; and if the females were not sold by their
fathers as wives and daughters-in-law to those who purchased them; then
what shall we say of them? what can we say of them? but that according
_to Hebrew Law they have been stolen_.

[Footnote A: And again, "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren
of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth
him; then _that thief shall die_, and thou shalt put away evil from
among you." Deut. xxiv, 7.]

But I shall be told that the Jews had other servants who were absolute
slaves. Let us look a little into this also. They had other servants who
were procured in two different ways.

1. Captives taken in war were reduced to bondage instead of being
killed; but we are not told that their children were enslaved. Deut. xx,
14.

2. Bondmen and bondmaids might be bought from the heathen round about
them; these were left by fathers to their children after them, but it
does not appear that the _children_ of these servants ever were reduced
to servitude. Lev. xxv, 44.

I will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of Hebrew
masters over their _heathen_ slaves. Were the southern slaves taken
captive in war? No! Were they bought from the heathen? No! for surely,
no one will _now_ vindicate the slave-trade so far as to assert that
slaves were bought from the heathen who were obtained by that system of
piracy. The only excuse for holding southern slaves is that they were
born in slavery, but we have seen that they were _not_ born in servitude
as Jewish servants were, and that the children of heathen slaves were
not legally subjected to bondage even under the Mosaic Law. How then
have the slaves of the South been obtained?

I will next proceed to an examination of those laws which were enacted
in order to protect the Hebrew and the Heathen servant; for I wish you
to understand that _both_ are protected by Him, of whom it is said "his
mercies are over all his works." I will first speak of those which
secured the rights of Hebrew servants. This code was headed thus:

1. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God.

2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the
seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. Ex. xx, 2[A].

[Footnote A: And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt
not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him _liberally_ out of thy
flock and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine-press: of that wherewith
the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, shalt thou give unto him. Deut. xv,
13, 14.]

3. If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were
married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4. If his master have given him a wife and she have borne him sons and
daughters, the wife and her children shall be his master's, and he shall
go out by himself.

5. If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my
children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him unto
the Judges, and he shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post,
and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall
serve him _forever_. Ex. xxi, 3-6.

6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that
it perish, he shall let him go _free_ for his eye's sake. And if he
smite out his man servant's tooth or his maid servant's tooth, he shall
let him go _free_ for his tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27.

7. On the Sabbath rest was secured to servants by the fourth
commandment. Ex. xx, 10.

8. Servants were permitted to unite with their masters three times in
every year in celebrating the Passover, the feast of Pentecost, and the
feast of Tabernacles; every male throughout the land was to appear
before the Lord at Jerusalem with a gift; here the bond and the free
stood on common ground. Deut. xvi.

9. If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under
his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a
day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. Ex. xxi, 20,
21.

From these laws we learn that Hebrew men servants were bound to serve
their masters _only six_ years, unless their attachment to their
employers, their wives and children, should induce them to wish to
remain in servitude, in which case, in order to prevent the possibility
of deception on the part of the master, the servant was first taken
before the magistrate, where he openly declared his intention of
continuing in his master's service, (probably a public register was kept
of such) he was then conducted to the door of the house, (in warm
climates doors are thrown open,) and _there_ his ear was _publicly_
bored, and by submitting to this operation he testified his willingness
to serve him _forever_, i.e. during his life, for Jewish Rabbins who
must have understood Jewish _slavery_, (as it is called,) "affirm that
servants were set free at the death of their masters and did _not_
descend to their heirs:" or that he was to serve him until the year of
Jubilee, when _all_ servants were set at liberty. To protect servants
from violence, it was ordained that if a master struck out the tooth or
destroyed the eye of a servant, that servant immediately became _free_,
for such an act of violence evidently showed he was unfit to possess the
power of a master, and therefore that power was taken from him. All
servants enjoyed the rest of the Sabbath and partook of the privileges
and festivities of the three great Jewish Feasts; and if a servant died
under the infliction of chastisement, his master was surely to be
punished. As a tooth for a tooth and life for life was the Jewish law,
of course he was punished with death. I know that great stress has been
laid upon the following verse: "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or
two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money."

Slaveholders, and the apologists of slavery, have eagerly seized upon
this little passage of scripture, and held it up as the masters' Magna
Charta, by which they were licensed by God himself to commit the
greatest outrages upon the defenceless victims of their oppression. But,
my friends, was it designed to be so? If our Heavenly Father would
protect by law the eye and the tooth of a Hebrew servant, can we for a
moment believe that he would abandon that same servant to the brutal
rape of a master who would destroy even life itself. Do we not rather
see in this, the _only_ law which protected masters, and was it not
right that in case of the death of a servant, one or two days after
chastisement was inflicted, to which other circumstances might have
contributed, that the master should be protected when, in all
probability, he never intended to produce so fatal a result? But the
phrase "he is his money" has been adduced to show that Hebrew servants
were regarded as mere _things_, "chattels personal;" if so, why were so
many laws made to _secure their rights as men_, and to ensure their
rising into equality and freedom? If they were mere _things_, why were
they regarded as responsible beings, and one law made for them as well
as for their masters? But I pass on now to the consideration of how the
_female_ Jewish servants were protected by _law_.

1. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then
shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto another nation he shall
have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after
the manner of daughters.

3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of
marriage, shall he not diminish.

4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out _free_
without money.

On these laws I will give you Calmet's remarks; "A father could not sell
his daughter as a slave, according to the Rabbins, until she was at the
age of puberty, and unless he were reduced to the utmost indigence.
Besides, when a master bought an Israelitish girl, it was _always_ with
the presumption that he would take her to wife." Hence Moses adds, "if
she please not her master, and he does not think fit to marry her, he
shall set her at liberty," or according to the Hebrew, "he shall let her
be redeemed." "To sell her to another nation he shall have no power,
seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her;" as to the engagement
implied, at least of taking her to wife. "If he have betrothed her unto
his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters, i.e. he
shall take care that his son uses her as his wife, that he does not
despise or maltreat her. If he make his son marry another wife, he shall
give her her dowry, her clothes and compensation for her virginity; if
he does none of these three, she shall _go out free_ without money."
Thus were the _rights of female servants carefully secured by law_ under
the Jewish Dispensation; and now I would ask, are the rights of female
slaves at the South thus secured? Are _they_ sold only as wives and
daughters-in-law, and when not treated as such, are they allowed to _go
out free_? No! They have _all_ not only been illegally obtained as
servants according to Hebrew law, but they are also illegally _held_ in
bondage. Masters at the South and West have all forfeited their claims,
(_if they ever had any_,) to their female slaves.

We come now to examine the case of those servants who were "of the
heathen round about;" Were _they_ left entirely unprotected by law?
Horne in speaking of the law, "Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor,
but shalt fear thy God," remarks, "this law Lev. xxv, 43; it is true
speaks expressly of slaves who were of Hebrew descent; but as _alien
born_ slaves were ingrafted into the Hebrew Church by circumcision,
_there is no doubt_ but that it applied to _all_ slaves;" if so, then we
may reasonably suppose that the other protective laws extended to them
also; and that the only difference between Hebrew and Heathen servants
lay in this, that the former served but six years unless they chose to
remain longer; and were always freed at the death of their masters;
whereas the latter served until the year of Jubilee, though that might
include a period of forty-nine years,--and were left from father to son.

There are however two other laws which I have not yet noticed. The one
effectually prevented _all involuntary_ servitude, and the other
completely abolished Jewish servitude every fifty years. They were
equally operative upon the Heathen and the Hebrew.

1. "Thou shall _not_ deliver unto his master the servant that 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 shall _not_ oppress him." Deut. xxxiii; 15, 16.

2. "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim _Liberty_
throughout _all_ the land, unto _all_ the inhabitants thereof: it shall
be a jubilee unto you." Deut. xxv, 10.

Here, then, we see that by this first law, the _door of Freedom was
opened wide to every servant who_ had any cause whatever for complaint;
if he was unhappy with his master, all he had to do was to leave him,
and _no man_ had a right to deliver him back to him again, and not only
so, but the absconded servant was to _choose_ where he should live, and
no Jew was permitted to oppress him. He left his master just as our
Northern servants leave us; we have no power to compel them to remain
with us, and no man has any right to oppress them; they go and dwell in
that place where it chooseth them, and live just where they like. Is it
so at the South? Is the poor runaway slave protected _by law_ from the
violence of that master whose oppression and cruelty has driven him from
his plantation or his house? No! no! Even the free states of the North
are compelled to deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped
from his master into them. By _human_ law, under the _Christian
Dispensation_, in the _nineteenth century_ we are commanded to do, what
_God_ more than _three thousand_ years ago, under the _Mosaic
Dispensation_, _positively commanded_ the Jews _not_ to do. In the wide
domain even of our free states, there is not _one_ city of refuge for
the poor runaway fugitive; not one spot upon which he can stand and say,
I am a free man--I am protected in my rights as a _man_, by the strong
arm of the law; no! _not one_. How long the North will thus shake hands
with the South in sin, I know not. How long she will stand by like the
persecutor Saul, _consenting_ unto the death of Stephen, and keeping the
raiment of them that slew him, I know not; but one thing I do know, the
_guilt of the North_ is increasing in a tremendous ratio as light is
pouring in upon her on the subject and the sin of slavery. As the sun of
righteousness climbs higher and higher in the moral heavens, she will
stand still more and more abashed as the query is thundered down into
her ear, "_Who_ hath required _this_ at thy hand?" It will be found _no_
excuse then that the Constitution of our country required that _persons
bound to service_ escaping from their masters should be delivered up; no
more excuse than was the reason which Adam assigned for eating the
forbidden fruit. _He was condemned and punished because_ he hearkened to
the voice of _his wife_, rather than to the command of his Maker; and
_we_ will assuredly be condemned and punished for obeying _Man_ rather
than _God_, if we do not speedily repent and bring forth fruits meet for
repentance. Yea, are we not receiving chastisement even _now_?

But by the second of these laws a still more astonishing fact is
disclosed. If the first effectually prevented _all involuntary
servitude_, the last absolutely forbade even _voluntary servitude being
perpetual_. On the great day of atonement every fiftieth year the
Jubilee trumpet was sounded throughout the land of Judea, and _Liberty_
was proclaimed to _all_ the inhabitants thereof. I will not say that the
servants' _chains_ fell off and their _manacles_ were burst, for there
is no evidence that Jewish servants _ever_ felt the weight of iron
chains, and collars, and handcuffs; but I do say that even the man who
had voluntarily sold himself and the _heathen_ who had been sold to a
Hebrew master, were set free, the one as well as the other. This law was
evidently designed to prevent the oppression of the poor, and the
possibility of such a thing as _perpetual servitude_ existing among
them.

Where, then, I would ask, is the warrant, the justification, or the
palliation of American Slavery from Hebrew servitude? How many of the
southern slaves would now be in bondage according to the laws of Moses;
Not one. You may observe that I have carefully avoided using the term
_slavery_ when speaking of Jewish servitude; and simply for this reason,
that _no such thing_ existed among that people; the word translated
servant does _not_ mean _slave_, it is the same that is applied to
Abraham, to Moses, to Elisha and the prophets generally. _Slavery_ then
_never_ existed under the Jewish Dispensation at all, and I cannot but
regard it as an aspersion on the character of Him who is "glorious in
Holiness" for any one to assert that "_God sanctioned, yea commanded
slavery_ under the old dispensation." I would fain lift my feeble voice
to vindicate Jehovah's character from so foul a slander. If slaveholders
are determined to hold slaves as long as they can, let them not dare to
say that the God of mercy and of truth _ever_ sanctioned such a system
of cruelty and wrong. It is blasphemy against Him.

We have seen that the code of laws framed by Moses with regard to
servants was designed to _protect them_ as _men and women_, to secure to
them their _rights_ as _human beings_, to guard them from oppression and
defend them from violence of every kind. Let us now turn to the Slave
laws of the South and West and examine them too. I will give you the
substance only, because I fear I shall trespass too much on your time,
were I to quote them at length.

1. _Slavery_ is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the
slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants to the latest
posterity.

2. The labor of the slave is compulsory and uncompensated; while the
kind of labor, the amount of toil, the time allowed for rest, are
dictated solely by the master. No bargain is made, no wages given. A
pure despotism governs the human brute; and even his covering and
provender, both as to quantity and quality, depend entirely on the
master's discretion[A].

[Footnote A: There are laws in some of the slave states, limiting the
labor which the master may require of the slave to fourteen hours daily.
In some of the states there are laws requiring the masters to furnish a
certain amount of food and clothing, as for instance, _one quart_ of
corn per day, or _one peck_ per week, or _one bushel_ per month, and
"one linen shirt and pantaloons for the summer, and a linen shirt and
woolen great coat and pantaloons for the winter," &c. But "still," to
use the language of Judge Stroud "the slave is entirely under the
control of his master,--is unprovided with a protector,--and, especially
as he cannot be a witness or make complaint in any known mode against
his master, the apparent object of these laws may _always_ be defeated."
ED.]

3. The slave being considered a personal chattel may be sold or pledged,
or leased at the will of his master. He may be exchanged for marketable
commodities, or taken in execution for the debts or taxes either of a
living or dead master. Sold at auction, either individually, or in lots
to suit the purchaser, he may remain with his family, or be separated
from them for ever.

4. Slaves can make no contracts and have no _legal_ right to any
property, real or personal. Their own honest earnings and the legacies
of friends belong in point of law to their masters.

5. Neither a slave nor a free colored person can be a witness against
any _white_, or free person, in a court of justice, however atrocious
may have been the crimes they have seen him commit, if such testimony
would be for the benefit of a _slave_; but they may give testimony
_against a fellow slave_, or free colored man, even in cases affecting
life, if the _master_ is to reap the advantage of it.

6. The slave may be punished at his master's discretion--without
trial--without any means of legal redress; whether his offence be real
or imaginary; and the master can transfer the same despotic power to any
person or persons, he may choose to appoint.

7. The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under _any_
circumstances, _his_ only safety consists in the fact that his _owner_
may bring suit and recover the price of his body, in case his life is
taken, or his limbs rendered unfit for labor.

8. Slaves cannot redeem themselves, or obtain a change of masters,
though cruel treatment may have rendered such a change necessary for
their personal safety.

9. The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations.

10. The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even where the
master is willing to enfranchise them.

11. The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious
instruction and consolation.

12. The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a state of
the lowest ignorance.

13. There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and right.
What is a trifling fault in the _white_ man, is considered highly
criminal in the _slave_; the same offences which cost a white man a few
dollars only, are punished in the negro with death.

14. The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color[A].

[Footnote A:  See Mrs. Child's Appeal, Chap. II.]

Shall I ask you now my friends, to draw the _parallel_ between Jewish
_servitude_ and American _slavery_? No! For there is _no likeness_ in
the two systems; I ask you rather to mark the contrast. The laws of
Moses _protected servants_ in their _rights as men and women_, guarded
them from oppression and defended them from wrong. The Code Noir of the
South _robs the slave of all his rights_ as a _man_, reduces him to a
chattel personal, and defends the _master_ in the exercise of the most
unnatural and unwarrantable power over his slave. They each bear the
impress of the hand which formed them. The attributes of justice and
mercy are shadowed out in the Hebrew code; those of injustice and
cruelty, in the Code Noir of America. Truly it was wise in the
slaveholders of the South to declare their slaves to be "chattels
personal;" for before they could be robbed of wages, wives, children,
and friends, it was absolutely necessary to deny they were human beings.
It is wise in them, to keep them in abject ignorance, for the strong man
armed must be bound before we can spoil his house--the powerful
intellect of man must be bound down with the iron chains of nescience
before we can rob him of his rights as a man; we must reduce him to a
_thing_; before we can claim the right to set our feet upon his neck,
because it was only _all things_ which were originally _put under the
feet of man_ by the Almighty and Beneficent Father of all, who has
declared himself to be _no respecter_ of persons, whether red, white, or
black.

But some have even said that Jesus Christ did not condemn slavery. To
this I reply, that our Holy Redeemer lived and preached among the Jews
only. The laws which Moses had enacted fifteen hundred years previous to
his appearance among them, had never been annulled, and these laws
_protected_ every servant in Palestine. That he saw nothing of
_perpetual_ servitude is certain from the simple declaration made by
himself in John, viii, 35. "The servant abideth _not_ in the house for
ever, the son abideth ever." If then He did not condemn Jewish
_temporary_ servitude, this does not prove that he would not have
condemned such a monstrous system as that of AMERICAN _slavery_, if that
had existed among them. But did not Jesus condemn slavery? Let us
examine some of his precepts. "_Whatsoever_ ye would that men should do
to you, do _ye even so to them_." Let every slaveholder apply these
queries to his own heart; Am _I_ willing to be a slave--Am _I_ willing
to see _my_ husband the slave of another--Am _I_ willing to see my
mother a slave, or my father, my _white_ sister, or my _white_ brother?
If _not_, then in holding others as slaves, I am doing what I would
_not_ wish to be done to me or any relative I have; and thus have I
broken this golden rule which was given _me_ to walk by.

But some slaveholders have said, "we were never in bondage to any man,"
and therefore the yoke of bondage would be insufferable to us, but
slaves are accustomed to it, their backs are fitted to the burden. Well,
I am willing to admit that you who have lived in freedom would find
slavery even more oppressive than the poor slave does, but then you may
try this question in another form--Am I willing to reduce _my little
child_ to slavery? You know that _if it is brought up a slave_, it will
never know any contrast between freedom and bondage; its back will
become fitted to the burden just as the negro child's does--_not by
nature_--but by daily, violent pressure, in the same way that the head
of the Indian child becomes flattened by the boards in which it is
bound. It has been justly remarked that "_God never made a slave_," he
made man upright; his back was _not_ made to carry burdens as the slave
of another, nor his neck to wear a yoke, and the _man_ must be crushed
within him, before _his_ back can be _fitted_ to the burden of perpetual
slavery; and that his back is _not_ fitted to it, is manifest by the
insurrections that so often disturb the peace and security of
slave-holding countries. Who ever heard of a rebellion of the beasts of
the field; and why not? simply because _they_ were all placed _under the
feet of man_, into whose hand they were delivered; it was originally
designed that they should serve him, therefore their necks have been
formed for the yoke, and their backs for the burden; but _not so with
man_, intellectual, immortal man! I appeal to you, my friends, as
mothers; Are you willing to enslave _your_ children? You start back with
horror and indignation at such a question. But why, if slavery is _no
wrong_ to those upon whom it is imposed? why, if, as has often been
said, slaves are happier than their masters, freer from the cares and
perplexities of providing for themselves and their families? why not
place _your children_ in the way of being supported without your having
the trouble to provide for them, or they for themselves? Do you not
perceive that as soon as this golden rule of action is applied to
_yourselves_, that you involuntarily shrink from the test; as soon as
_your_ actions are weighed in _this_ balance of the sanctuary, that _you
are found wanting?_ Try yourselves by another of the Divine precepts,
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Can we love a man _as_ we
love _ourselves_ if we do, and continue to do unto him, what we would
not wish any one to do to us? Look too, at Christ's example, what does
he say of himself, "I came _not_ to be ministered unto, but to
minister." Can you for a moment imagine the meek, and lowly, and
compassionate Saviour, a _slaveholder_? do you not shudder at this
thought as much as at that of his being a _warrior_? But why, if slavery
is not sinful?

Again, it has been said, the Apostle Paul did not condemn Slavery, for
he sent Onesimus back to Philemon. I do not think it can be said he sent
him back, for no coercion was made use of. Onesimus was not thrown into
prison and then sent back in chains to his master, as your runaway
slaves often are--this could not possibly have been the case, because
you know Paul as a Jew, was _bound to protect_ the runaway, _he had no
right_ to send any fugitive back to his master. The state of the case
then seems to have been this. Onesimus had been an unprofitable servant
to Philemon and left him--he afterwards became converted under the
Apostle's preaching, and seeing that he had been to blame in his
conduct, and desiring by future fidelity to atone for past error, he
wished to return, and the Apostle gave him the letter we now have as a
recommendation to Philemon, informing him of the conversion of Onesimus,
and entreating him as "Paul the aged to receive him, _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. If thou
count _me_ therefore as a partner, _receive him as myself._" This then
surely cannot be forced into a justification of the practice of
returning runaway slaves back to their masters, to be punished with
cruel beatings and scourgings as they often are. Besides the word
[Greek: doulos] here translated servant, is the same that is made use of
in Matt. xviii, 27. Now it appears that this servant owed his lord ten
thousand talents; he possessed property to a vast amount. Onesimus could
not then have been a _slave_, for slaves do not own their wives, or
children; no, not even their own bodies, much less property. But again,
the servitude which the apostle was accustomed to, must have been very
different from American slavery, for he says, "the heir (or son), as
long as he is a child, differeth _nothing from a servant_, though he be
lord of all. But is under _tutors_ and governors until the time
appointed of the father." From this it appears, that the means of
_instruction_ were provided for _servants_ as well as children; and
indeed we know it must have been so among the Jews, because their
servants were not permitted to remain in perpetual bondage, and
therefore it was absolutely necessary they should be prepared to occupy
higher stations in society than those of servants. Is it so at the
South, my friends? Is the daily bread of instruction provided for _your
slaves_? are their minds enlightened, and they gradually prepared to
rise from the grade of menials into that of _free_, independent members
of the state? Let your own statute book, and your own daily experience,
answer these questions.

If this apostle sanctioned _slavery_, why did he exhort masters thus in
his epistle to the Ephesians, "and ye, masters, do the same things unto
them (i.e. perform your duties to your servants as unto Christ, not unto
me) _forbearing threatening_; knowing that your master also is in
heaven, neither is _there respect of persons with him_." And in
Colossians, "Masters give unto your servants that which is _just and
equal_, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." Let slaveholders
only _obey_ these injunctions of Paul, and I am satisfied slavery would
soon be abolished. If he thought it sinful even to _threaten_ servants,
surely he must have thought it sinful to flog and to beat them with
sticks and paddles; indeed, when delineating the character of a bishop,
he expressly names this as one feature of it, "_no striker_." Let
masters give unto their servants that which is _just_ and _equal_, and
all that vast system of unrequited labor would crumble into ruin. Yes,
and if they once felt they had no right to the _labor_ of their servants
without pay, surely they could not think they had a right to their
wives, their children, and their own bodies. Again, how can it be said
Paul sanctioned slavery, when, as though to put this matter beyond all
doubt, in that black catalogue of sins enumerated in his first epistle
to Timothy, he mentions "_menstealers_," which word may be translated
"_slavedealers_." But you may say, we all despise slavedealers as much
as any one can; they are never admitted into genteel or respectable
society. And why not? Is it not because even you shrink back from the
idea of associating with those who make their fortunes by trading in the
bodies and souls of men, women, and children? whose daily work it is to
break human hearts, by tearing wives from their husbands, and children
from their parents? But why hold slavedealers as despicable, if their
trade is lawful and virtuous? and why despise them more than the
_gentlemen of fortune and standing_ who employ them as _their_ agents?
Why more than the _professors of religion_ who barter their
fellow-professors to them for gold and silver? We do not despise the
land agent, or the physician, or the merchant, and why? Simply because
their professions are virtuous and honorable; and if the trade of
men-jobbers was honorable, you would not despise them either. There is
no difference in _principle_, in _Christian ethics_, between the
despised slavedealer and the _Christian_ who buys slaves from, or sells
slaves to him; indeed, if slaves were not wanted by the respectable, the
wealthy, and the religious in a community, there would be no slaves in
that community, and of course no _slavedealers_. It is then the
_Christians_ and the _honorable men_ and _women_ of the South, who are
the _main pillars_ of this grand temple built to Mammon and to Moloch.
It is the _most enlightened_ in every country who are _most_ to blame
when any public sin is supported by public opinion, hence Isaiah says,
"_When_ the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount _Zion_ and on
_Jerusalem_, (then) I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the
king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks." And was it not so?
Open the historical records of that age, was not Israel carried into
captivity B.C. 606, Judah B.C. 588, and the stout heart of the heathen
monarchy not punished until B.C. 536, fifty-two years _after_ Judah's,
and seventy years _after_ Israel's captivity, when it was overthrown by
Cyrus, king of Persia? Hence, too, the apostle Peter says, "judgment
must _begin at the house of God_." Surely this would not be the case, if
the _professors of religion_ were not _most worthy_ of blame.

But it may be asked, why are _they_ most culpable? I will tell you, my
friends. It is because sin is imputed to us just in proportion to the
spiritual light we receive. Thus the prophet Amos says, in the name of
Jehovah, "_You only_ have I known of all the families of the earth:
_therefore_ I will punish you for all your iniquities." Hear too the
doctrine of our Lord on this important subject; "The servant who _knew_
his Lord's will and _prepared not_ himself, neither did according to his
will, shall be beaten with _many_ stripes": and why? "For unto
whomsoever _much_ is given, _of him_ shall _much_ be required; and to
whom men have committed _much_, of _him_ they will ask the _more_." Oh!
then that the _Christians_ of the south would ponder these things in
their hearts, and awake to the vast responsibilities which rest _upon
them_ at this important crisis.

I have thus, I think, clearly proved to you seven propositions, viz.:
First, that slavery is contrary to the declaration of our independence.
Second, that it is contrary to the first charter of human rights given
to Adam, and renewed to Noah. Third, that the fact of slavery having
been the subject of prophecy, furnishes _no_ excuse whatever to
slavedealers. Fourth, that no such system existed under the patriarchal
dispensation. Fifth, that _slavery never_ existed under the Jewish
dispensation; but so far otherwise, that every servant was placed under
the _protection of law_, and care taken not only to prevent all
_involuntary_ servitude, but all _voluntary perpetual_ bondage. Sixth,
that slavery in America reduces a _man_ to a _thing_, a "chattel
personal," _robs him_ of _all_ his rights as a _human being_, fetters
both his mind and body, and protects the _master_ in the most unnatural
and unreasonable power, whilst it _throws him out_ of the protection of
law. Seventh, that slavery is contrary to the example and precepts of
our holy and merciful Redeemer, and of his apostles.

But perhaps you will be ready to query, why appeal to _women_ on this
subject? _We_ do not make the laws which perpetuate slavery. _No_
legislative power is vested in _us_; _we_ can do nothing to overthrow
the system, even if we wished to do so. To this I reply, I know you do
not make the laws, but I also know that _you are the wives and mothers,
the sisters and daughters of those who do_; and if you really suppose
_you_ can do nothing to overthrow slavery, you are greatly mistaken. You
can do much in every way: four things I will name. 1st. You can read on
this subject. 2d. You can pray over this subject. 3d. You can speak on
this subject. 4th. You can _act_ on this subject. I have not placed
reading before praying because I regard it more important, but because,
in order to pray aright, we must understand what we are praying for; it
is only then we can "pray with the understanding and the spirit also."

1. Read then on the subject of slavery. Search the Scriptures daily,
whether the things I have told you are true. Other books and papers
might be a great help to you to this investigation, but they are not
necessary, and it is hardly probable that your Committees of Vigilance
will allow you to have any other. The _Bible_ then is the book I want
you to read in the spirit of inquiry, and the spirit of prayer. Even the
enemies of Abolitionists, acknowledge that their doctrines are drawn
from it. In the great mob in Boston, last autumn, when the books and
papers of the Anti-Slavery Society, were thrown out of the windows of
their office, one individual laid hold of the Bible and was about
tossing it out to the ground, when another reminded him that it was the
Bible he had in his hand. "O! _'tis all one_," he replied, and out went
the sacred volume, along with the rest. We thank him for the
acknowledgment. Yes, "_it is all one_," for our books and papers are
mostly commentaries on the Bible, and the Declaration. Read the _Bible
_then, it contains the words of Jesus, and they are spirit and life.
Judge for yourselves whether _he sanctioned_ such a system of oppression
and crime.

2. Pray over this subject. When you have entered into your closets, and
shut to the doors, then pray to your father, who seeth in secret, that
he would open your eyes to see whether slavery is _sinful_, and if it
is, that he would enable you to bear a faithful, open and un-shrinking
testimony against it, and to do whatsoever your hands find to do,
leaving the consequences entirely to him, who still says to us whenever
we try to reason away duty from the fear of consequences, "_What is that
to thee, follow thou me_." Pray also for that poor slave, that he may be
kept patient and submissive under his hard lot, until God is pleased to
open the door of freedom to him without violence or bloodshed. Pray too
for the master that his heart may be softened, and he made willing to
acknowledge, as Joseph's brethren did, "Verily we are guilty concerning
our brother," before he will be compelled to add in consequence of
Divine judgment, "therefore is all this evil come upon us." Pray also
for all your brethren and sisters who are laboring in the righteous
cause of Emancipation in the Northern States, England and the world.
There is great encouragement for prayer in these words of our Lord.
"Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it to
you"--Pray then without ceasing, in the closet and the social circle.

3. Speak on this subject. It is through the tongue, the pen, and the
press, that truth is principally propagated. Speak then to your
relatives, your friends, your acquaintances on the subject of slavery;
be not afraid if you are conscientiously convinced it is _sinful_, to
say so openly, but calmly, and to let your sentiments be known. If you
are served by the slaves of others, try to ameliorate their condition as
much as possible; never aggravate their faults, and thus add fuel to the
fire of anger already kindled, in a master and mistress's bosom;
remember their extreme ignorance, and consider them as your Heavenly
Father does the _less_ culpable on this account, even when they do wrong
things. Discountenance _all_ cruelty to them, all starvation, all
corporal chastisement; these may brutalize and  _break_ their spirits,
but will never bend them to willing, cheerful obedience. If possible,
see that they are comfortably and _seasonably_ fed, whether in the house
or the field; it is unreasonable and cruel to expect slaves to wait for
their breakfast until eleven o'clock, when they rise at five or six. Do
all you can, to induce their owners to clothe them well, and to allow
them many little indulgences which would contribute to their comfort.
Above all, try to persuade your husband, father, brothers and sons, that
_slavery is a crime against God and man_, and that it is a great sin to
keep _human beings_ in such abject ignorance; to deny them the privilege
of learning to read and write. The Catholics are universally condemned,
for denying the Bible to the common people, but, _slaveholders must not_
blame them, for _they_ are doing the _very same thing_, and for the very
same reason, neither of these systems can bear the light which bursts
from the pages of that Holy Book. And lastly, endeavour to inculcate
submission on the part of the slaves, but whilst doing this be faithful
in pleading the cause of the oppressed.


  "Will _you_ behold unheeding,
  Life's holiest feelings crushed,
  Where _woman's_ heart is bleeding,
  Shall _woman's_ voice be hushed?"


4. Act on this subject. Some of you _own_ slaves yourselves. If you
believe slavery is _sinful_, set them at liberty, "undo the heavy
burdens and let the oppressed go free." If they wish to remain with you,
pay them wages, if not let them leave you. Should they remain teach
them, and have them taught the common branches of an English education;
they have minds and those minds, _ought to be improved_. So precious a
talent as intellect, never was given to be wrapt in a napkin and buried
in the earth. It is the _duty_ of all, as far as they can, to improve
their own mental faculties, because we are commanded to love God with
_all our minds_, as well as with all our hearts, and we commit a great
sin, if we _forbid or prevent_ that cultivation of the mind in others,
which would enable them to perform this duty. Teach your servants then
to read &c., and encourage them to believe it is their _duty_ to learn,
if it were only that they might read the Bible.

But some of you will say, we can neither free our slaves nor teach them
to read, for the laws of our state forbid it. Be not surprised when I
say such wicked laws _ought to be no barrier_ in the way of your duty,
and I appeal to the Bible to prove this position. What was the conduct
of Shiphrah and Puah, when the king of Egypt issued his cruel mandate,
with regard to the Hebrew children? "_They_ feared _God_, and did _not_
as the King of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive."
Did these _women_ do right in disobeying that monarch? "_Therefore_
(says the sacred text,) _God dealt well_ with them, and made them
houses" Ex. i. What was the conduct of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,
when Nebuchadnezzar set up a golden image in the plain of Dura, and
commanded all people, nations, and languages, to fall down and worship
it? "Be it known, unto thee, (said these faithful _Jews_) O king, that
_we will not_ serve thy gods, nor worship the image which thou hast set
up." Did these men _do right in disobeying the law_ of their sovereign?
Let their miraculous deliverance from the burning fiery furnace, answer;
Dan. iii. What was the conduct of Daniel, when Darius made a firm decree
that no one should ask a petition of any man or God for thirty days? Did
the prophet cease to pray? No! "When Daniel _knew that the writing was
signed_, he went into his house, and his windows being _open_ towards
Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed and
gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime." Did Daniel do right
thus to _break_ the law of his king? Let his wonderful deliverance out
of the mouths of the lions answer; Dan. vii. Look, too, at the Apostles
Peter and John. When the rulers of the Jews, "_commanded them not_ to
speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus," what did they say?
"Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken unto you more than
unto God, judge ye." And what did they do? "They spake the word of God
with boldness, and with great power gave the Apostles witness of the
_resurrection_ of the Lord Jesus;" although _this_ was the very
doctrine, for the preaching of which, they had just been cast into
prison, and further threatened. Did these men do right? I leave _you_ to
answer, who now enjoy the benefits of their labors and sufferings, in
that Gospel they dared to preach when positively commanded _not to teach
any more_ in the name of Jesus; Acts iv.

But some of you may say, if we do free our slaves, they will be taken up
and sold, therefore there will be no use in doing it. Peter and John
might just as well have said, we will not preach the gospel, for if we
do, we shall be taken up and put in prison, therefore there will be no
use in our preaching. _Consequences_, my friends, belong no more to
_you_, than they did to these apostles. Duty is ours and events are
God's. If you think slavery is sinful, all _you_ have to do is to set
your slaves at liberty, do all you can to protect them, and in humble
faith and fervent prayer, commend them to your common Father. He can
take care of them; but if for wise purposes he sees fit to allow them to
be sold, this will afford you an opportunity of testifying openly,
wherever you go, against the crime of _manstealing_. Such an act will be
_clear robbery_, and if exposed, might, under the Divine direction, do
the cause of Emancipation more good, than any thing that could happen,
for, "He makes even the wrath of man to praise him, and the remainder of
wrath he will restrain."

I know that this doctrine of obeying _God_, rather than man, will be
considered as dangerous, and heretical by many, but I am not afraid
openly to avow it, because it is the doctrine of the Bible; but I would
not be understood to advocate resistance to any law however oppressive,
if, in obeying it, I was not obliged to commit _sin_. If for instance,
there was a law, which imposed imprisonment or a fine upon me if I
manumitted a slave, I would on no account resist that law, I would set
the slave free, and then go to prison or pay the fine. If a law commands
me to _sin I will break it_; if it calls me to _suffer_, I will let it
take its course _unresistingly_. The doctrine of blind obedience and
unqualified submission to _any human_ power, whether civil or
ecclesiastical, is the doctrine of despotism, and ought to have no place
among Republicans and Christians.

But you will perhaps say, such a course of conduct would inevitably
expose us to great suffering. Yes! my christian friends, I believe it
would, but this will _not_ excuse you or any one else for the neglect of
_duty_. If Prophets and Apostles, Martyrs, and Reformers had not been
willing to suffer for the truth's sake, where would the world have been
now? If they had said, we cannot speak the truth, we cannot do what we
believe is right, because the _laws of our country or public opinion are
against us_, where would our holy religion have been now? The Prophets
were stoned, imprisoned, and killed by the Jews. And why? Because they
exposed and openly rebuked public sins; they opposed public opinion; had
they held their peace, they all might have lived in ease and died in
favor with a wicked generation. Why were the Apostles persecuted from
city to city, stoned, incarcerated, beaten, and crucified? Because they
dared to _speak the truth_; to tell the Jews, boldly and fearlessly,
that _they_ were the _murderers_ of the Lord of Glory, and that, however
great a stumbling-block the Cross might be to them, there was no other
name given under heaven by which men could be saved, but the name of
Jesus. Because they declared, even at Athens, the seat of learning and
refinement, the self-evident truth, that "they be no gods that are made
with men's hands," and exposed to the Grecians the foolishness of
worldly wisdom, and the impossibility of salvation but through Christ,
whom they despised on account of the ignominious death he died. Because
at Rome, the proud mistress of the world, they thundered out the terrors
of the law upon that idolatrous, war-making, and slave-holding
community. Why were the martyrs stretched upon the rack, gibbetted and
burnt, the scorn and diversion of a Nero, whilst their tarred and
burning bodies sent up a light which illuminated the Roman capital? Why
were the Waldenses hunted like wild beasts upon the mountains of
Piedmont, and slain with the sword of the Duke of Savoy and the proud
monarch of France? Why were the Presbyterians chased like the partridge
over the highlands of Scotland--the Methodists pumped, and stoned, and
pelted with rotten eggs--the Quakers incarcerated in filthy prisons,
beaten, whipped at the cart's tail, banished and hung? Because they
dared to _speak_ the _truth_, to _break_ the unrighteous _laws_ of their
country, and chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God,
"not accepting deliverance," even under the gallows. Why were Luther and
Calvin persecuted and excommunicated, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer
burnt? Because they fearlessly proclaimed the truth, though that truth
was contrary to public opinion, and the authority of Ecclesiastical
councils and conventions. Now all this vast amount of human suffering
might have been saved. All these Prophets and Apostles, Martyrs, and
Reformers, might have lived and died in peace with all men, but
following the example of their great pattern, "they despised the shame,
endured the cross, and are now set down on the right hand of the throne
of God," having received the glorious welcome of "well _done_ good and
faithful servants, enter ye into the joy of your Lord."

But you may say we are _women_, how can _our_ hearts endure persecution?
And why not? Have not _women_ stood up in all the dignity and strength
of moral courage to be the leaders of the people, and to bear a faithful
testimony for the truth whenever the providence of God has called them
to do so? Are there no _women_ in that noble army of martyrs who are now
singing the song of Moses and the Lamb? Who led out the women of Israel
from the house of bondage, striking the timbrel, and singing the song of
deliverance on the banks of that sea whose waters stood up like walls of
crystal to open a passage for their escape? It was a _woman_; Miriam,
the prophetess, the sister of Moses and Aaron. Who went up with Barak to
Kadesh to fight against Jabin, King of Canaan, into whose hand Israel
had been sold because of their iniquities? It was a _woman!_ Deborah the
wife of Lapidoth, the judge, as well as the prophetess of that
backsliding people; Judges iv, 9. Into whose hands was Sisera, the
captain of Jabin's host delivered? Into the hand of a _woman_. Jael the
wife of Heber! Judges vi, 21. Who dared to _speak the truth_ concerning
those judgments which were coming upon Judea, when Josiah, alarmed at
finding that his people "had not kept the word of the Lord to do after
all that was written in the book of the Law," sent to enquire of the
Lord concerning these things? It was a _woman_. Huldah the prophetess,
the wife of Shallum; 2, Chron. xxxiv, 22. Who was chosen to deliver the
whole Jewish nation from that murderous decree of Persia's King, which
wicked Haman had obtained by calumny and fraud? It was a _woman_; Esther
the Queen; yes, weak and trembling _woman_ was the instrument appointed
by God, to reverse the bloody mandate of the eastern monarch, and save
the _whole visible church_ from destruction. What human voice first
proclaimed to Mary that she should be the mother of our Lord? It was a
_woman!_ Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias; Luke i, 42, 43. Who united
with the good old Simeon in giving thanks publicly in the temple, when
the child, Jesus, was presented there by his parents, "and spake of him
to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem?" It was a _woman!_
Anna the prophetess. Who first proclaimed Christ as the true Messiah in
the streets of Samaria, once the capital of the ten tribes? It was a
_woman!_ Who ministered to the Son of God whilst on earth, a despised
and persecuted Reformer, in the humble garb of a carpenter? They were
_women!_ Who followed the rejected King of Israel, as his fainting
footsteps trod the road to Calvary? "A great company of people and of
_women_;" and it is remarkable that to _them alone_, he turned and
addressed the pathetic language, "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for
me, but weep for yourselves and your children." Ah! who sent unto the
Roman Governor when he was set down on the judgment seat, saying unto
him, "Have thou nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered
many things this day in a dream because of him?" It was a _woman_! the
wife of Pilate. Although "_he knew_ that for envy the Jews had delivered
Christ," yet _he_ consented to surrender the Son of God into the hands
of a brutal soldiery, after having himself scourged his naked body. Had
the _wife_ of Pilate sat upon that judgment seat, what would have been
the result of the trial of this "just person?"

And who last hung round the cross of Jesus on the mountain of Golgotha?
Who first visited the sepulchre early in the morning on the first day of
the week, carrying sweet spices to embalm his precious body, not knowing
that it was incorruptible and could not be holden by the bands of death?
These were _women_! To whom did he _first_ appear after his
resurrection? It was to a _woman_! Mary Magdalene; Mark xvi, 9. Who
gathered with the apostles to wait at Jerusalem, in prayer and
supplication, for "the promise of the Father;" the spiritual blessing of
the Great High Priest of his Church, who had entered, _not_ into the
splendid temple of Solomon, there to offer the blood of bulls, and of
goats, and the smoking censer upon the golden altar, but into Heaven
itself, there to present his intercessions, after having "given himself
for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor?"
_Women_ were among that holy company; Acts i, 14. And did _women_ wait
in vain? Did those who had ministered to his necessities, followed in
his train, and wept at his crucifixion, wait in vain? No! No! Did the
cloven tongues of fire descend upon the heads of _women_ as well as men?
Yes, my friends, "it sat upon _each one of them_;" Acts ii, 3. _women_
as well as men were to be living stones in the temple of grace, and
therefore _their_ heads were consecrated by the descent of the Holy
Ghost as well as those of men. Were _women_ recognized as fellow
laborers in the gospel field? They were! Paul says in his epistle to the
Philippians, "help those _women_ who labored with me, in the gospel;"
Phil. iv, 3.

But this is not all. Roman _women_ were burnt at the stake, _their_
delicate limbs were torn joint from joint by the ferocious beasts of the
Amphitheatre, and tossed by the wild bull in his fury, for the diversion
of that idolatrous, warlike, and slaveholding people. Yes, _women_
suffered under the ten persecutions of heathen Rome, with the most
unshrinking constancy and fortitude; not all the entreaties of friends,
nor the claims of new born infancy, nor the cruel threats of enemies
could make _them_ sprinkle one grain of incense upon the altars of Roman
idols. Come now with me to the beautiful valleys of Piedmont. Whose
blood stains the green sward, and decks the wild flowers with colors not
their own, and smokes on the sword of persecuting France? It is
_woman's_, as well as man's? Yes, _women_ were accounted as sheep for
the slaughter, and were cut down as the tender saplings of the wood.

But time would fail me, to tell of all those hundreds and thousands of
_women_, who perished in the Low countries of Holland, when Alva's sword
of vengeance was unsheathed against the Protestants, when the Catholic
Inquisitions of Europe became the merciless executioners of vindictive
wrath, upon those who dared to worship God, instead of bowing down in
unholy adoration before "my Lord God the _Pope_," and when England, too,
burnt her Ann Ascoes at the stake of martyrdom. Suffice it to say, that
the Church, after having been driven from Judea to Rome, and from Rome
to Piedmont, and from Piedmont to England, and from England to Holland,
at last stretched her fainting wings over the dark bosom of the
Atlantic, and found on the shores of a great wilderness, a refuge from
tyranny and oppression--as she thought, but _even here_, (the warm blush
of shame mantles my cheek as I write it,) _even here, woman_ was beaten
and banished, imprisoned, and hung upon the gallows, a trophy to the
Cross.

And what, I would ask in conclusion, have _women_ done for the great and
glorious cause of Emancipation? Who wrote that pamphlet which moved the
heart of Wilberforce to pray over the wrongs, and his tongue to plead
the cause of the oppressed African? It was a _woman_, Elizabeth Heyrick.
Who labored assiduously to keep the sufferings of the slave continually
before the British public? They were _women_. And how did they do it? By
their needles, paint brushes and pens, by speaking the truth, and
petitioning Parliament for the abolition of slavery. And what was the
effect of their labors? Read it in the Emancipation bill of Great
Britain. Read it, in the present state of her West India Colonies. Read
it, in the impulse which has been given to the cause of freedom, in the
United States of America. Have English women then done so much for the
negro, and shall American women do nothing? Oh no! Already are there
sixty female Anti-Slavery Societies in operation. These are doing just
what the English women did, telling the story of the colored man's
wrongs, praying for his deliverance, and presenting his kneeling image
constantly before the public eye on bags and needle-books, card-racks,
pen-wipers, pin-cushions, &c. Even the children of the north are
inscribing on their handy work, "May the points of our needles prick the
slaveholder's conscience." Some of the reports of these Societies
exhibit not only considerable talent, but a deep sense of religious
duty, and a determination to persevere through evil as well as good
report, until every scourge, and every shackle, is buried under the feet
of the manumitted slave.

The Ladies' Anti-Slavery Society of Boston was called last fall, to a
severe trial of their faith and constancy. They were mobbed by "the
gentlemen of property and standing," in that city at their anniversary
meeting, and their lives were jeoparded by an infuriated crowd; but
their conduct on that occasion did credit to our sex, and affords a full
assurance that they will _never_ abandon the cause of the slave. The
pamphlet, Right and Wrong in Boston, issued by them in which a
particular account is given of that "mob of broad cloth in broad day,"
does equal credit to the head and the heart of her who wrote it. I wish
my Southern sisters could read it; they would then understand that the
women of the North have engaged in this work from a sense of _religious
duty_, and that nothing will ever induce them to take their hands from
it until it is fully accomplished. They feel no hostility to you, no
bitterness or wrath; they rather sympathize in your trials and
difficulties; but they well know that the first thing to be done to help
you, is to pour in the light of truth on your minds, to urge you to
reflect on, and pray over the subject. This is all _they_ can do for
you, _you_ must work out your own deliverance with fear and trembling,
and with the direction and blessing of God, _you can do it_. Northern
women may labor to produce a correct public opinion at the North, but if
Southern women sit down in listless indifference and criminal idleness,
public opinion cannot be rectified and purified at the South. It is
manifest to every reflecting mind, that slavery must be abolished; the
era in which we live, and the light which is overspreading the whole
world on this subject, clearly show that the time cannot be distant when
it will be done. Now there are only two ways in which it can be
effected, by moral power or physical force, and it is for _you_ to
choose which of these you prefer. Slavery always has, and always will
produce insurrections wherever it exists, because it is a violation of
the natural order of things, and no human power can much longer
perpetuate it. The opposers of abolitionists fully believe this; one of
them remarked to me not long since, there is no doubt there will be a
most terrible overturning at the South in a few years, such cruelty and
wrong, must be visited with Divine vengeance soon. Abolitionists
believe, too, that this must inevitably be the case, if you do not
repent, and they are not willing to leave you to perish without
entreating you, to save yourselves from destruction; well may they say
with the apostle, "am I then your enemy because I tell you the truth,"
and warn you to flee from impending judgments.

But why, my dear friends, have I thus been endeavoring to lead you
through the history of more than three thousand years, and to point you
to that great cloud of witnesses who have gone before, "from works to
rewards?" Have I been seeking to magnify the sufferings, and exalt the
character of woman, that she "might have praise of men?" No! no! my
object has been to arouse _you_, as the wives and mothers, the daughters
and sisters, of the South, to a sense of your duty as _women_, and as
Christian women, on that great subject, which has already shaken our
country, from the St. Lawrence and the lakes, to the Gulf of Mexico, and
from the Mississippi to the shores of the Atlantic; _and will continue
mightily to shake it_, until the polluted temple of slavery fall and
crumble into ruin. I would say unto each one of you, "what meanest thou,
O sleeper! arise and call upon thy God, if so be that God will think
upon us that we perish not." Perceive you not that dark cloud of
vengeance which hangs over our boasting Republic? Saw you not the
lightnings of Heaven's wrath, in the flame which leaped from the
Indian's torch to the roof of yonder dwelling, and lighted with its
horrid glare the darkness of midnight? Heard you not the thunders of
Divine anger, as the distant roar of the cannon came rolling onward,
from the Texian country, where Protestant American Rebels are fighting
with Mexican Republicans--for what? For the re-establishment of
_slavery_; yes! of American slavery in the bosom of a Catholic Republic,
where that system of robbery, violence, and wrong, had been legally
abolished for twelve years. Yes! citizens of the United States, after
plundering Mexico of her land, are now engaged in deadly conflict, for
the privilege of fastening chains, and collars, and manacles--upon whom?
upon the subjects of some foreign prince? No! upon native born American
Republican citizens, although the fathers of these very men declared to
the whole world, while struggling to free themselves from the three
penny taxes of an English king, that they believed it to be a
_self-evident_ truth that _all men_ were created equal, and had an
_unalienable right to liberty_.

Well may the poet exclaim in bitter sarcasm,


  "The fustian flag that proudly waves
  In solemn mockery _o'er a land of slaves_."


Can you not, my friends, understand the signs of the times; do you not
see the sword of retributive justice hanging over the South, or are you
still slumbering at your posts?--Are there no Shiphrahs, no Puahs among
you, who will dare in Christian firmness and Christian meekness, to
refuse to obey the _wicked laws_ which require _woman to enslave, to
degrade and to brutalize woman?_ Are there no Miriams, who would rejoice
to lead out the captive daughters of the Southern States to liberty and
light? Are there no Huldahs there who will dare to _speak the truth_
concerning the sins of the people and those judgments, which it requires
no prophet's eye to see, must follow if repentance is not speedily
sought? Is there no Esther among you who will plead for the poor devoted
slave? Read the history of this Persian queen, it is full of
instruction; she at first refused to plead for the Jews; but, hear the
words of Mordecai, "Think not within thyself, that _thou_ shalt escape
in the king's house more than all the Jews, for _if thou altogether
holdest thy peace at this time_, then shall there enlargement and
deliverance arise to the Jews from another place: but _thou and thy
father's house shall be destroyed._" Listen, too, to her magnanimous
reply to this powerful appeal; "_I will go_ in unto the king, which is
not according to law, and if I perish. I perish." Yes! if there were but
_one_ Esther at the South, she _might_ save her country from ruin; but
let the Christian women there arise, as the Christian women of Great
Britain did, in the majesty of moral power, and that salvation is
certain. Let them embody themselves in societies, and send petitions up
to their different legislatures, entreating their husbands, fathers,
brothers and sons, to abolish the institution of slavery; no longer to
subject _woman_ to the scourge and the chain, to mental darkness and
moral degradation; no longer to tear husbands from their wives, and
children from their parents; no longer to make men, women, and children,
work _without wages;_ no longer to make their lives bitter in hard
bondage; no longer to reduce _American citizens_ to the abject condition
of _slaves_, of "chattels personal;" no longer to barter the _image of
God_ in human shambles for corruptible things such as silver and gold.

The _women of the South can overthrow_ this horrible system of
oppression and cruelty, licentiousness and wrong. Such appeals to your
legislatures would be irresistible, for there is something in the heart
of man which _will bend under moral suasion_. There is a swift witness
for truth in his bosom, which _will respond to truth_ when it is uttered
with calmness and dignity. If you could obtain but six signatures to
such a petition in only one state, I would say, send up that petition,
and be not in the least discouraged by the scoffs and jeers of the
heartless, or the resolution of the house to lay it on the table. It
will be a great thing if the subject can be introduced into your
legislatures in any way, even by _women_, and _they_ will be the most
likely to introduce it there in the best possible manner, as a matter of
_morals_ and _religion_, not of expediency or politics. You may
petition, too, the different, ecclesiastical bodies of the slave states.
Slavery must be attacked with the whole power of truth and the sword of
the spirit. You must take it up on _Christian_ ground, and fight against
it with Christian weapons, whilst your feet are shod with the
preparation of the gospel of peace. And _you are now_ loudly called upon
by the cries of the widow and the orphan, to arise and gird yourselves
for this great moral conflict, with the whole armour of righteousness
upon the right hand and on the left.

There is every encouragement for you to labor and pray, my friends,
because the abolition of slavery as well as its existence, has been the
theme of prophecy. "Ethiopia (says the Psalmist) shall stretch forth her
hands unto God." And is she not now doing so? Are not the Christian
negroes of the south lifting their hands in prayer for deliverance, just
as the Israelites did when their redemption was drawing nigh? Are they
not sighing and crying by reason of the hard bondage? And think you,
that He, of whom it was said, "and God heard their groaning, and their
cry came up unto him by reason of the hard bondage," think you that his
ear is heavy that he cannot _now_ hear the cries of his suffering
children? Or that He who raised up a Moses, an Aaron, and a Miriam, to
bring them up out of the land of Egypt from the house of bondage, cannot
now, with a high hand and a stretched out arm, rid the poor negroes out
of the hands of their masters? Surely you believe that his arm is _not_
shortened that he cannot save. And would not such a work of mercy
redound to his glory? But another string of the harp of prophecy
vibrates to the song of deliverance: "But they shall sit every man under
his vine, and under his fig-tree, and _none shall make them afraid_; for
the mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it." The _slave_ never can do
this as long as he is a _slave_; whilst he is a "chattel personal" he
can own _no_ property; but the time _is to come_ when _every_ man is to
sit under _his own_ vine and _his own_ fig-tree, and no domineering
driver, or irresponsible master, or irascible mistress, shall make him
afraid of the chain or the whip. Hear, too, the sweet tones of another
string: "Many shall run to and fro, and _knowledge_ shall be increased."
Slavery is an insurmountable barrier to the increase of knowledge in
every community where it exists; _slavery, then, must be abolished
before_ this prediction can be fulfiled. The last chord I shall touch,
will be this, "They shall _not_ hurt nor destroy in all my holy
mountain."

_Slavery, then, must be overthrown before_ the prophecies can be
accomplished, but how are they to be fulfiled? Will the wheels of the
millennial car be rolled onward by miraculous power? No! God designs to
confer this holy privilege upon _man_; it is through _his_
instrumentality that the great and glorious work of reforming the world
is to be done. And see you not how the mighty engine of _moral power_ is
dragging in its rear the Bible and peace societies, anti-slavery and
temperance, sabbath schools, moral reform, and missions? or to adopt
another figure, do not these seven philanthropic associations compose
the beautiful tints in that bow of promise which spans the arch of our
moral heaven? Who does not believe, that if these societies were broken
up, their constitutions burnt, and the vast machinery with which they
are laboring to regenerate mankind was stopped, that the black clouds of
vengeance would soon burst over our world, and every city would witness
the fate of the devoted cities of the plain? Each one of these societies
is walking abroad through the earth scattering the seeds of truth over
the wide field of our world, not with the hundred hands of a Briareus,
but with a hundred thousand.

Another encouragement for you to labor, my friends, is, that you will
have the prayers and co-operation of English and Northern
philanthropists. You will never bend your knees in supplication at the
throne of grace for the overthrow of slavery, without meeting there the
spirits of other Christians, who will mingle their voices with yours, as
the morning or evening sacrifice ascends to God. Yes, the spirit of
prayer and of supplication has been poured out upon many, many hearts;
there are wrestling Jacobs who will not let go of the prophetic promises
of deliverance for the captive, and the opening of prison doors to them
that are bound. There are Pauls who are saying, in reference to this
subject, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" There are Marys sitting
in the house now, who are ready to arise and go forth is this work as
soon as the message is brought, "the master is come and calleth for
thee." And there are Marthas, too, who have already gone out to meet
Jesus, as he bends his footsteps to their brother's grave, and weeps,
_not_ over the lifeless body of Lazarus bound hand and foot in
grave-clothes, but over the politically and intellectually lifeless
slave, bound hand and foot in the iron chains of oppression and
ignorance. Some may be ready to say, as Martha did, who seemed to expect
nothing but sympathy from Jesus, "Lord, by this time he stinketh, for he
hath been dead four days." She thought it useless to remove the stone
and expose the loathsome body of her brother; she could not believe that
so great a miracle could be wrought, as to raise _that putrefied body_
into life; but "Jesus said, take _ye_ away the stone;" and when _they_
had taken away the stone where the dead was laid, and uncovered the body
of Lazarus, then it was that "Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father,
I thank thee that thou hast heard me," &c. "And when he had thus spoken,
he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth." Yes, some may be ready
to say of the colored race, how can _they_ ever be raised politically
and intellectually, they have been dead four hundred years? But _we_
have _nothing_ to do with _how_ this is to be done; _our business_ is to
take away the stone which has covered up the dead body of our brother,
to expose the putrid carcass, to show _how_ that body has been bound
with the grave-clothes of heathen ignorance, and his face with the
napkin of prejudice, and having done all it was our duty to do, to stand
by the negro's grave, in humble faith and holy hope, waiting to hear the
life-giving command of "Lazarus, come forth." This is just what
Anti-Slavery Societies are doing; they are taking away the stone from
the mouth of the tomb of slavery, where lies the putrid carcass of our
brother. They want the pure light of heaven to shine into that dark and
gloomy cave; they want all men to see _how_ that dead body has been
bound, _how_ that face has been wrapped in the _napkin of prejudice_;
and shall they wait beside that grave in vain? Is not Jesus still the
resurrection and the life? Did He come to proclaim liberty to the
captive, and the opening of prison doors to them that are bound, in
vain? Did He promise to give beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for
mourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness unto
them that mourn in Zion, and will He refuse to beautify the mind, anoint
the head, and throw around the captive negro the mantle of praise for
that spirit of heaviness which has so long bound him down to the ground?
Or shall we not rather say with the prophet, "the zeal of the Lord of
Hosts _will_ perform this?" Yes, his promises are sure, and amen in
Christ Jesus, that he will assemble her that halteth, and gather her
that is driven out, and her that is afflicted.

But I will now say a few words on the subject of Abolitionism. Doubtless
you have all heard Anti-Slavery Societies denounced as insurrectionary
and mischievous, fanatical and dangerous. It has been said they publish
the most abominable untruths, and that they are endeavoring to excite
rebellions at the South. Have you believed these reports, my friends?
have _you_ also been deceived by these false assertions? Listen to me,
then, whilst I endeavor to wipe from the fair character of Abolitionism
such unfounded accusations. You know that _I_ am a Southerner; you know
that my dearest relatives are now in a slave State. Can you for a moment
believe I would prove so recreant to the feelings of a daughter and a
sister, as to join a society which was seeking to overthrow slavery by
falsehood, bloodshed, and murder? I appeal to you who have known and
loved me in days that are passed, can _you_ believe it? No! my friends.
As a Carolinian, I was peculiarly jealous of any movements on this
subject; and before I would join an Anti-Slavery Society, I took the
precaution of becoming acquainted with some of the leading
Abolitionists, of reading their publications and attending their
meetings, at which I heard addresses both from colored and white men;
and it was not until I was fully convinced that their principles were
_entirely pacific_, and their efforts _only moral_, that I gave my name
as a member to the Female Anti-Slavery Society of Philadelphia. Since
that time, I have regularly taken the Liberator, and read many
Anti-Slavery pamphlets and papers and books, and can assure you I
_never_ have seen a single insurrectionary paragraph, and never read any
account of cruelty which I could not believe. Southerners may deny the
truth of these accounts, but why do they not _prove_ them to be false.
Their violent expressions of horror at such accounts being believed,
_may_ deceive some, but they cannot deceive _me_, for I lived too long
in the midst of slavery, not to know what slavery is. When _I_ speak of
this system, "I speak that I do know," and I am not at all afraid to
assert, that Anti-Slavery publications have _not_ overdrawn the
monstrous features of slavery at all. And many a Southerner _knows_ this
as well as I do. A lady in North Carolina remarked to a friend of mine,
about eighteen months since, "Northerners know nothing at all about
slavery; they think it is perpetual bondage only; but of the _depth of
degradation_ that word involves, they have no conception; if they had,
_they would never cease_ their efforts until so _horrible_ a system was
overthrown." She did not know how faithfully some Northern men and
Northern women had studied this subject; how diligently they had
searched out the cause of "him who had none to help him," and how
fearlessly they had told the story of the negro's wrongs. Yes,
Northerners know _every_ thing about slavery now. This monster of
iniquity has been unveiled to the world, her frightful features
unmasked, and soon, very soon will she be regarded with no more
complacency by the American republic than is the idol of Juggernaut,
rolling its bloody wheels over the crushed bodies of its prostrate
Victims.

But you will probably ask, if Anti-Slavery societies are not
insurrectionary, why do Northerners tell us they are? Why, I would ask
you in return, did Northern senators and Northern representatives give
their votes, at the last sitting of congress, to the admission of
Arkansas Territory as a state? Take those men, one by one, and ask them
in their parlours, do you _approve of slavery?_ ask them on _Northern_
ground, where they will speak the truth, and I doubt not _every man_ of
them will tell you, _no!_ Why then, I ask, did _they_ give their votes
to enlarge the mouth of that grave which has already destroyed its tens
of thousands? All our enemies tell _us_ they are as much anti-slavery as
we are. Yes, my friends, thousands who are helping you to bind the
fetters of slavery on the negro, despise you in their hearts for doing
it; they rejoice that such an institution has not been entailed upon
them. Why then, I would ask, do _they_ lend you their help? I will tell
you, "they love _the praise of men more_ than the praise of God." The
Abolition cause has not yet become so popular as to induce them to
believe, that by advocating it in congress, they shall sit still more
securely in their seats there, and like the _chief rulers_ in the days
of our Saviour, though many believed on him, yet they did _not_ confess
him, lest they should _be put out of the synagogue_; John xii, 42, 43.
Or perhaps like Pilate, thinking they could prevail nothing, and fearing
a tumult, they determined to release Barabbas and surrender the just
man, the poor innocent slave to be stripped of his rights and scourged.
In vain will such men try to wash their hands, and say, with the Roman
governor, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person." Northern
American statesmen are no more innocent of the crime of slavery, than
Pilate was of the murder of Jesus, or Saul of that of Stephen. These are
high charges, but I appeal to _their hearts_; I appeal to public opinion
ten years from now. Slavery then is a national sin.

But you will say, a great many other Northerners tell us so, who can
have no political motives. The interests of the North, you must know, my
friends, are very closely combined with those of the South. The Northern
merchants and manufacturers are making _their_ fortunes out of the
_produce of slave labor_; the grocer is selling your rice and sugar; how
then can these men bear a testimony against slavery without condemning
themselves? But there is another reason, the North is most dreadfully
afraid of Amalgamation. She is alarmed at the very idea of a thing so
monstrous, as she thinks. And lest this consequence _might_ flow from
emancipation, she is determined to resist all efforts at emancipation
without expatriation. It is not because _she approves of slavery_, or
believes it to be "the corner stone of our republic," for she is as much
_anti-slavery_ as we are; but amalgamation is too horrible to think of.
Now I would ask _you_, is it right, is it generous, to refuse the
colored people in this country the advantages of education and the
privilege, or rather the _right_, to follow honest trades and callings
merely because they are colored? The same prejudice exists here against
our colored brethren that existed against the Gentiles in Judea. Great
numbers cannot bear the idea of equality, and fearing lest, if they had
the same advantages we enjoy, they would become as intelligent, as
moral, as religious, and as respectable and wealthy, they are determined
to keep them as low as they possibly can. Is this doing as they would be
done by? Is this loving their neighbor _as themselves_? Oh! that _such_
opposers of Abolitionism would put their souls in the stead of the free
colored man's and obey the apostolic injunction, to "remember them that
are in bonds _as bound with them_." I will leave you to judge whether
the fear of amalgamation ought to induce men to oppose anti-slavery
efforts, when _they_ believe _slavery_ to be _sinful_. Prejudice against
color, is the most powerful enemy we have to fight with at the North.

You need not be surprised, then, at all, at what is said _against_
Abolitionists by the North, for they are wielding a two-edged sword,
which even here, cuts through the _cords of caste_, on the one side, and
the _bonds of interest_ on the other. They are only sharing the fate of
other reformers, abused and reviled whilst they are in the minority; but
they are neither angry nor discouraged by the invective which has been
heaped upon them by slaveholders at the South and their apologists at
the North. They know that when George Fox and William Edmundson were
laboring in behalf of the negroes in the West Indies in 1671 that the
very _same_ slanders were propogated against them, which are _now_
circulated against Abolitionists. Although it was well known that Fox
was the founder of a religious sect which repudiated _all_ war, and
_all_ violence, yet _even he_ was accused of "endeavoring to excite the
slaves to insurrection and of teaching the negroes to cut their master's
throats." And these two men who had their feet shod with the preparation
of the Gospel of Peace, were actually compelled to draw up a formal
declaration that _they were not_ trying to raise a rebellion in
Barbadoes. It is also worthy of remark that these Reformers did not at
this time see the necessity of emancipation under seven years, and their
principal efforts were exerted to persuade the planters of the necessity
of instructing their slaves; but the slaveholder saw then, just what the
slaveholder sees now, that an _enlightened_ population _never_ can be a
_slave_ population, and therefore they passed a law, that negroes should
not even attend the meetings of Friends. Abolitionists know that the
life of Clarkson was sought by slavetraders; and that even Wilberforce
was denounced on the floor of Parliament as a fanatic and a hypocrite by
the present King of England, the very man who, in 1834, set his seal to
that instrument which burst the fetters of eight hundred thousand slaves
in his West India colonies. They know that the first Quaker who bore a
_faithful_ testimony against the sin of slavery was cut off from
religious fellowship with that society. That Quaker was a _woman_. On
her deathbed she sent for the committee who dealt with her--she told
them, the near approach of death had not altered her sentiments on the
subject of slavery and waving her hand towards a very fertile and
beautiful portion of country which lay stretched before her window, she
said with great solemnity, "Friends, the time will come when there will
not be friends enough in all this district to hold one meeting for
worship, and this garden will be turned into a wilderness."

The aged friend, who with tears in his eyes, related this interesting
circumstance to me, remarked, that at that time there were seven
meetings of friends in that part of Virginia, but that when he was there
ten years ago, not a single meeting was held, and the country was
literally a desolation. Soon after her decease, John Woolman began his
labors in our society, and instead of disowning a member for testifying
_against_ slavery, they have for fifty-two years positively forbidden
their members to hold slaves.

Abolitionists understand the slaveholding spirit too well to be
surprised at any thing that has yet happened at the South or the North;
they know that the greater the sin is, which is exposed, the more
violent will be the efforts to blacken the character and impugn the
motives of those who are engaged in bringing to light the hidden things
of darkness. They understand the work of Reform too well to be driven
back by the furious waves of opposition, which are only foaming out
their own shame. They have stood "the world's dread laugh," when only
twelve men formed the first Anti-Slavery Society in Boston in 1831. They
have faced and refuted the calumnies of their enemies, and proved
themselves to be emphatically _peace men_ by _never resisting_ the
violence of mobs, even when driven by them from the temple of God, and
dragged by an infuriated crowd through the streets of the emporium of
New-England, or subjected by _slaveholders_ to the pain of corporal
punishment. "None of these things move them;" and, by the grace of God,
they are determined to persevere in this work of faith and labor of
love: they mean to pray, and preach, and write, and print, until slavery
is completely overthrown, until Babylon is taken up and cast into the
sea, to "be found no more at all." They mean to petition Congress year
after year, until the seat of our government is cleansed from the sinful
traffic of "slaves and the souls of men." Although that august assembly
may be like the unjust judge who "feared not God neither regarded man,"
yet it must yield just as he did, from the power of importunity. Like
the unjust judge, Congress _must_ redress the wrongs of the widow, lest
by the continual coming up of petitions, it be wearied. This will be
striking the dagger into the very heart of the monster, and once 'tis
done, he must soon expire.

Abolitionists have been accused of abusing their Southern brethren. Did
the prophet Isaiah _abuse_ the Jews when he addressed to them the
cutting reproofs contained in the first chapter of his prophecies, and
ended by telling them, they would be _ashamed_ of the oaks they had
desired, and _confounded_ for the garden they had chosen? Did John the
Baptist _abuse_ the Jews when he called them "_a generation of vipers_,"
and warned them "to bring forth fruits meet for repentance?" Did Peter
abuse the Jews when he told them they were the _murderers_ of the Lord
of Glory? Did Paul abuse the Roman Governor when he reasoned before him
of righteousness, temperance, and judgment, so as to send conviction
home to his guilty heart, and cause him to tremble in view of the crimes
he was living in? Surely not. No man will now accuse the prophets and
apostles of _abuse_, but what have Abolitionists done more than they? No
doubt the Jews thought the prophets and apostles in their day, just as
harsh and uncharitable as slaveholders now, think Abolitionists; if they
did not, why did they beat, and stone, and kill them?

Great fault has been found with the prints which have been employed to
expose slavery at the North, but my friends, how could this be done so
effectually in any other way? Until the pictures of the slave's
sufferings were drawn and held up to public gaze, no Northerner had any
idea of the cruelty of the system, it never entered their minds that
such abominations could exist in Christian, Republican America; they
never suspected that many of the _gentlemen_ and _ladies_ who came from
the South to spend the summer months in travelling among them, were
petty tyrants at home. And those who had lived at the South, and came to
reside at the North, were too _ashamed of slavery_ even to speak of it;
the language of their hearts was, "tell it _not_ in Gath, publish it
_not_ in the streets of Askelon;" they saw no use in uncovering the
loathsome body to popular sight, and in hopeless despair, wept in secret
places over the sins of oppression. To such hidden mourners the
formation of Anti-Slavery Societies was as life from the dead, the first
beams of hope which gleamed through the dark clouds of despondency and
grief. Prints were made use of to effect the abolition of the
Inquisition in Spain, and Clarkson employed them when he was laboring to
break up the Slave trade, and English Abolitionists used them just as we
are now doing. They are powerful appeals and have invariably done the
work they were designed to do, and we cannot consent to abandon the use
of these until the _realities_ no longer exist.

With regard to those white men, who, it was said, did try to raise an
insurrection in Mississippi a year ago, and who were stated to be
Abolitionists, none of them were proved to be members of Anti-Slavery
Societies, and it must remain a matter of great doubt whether, even they
were guilty of the crimes alledged against them, because when any
community is thrown into such a panic as to inflict Lynch law upon
accused persons, they cannot be supposed to be capable of judging with
calmness and impartiality. _We know_ that the papers of which the
Charleston mail was robbed, were _not_ insurrectionary, and that they
were _not_ sent to the colored people as was reported. _We know_ that
Amos Dresser was _no insurrectionist_ though he was accused of being so,
and on this false accusation was publicly whipped in Nashville in the
midst of a crowd of infuriated _slaveholders_. Was that young man
disgraced by this infliction of corporal punishment? No more than was
the great apostle of the Gentiles who five times received forty stripes,
save one. Like him, he might have said, "henceforth I bear in my body
the marks of the Lord Jesus," for it was for the _truth's sake, he
suffered_, as much as did the Apostle Paul. Are Nelson, and Garrett, and
Williams, and other Abolitionists who have recently been banished from
Missouri, insurrectionists? _We know_ they are _not_, whatever
slaveholders may choose to call them. The spirit which now asperses the
character of the Abolitionists, is the _very same_ which dressed up the
Christians of Spain in the skins of wild beasts and pictures of devils
when they were led to execution as heretics. Before we condemn
individuals, it is necessary, even in a wicked community, to accuse them
of some crime; hence, when Jezebel wished to compass the death of
Naboth, men of Belial were suborned to bear _false_ witness against him,
and so it was with Stephen, and so it ever has been, and ever will be,
as long as there is any virtue to suffer on the rack, or the gallows.
_False_ witnesses must appear against Abolitionists before they can be
condemned.

I will now say a few words on George Thompson's mission to this country.
This Philanthropist was accused of being a foreign emissary. Were La
Fayette, and Steuben, and De Kalb, foreign emissaries when they came
over to America to fight against the tories, who preferred submitting to
what was termed, "the yoke of servitude," rather than bursting the
fetters which bound them to the mother country? _They_ came with _carnal
weapons_ to engage in _bloody_ conflict against American citizens, and
yet, where do their names stand on the page of History. Among the
honorable, or the low? Thompson came here to war against the giant sin
of slavery, _not_ with the sword and the pistol, but with the smooth
stones of oratory taken from the pure waters of the river of Truth. His
splendid talents and commanding eloquence rendered him a powerful
coadjutor in the Anti-Slavery cause, and in order to neutralize the
effects of these upon his auditors, and rob the poor slave of the
benefits of his labors, his character was defamed, his life was sought,
and he at last driven from our Republic, as a fugitive. But was
_Thompson_ disgraced by all this mean and contemptible and wicked
chicanery and malice? No more than was Paul, when in consequence of a
vision he had seen at Troas, he went over to Macedonia to help the
Christians there, and was beaten and imprisoned, because he cast out a
spirit of divination from a young damsel which had brought much gain to
her masters. Paul was as much a _foreign emissary_ in the Roman colony
of Philippi, as George Thompson was in America, and it was because he
was a _Jew_, and taught customs it was not lawful for them to receive or
observe, being Romans, that the Apostle was thus treated.

It was said, Thompson was a felon, who had fled to this country to
escape transportation to New Holland. Look at him now pouring the
thundering strains of his eloquence, upon crowded audiences in Great
Britain, and see in this a triumphant vindication of his character. And
have the slaveholder, and his obsequious apologist, gained any thing by
all their violence and falsehood? No! for the stone which struck Goliath
of Gath, had already been thrown from the sling. The giant of slavery
who had so proudly defied the armies of the living God, had received his
death-blow before he left our shores. But what is George Thompson doing
there? Is he not now laboring there, as effectually to abolish American
slavery as though he trod our own soil, and lectured to New York or
Boston assemblies? What is he doing there, but constructing a stupendous
dam, which will turn the overwhelming tide of public opinion over the
wheels of that machinery which Abolitionists are working here. He is now
lecturing to _Britons_ on _American Slavery_, to the _subjects_ of a
_King_, on the abject condition of the _slaves of a Republic_. He is
telling them of that mighty confederacy of petty tyrants which extends
ever thirteen States of our Union. He is telling them of the munificent
rewards offered by slaveholders, for the heads of the most distinguished
advocates for freedom in this country. He is moving the British Churches
to send out to the churches of America the most solemn appeals,
reproving, rebuking, and exhorting them with all long suffering and
patience to abandon the sin of slavery immediately. Where then I ask,
will the name of George Thompson stand on the page of History? Among the
honorable, or the base?

What can I say more, my friends, to induce _you_ to set your hands, and
heads, and hearts, to this great work of justice and mercy. Perhaps you
have feared the consequences of immediate Emancipation, and been
frightened by all those dreadful prophecies of rebellion, bloodshed and
murder, which have been uttered. "Let no man deceive you;" they are the
predictions of that same "lying spirit" which spoke through the four
thousand prophets of old, to Ahab king of Israel, urging him on to
destruction. _Slavery_ may produce these horrible scenes if it is
continued five years longer, but Emancipation _never will_.

I can prove the _safety_ of immediate Emancipation by history. In St.
Domingo in 1793 six hundred thousand slaves were set free in a white
population of forty-two thousand. That Island "marched as by enchantment
towards its ancient splendor", cultivation prospered, every day produced
perceptible proofs of its progress, and the negroes all continued
quietly to work on the different plantations, until in 1802, France
determined to reduce these liberated slaves again to bondage. It was at
_this time_ that all those dreadful scenes of cruelty occurred, which we
so often _unjustly_ hear spoken of, as the effects of Abolition. They
were occasioned _not_ by Emancipation, but by the base attempt to fasten
the chains of slavery on the limbs of liberated slaves.

In Guadaloupe eighty-five thousand slaves were freed in a white
population of thirteen thousand. The same prosperous effects followed
manumission here, that had attended it in Hayti, every thing was quiet
until Buonaparte sent out a fleet to reduce these negroes again to
slavery, and in 1802 this institution was re-established in that Island.
In 1834, when Great Britain determined to liberate the slaves in her
West India colonies, and proposed the apprenticeship system; the
planters of Bermuda and Antigua, after having joined the other planters
in their representations of the bloody consequences of Emancipation, in
order if possible to hold back the hand which was offering the boon of
freedom to the poor negro; as soon as they found such falsehoods were
utterly disregarded, and Abolition must take place, came forward
voluntarily, and asked for the compensation which was due to them,
saying, _they preferred immediate emancipation_, and were not afraid of
any insurrection. And how is it with these islands now? They are
decidedly more prosperous than any of those in which the apprenticeship
system was adopted, and England is now trying to abolish that system, so
fully convinced is she that immediate Emancipation is the _safest_ and
the best plan.

And why not try it in the Southern States, if it _never_ has occasioned
rebellion; if _not a drop of blood_ has ever been shed in consequence of
it, though it has been so often tried, why should we suppose it would
produce such disastrous consequences now? "Be not deceived then, God is
not mocked," by such false excuses for not doing justly and loving
mercy. There is nothing to fear from immediate Emancipation, but _every
thing_ from the continuance of slavery.

Sisters in Christ, I have done. As a Southerner, I have felt it was my
duty to address you. I have endeavoured to set before you the exceeding
sinfulness of slavery, and to point you to the example of those noble
women who have been raised up in the church to effect great revolutions,
and to suffer for the truth's sake. I have appealed to your sympathies
as women, to your sense of duty as _Christian women_>. I have attempted
to vindicate the Abolitionists, to prove the entire safety of immediate
Emancipation, and to plead the cause of the poor and oppressed. I have
done--I have sowed the seeds of truth, but I well know, that even if an
Apollos were to follow in my steps to water them, "_God only_ can give
the increase." To Him then who is able to prosper the work of his
servant's hand, I commend this Appeal in fervent prayer, that as he
"hath _chosen the weak things of the world_, to confound the things
which are mighty," so He may cause His blessing, to descend and carry
conviction to the hearts of many Lydias through these speaking pages.
Farewell.--Count me not your "enemy because I have told you the truth,"
but believe me in unfeigned affection,

Your sympathizing Friend,

ANGELINA E. GRIMKÉ.

Published by the American Anti-Slavery Society, corner of Spruce and
Nassau Streets.








THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.


       *       *       *       *       *


VOL. I. SEPTEMBER, 1836.    No. 2.




       *       *       *       *       *





APPEAL

TO THE

CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE SOUTH,


BY A.E. GRIMKÉ REVISED AND CORRECTED.


    "Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not within
    thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house more than all
    the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time,
    then shalt there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews
    from another place: but thou and thy father's house shall be
    destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom
    for such a time as this. And Esther bade them return Mordecai
    this answer:--and so will I go in unto the king, which is not
    according to law, and _if I perish, I perish_."

    Esther IV. 13-16.


RESPECTED FRIENDS,

It is because I feel a deep and tender interest in your present and
eternal welfare that I am willing thus publicly to address you. Some of
you have loved me as a relative, and some have felt bound to me in
Christian sympathy, and Gospel fellowship; and even when compelled by a
strong sense of duty, to break those outward bonds of union which bound
us together as members of the same community, and members of the same
religious denomination, you were generous enough to give me credit, for
sincerity as a Christian, though you believed I had been most strangely
deceived. I thanked you then for your kindness, and I ask you _now_, for
the sake of former confidence, and former friendship, to read the
following pages in the spirit of calm investigation and fervent prayer.
It is because you have known me, that I write thus unto you.

But there are other Christian women scattered over the Southern States,
of whom a very large number have never seen me, and never heard my name,
and feel _no_ personal interest whatever in _me_. But I feel an interest
in _you_, as branches of the same vine from whose root I daily draw the
principle of spiritual vitality--Yes! Sisters in Christ I feel an
interest in _you_, and often has the secret prayer arisen on your
behalf, Lord "open thou their eyes that they may see wondrous things out
of thy Law"--It is then, because I _do feel_ and _do pray_ for you, that
I thus address you upon a subject about which of all others, perhaps you
would rather not hear any thing; but, "would to God ye could bear with
me a little in my folly, and indeed bear with me, for I am jealous over
you with godly jealousy." Be not afraid then to read my appeal; it is
_not_ written in the heat of passion or prejudice, but in that solemn
calmness which is the result of conviction and duty. It is true, I am
going to tell you unwelcome truths, but I mean to speak these _truths in
love_, and remember Solomon says, "faithful are the _wounds_ of a
friend." I do not believe the time has yet come when _Christian women_
"will not endure sound doctrine," even on the subject of Slavery, if it
is spoken to them in tenderness and love, therefore I now address _you_.


       *       *       *       *       *


POSTAGE.--This periodical contains four and a half sheets. Postage under
100 miles, 6 3-4 cents; over 100 miles, 11 1-4 cents.

_PLEASE READ AND CIRCULATE._


       *       *       *       *       *


To all of you then, known or unknown, relatives or strangers, (for you
are all _one_ in Christ,) I would speak. I have felt for you at this
time, when unwelcome light is pouring in upon the world on the subject
of slavery; light which even Christians would exclude, if they could,
from our country, or at any rate from the southern portion of it,
saying, as its rays strike the rock bound coasts of New England and
scatter their warmth and radiance over her hills and valleys, and from
thence travel onward over the Palisades of the Hudson, and down the soft
flowing waters of the Delaware and gild the waves of the Potomac,
"hitherto shalt thou come and no further;" I know that even professors
of His name who has been emphatically called the "Light of the world"
would, if they could, build a wall of adamant around the Southern States
whose top might reach unto heaven, in order to shut out the light which
is bounding from mountain to mountain and from the hills to the plains
and valleys beneath, through the vast extent of our Northern States. But
believe me, when I tell you, their attempts will be as utterly fruitless
as were the efforts of the builders of Babel; and why? Because moral,
like natural light, is so extremely subtle in its nature as to overleap
all human barriers, and laugh at the puny efforts of man to control it.
All the excuses and palliations of this system must inevitably be swept
away, just as other "refuges of lies" have been, by the irresistible
torrent of a rectified public opinion. "The _supporters_ of the slave
system," says Jonathan Dymond in his admirable work on the Principles of
Morality, "will _hereafter_ be regarded with the _same_ public feeling,
as he who was an advocate for the slave trade _now_ is." It will be, and
that very soon, clearly perceived and fully acknowledged by all the
virtuous and the candid, that in _principle_ it is as sinful to hold a
human being in bondage who has been born in Carolina, as one who has
been born in Africa. All that sophistry of argument which has been
employed to prove, that although it is sinful to send to Africa to
procure men and women as slaves, who have never been in slavery, that
still, it is not sinful to keep those in bondage who have come down by
inheritance, will be utterly overthrown. We must come back to the good
old doctrine of our forefathers who declared to the world, "this self
evident truth that _all_ men are created equal, and that they have
certain _inalienable_ rights among which are life, _liberty_, and the
pursuit of happiness." It is even a greater absurdity to suppose a man
can be legally born a slave under _our free Republican_ Government, than
under the petty despotisms of barbarian Africa. If then, we have no
right to enslave an African, surely we can have none to enslave an
American; if it is a self evident truth that _all_ men, every where and
of every color are born equal, and have an _inalienable right to
liberty_, then it is equally true that _no_ man can be born a slave, and
no man can ever _rightfully_ be reduced to _involuntary_ bondage and
held as a slave, however fair may be the claim of his master or mistress
through wills and title-deeds.

But after all, it may be said, our fathers were certainly mistaken, for
the Bible sanctions Slavery, and that is the highest authority. Now the
Bible is my ultimate appeal in all matters of faith and practice, and it
is to _this test_ I am anxious to bring the subject at issue between us.
Let us then begin with Adam and examine the charter of privileges which
was given to him. "Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the
earth." In the eighth Psalm we have a still fuller description of this
charter which through Adam was given to all mankind. "Thou madest him to
have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things
under his feet. All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field,
the fowl of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through
the paths of the seas." And after the flood when this charter of human
rights was renewed, we find _no additional_ power vested in man. "And
the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the
earth, and every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the
earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they
delivered." In this charter, although the different kinds of
_irrational_ beings are so particularly enumerated, and supreme dominion
over _all of them_ is granted, yet _man_ is _never_ vested with this
dominion _over his fellow man_; he was never told that any of the human
species were put _under his feet_; it was only _all things_, and man,
who was created in the image of his Maker, _never_ can properly be
termed a _thing_, though the laws of Slave States do call him "a chattel
personal;" _Man_ then, I assert _never_ was put _under the feet of man_,
by that first charter of human right, which was given by God, to the
Fathers of the Antediluvian and Postdiluvian worlds, therefore this
doctrine of equality is based on the Bible.

But it may be argued, that in the very chapter of Genesis from which I
have last quoted, will be found the curse pronounced upon Canaan, by
which his posterity was consigned to servitude under his brothers Shem
and Japheth. I know this prophecy was uttered, and was most fearfully
and wonderfully fulfilled, through the immediate descendants of Canaan,
i.e. the Canaanites, and I do not know but it has been through all the
children of Ham, but I do know that prophecy does _not_ tell us what
_ought to be_, but what actually does take place, ages after it has been
delivered, and that if we justify America for enslaving the children of
Africa, we must also justify Egypt for reducing the children of Israel
to bondage, for the latter was foretold as explicitly as the former. I
am well aware that prophecy has often been urged as an excuse for
Slavery, but be not deceived, the fulfilment of prophecy will _not cover
one sin_ in the awful day of account. Hear what our Saviour says on this
subject; "it must needs be that offences come, but _woe unto that man
through whom they come_"--Witness some fulfilment of this declaration in
the tremendous destruction of Jerusalem, occasioned by that most
nefarious of all crimes the crucifixion of the Son of God. Did the fact
of that event having been foretold, exculpate the Jews from sin in
perpetrating it; No--for hear what the Apostle Peter says to them on
this subject, "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God, _ye_ have taken, and by _wicked_ hands have
crucified and slain." Other striking instances might be adduced, but
these will suffice.

But it has been urged that the patriarchs held slaves, and therefore,
slavery is right. Do you really believe that patriarchal servitude was
like American slavery? Can you believe it? If so, read the history of
these primitive fathers of the church and be undeceived. Look at
Abraham, though so great a man, going to the herd himself and fetching a
calf from thence and serving it up with his own hands, for the
entertainment of his guests. Look at Sarah, that princess as her name
signifies, baking cakes upon the hearth. If the servants they had were
like Southern slaves, would they have performed such comparatively
menial offices for themselves? Hear too the plaintive lamentation of
Abraham when he feared he should have no son to bear his name down to
posterity. "Behold thou hast given me no seed, &c., one born in my house
is _mine_ heir." From this it appears that one of his _servants_ was to
inherit his immense estate. Is this like Southern slavery? I leave it to
your own good sense and candor to decide. Besides, such was the footing
upon which Abraham was with _his_ servants, that he trusted them with
arms. Are slaveholders willing to put swords and pistols into the hands
of their slaves? He was as a father among his servants; what are
planters and masters generally among theirs? When the institution of
circumcision was established, Abraham was commanded thus; "He that is
eight days old shall be circumcised among you, _every_ man-child in your
generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any
stranger which is not of thy seed." And to render this command with
regard to his _servants_ still more impressive it is repeated in the
very next verse; and herein we may perceive the great care which was
taken by God to guard the _rights of servants_ even under this "dark
dispensation." What too was the testimony given to the faithfulness of
this eminent patriarch. "For I know him that he will command his
children and his _household_ after him, and they shall keep the way of
the Lord to do justice and judgment." Now my dear friends many of you
believe that circumcision has been superseded by baptism in the Church;
_Are you_ careful to have _all_ that are born in your house or bought
with money of any stranger, baptized? Are _you_ as faithful as Abraham
to command _your household_ to _keep the way of the Lord?_ I leave it to
your own consciences to decide. Was patriarchal servitude then like
American Slavery?

But I shall be told, God sanctioned Slavery, yea commanded Slavery under
the Jewish Dispensation. Let us examine this subject calmly and
prayerfully. I admit that a species of _servitude_ was permitted to the
Jews, but in studying the subject I have been struck with wonder and
admiration at perceiving how carefully the servant was guarded from
violence, injustice, and wrong. I will first inform you how these
servants became servants, for I think this a very important part of our
subject. From consulting Horne, Calmet, and the Bible, I find there were
six different ways by which the Hebrews became servants legally.

1. A Hebrew, whose father was still alive, and who on that account had
not inherited his patrimonial estate, might sell himself, i.e., his
services, for six years, in which case _he_ received the purchase money
_himself_. Ex. xxi, 2.

2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e., his _daughters_,
in which circumstance it was understood the daughter was to be the wife
or daughter-in-law of the man who bought her, and the _father_ received
the price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as _white women_ were
in the first settlement of Virginia--as _wives, not_ as slaves. Ex. xxi,
7-11.

3. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were sold for
the benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.

4. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.

5. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself; but in
such a case he was to serve, not as a bondsman, whose term of service
was only six years, nor was he to serve as a hired servant, who received
his wages every evening, nor yet as a sojourner or temporary resident in
the family, but he was to serve his master until the year of Jubilee[A].
Lev. xxv, 39, 40.

[Footnote A: If the reader will leave out the italicised words--But and
And, in the 40th verse--he will find that I am fully authorized in the
meaning I have attached to it. But and And are _not_ in the original
Hebrew; have been introduced by the translators, and entirely destroy
the true sense of the passage.]

6. If a Hebrew had sold himself to a rich Gentile, he might be redeemed
by one of his brethren at any time the money was offered; and he who
redeemed him, was _not_ to take advantage of the favor thus conferred,
and rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55.

Before going into an examination of the laws by which these servants
were protected, I would just ask whether American slaves have become
slaves in any of the ways in which the Hebrews became servants. Did they
sell themselves into slavery and receive the purchase money into their
own hands? No! No! Did they steal the property of another, and were they
sold to make restitution for their crimes? No! Did their present
masters, as an act of kindness, redeem them from some heathen tyrant to
whom _they had sold themselves_ in the dark hour of adversity? No! Were
they born in slavery? No! No! Not according to _Jewish Law_, for the
servants who were born in servitude among them, were born of parents who
had _sold themselves_: Ex. xxi, 4; Lev. xxv, 39, 40. Were the female
slaves of the South sold by their fathers? How shall I answer this
question? Thousands and tens of thousands never were, _their_ fathers
_never_ have received the poor compensation of silver or gold for the
tears and toils, the suffering, and anguish, and hopeless bondage of
_their_ daughters. They labor day by day, and year by year, side by
side, in the same field, if haply their daughters are permitted to
remain on the same plantation with them, instead of being, as they often
are, separated from their parents and sold into distant states, never
again to meet on earth. But do the _fathers of the South ever sell their
daughters?_ My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the awful
affirmative, Yes! The fathers of this Christian land often sell their
daughters, _not_ as Jewish parents did, to be the wives and
daughters-in-law of the men who buy them, but to be the abject slaves of
petty tyrants and irresponsible masters. Is it not so, my friends? I
leave it to your own candor to corroborate my assertion. Southern slaves
then have _not_ become slaves in any of the six different ways in which
Hebrews became servants, and I hesitate not to say that American masters
_cannot_ according to _Jewish law_ substantiate their claim to the men,
women, or children they now hold in bondage.

But there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be reduced to
servitude; it was this, he might be _stolen_ and afterwards sold as a
slave, as was Joseph. To guard most effectually against this dreadful
crime of manstealing, God enacted this severe law. "He that stealeth a
man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be
put to death." And again, "If a man be found stealing any of his
brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or
selleth him; then _that thief shall die_; and thou shalt put away evil
from among you." Deut. xxiv, 7. As I have tried American Slavery by
_legal_ Hebrew servitude, and found, (to your surprise, perhaps,) that
Jewish law cannot justify the slaveholder's claim, let us now try it by
_illegal_ Hebrew bondage. Have the Southern slaves then been stolen? If
they did not sell themselves into bondage; if they were not sold as
thieves; if they were not redeemed from a heathen master to whom _they
had sold themselves;_ if they were not born in servitude according to
Hebrew law; and if the females were not sold by their fathers as wives
and daughters-in-law to those who purchased them; then what shall we say
of them? what can we say of them? but that according _to Hebrew Law they
have been stolen._

But I shall be told that the Jews had other servants who were absolute
slaves. Let us look a little into this also. They had other servants who
were procured from the heathen.

Bondmen and bondmaids might be bought of the heathen round about them.
Lev. xxv, 44.

I will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of Hebrew
masters to their _heathen_ servants. Were the southern slaves bought
from the heathen? No! For surely, no one will _now_ vindicate the
slave-trade so far as to assert that slaves were bought from the heathen
who were obtained by that system of piracy. The only excuse for holding
southern slaves is that they were born in slavery, but we have seen that
they were _not_ born in servitude as Jewish servants were, and that the
children of heathen servants were not legally subjected to bondage, even
under the Mosaic Law. How then have the slaves of the South been
obtained?

I will next proceed to an examination of those laws which were enacted
in order to protect the Hebrew and the Heathen servant; for I wish you
to understand that _both_ were protected by Him, of whom it is said "his
mercies are over _all_ his works." I will first speak of those which
secured the rights of Hebrew servants. This code was headed thus:

1. Thou shalt _not_ rule over him with _rigor_, but shalt fear thy God.

2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the
seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. Ex. xxi, 2. And when thou
sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:
Thou shalt furnish him _liberally_ out of thy flock and out of thy
floor, and out of thy wine-press: of that wherewith the Lord thy God
hath blessed thee, shalt thou give unto him. Deut. xv, 13, 14.

3. If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were
married, then his wife shall go out with him. Ex. xxi, 3.

4. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons and
daughters, the wife and her children shall be his master's, and he shall
go out by himself. Ex. xxi, 4.

5. If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my
children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him unto
the Judges, and he shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post,
and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall
serve him _for ever_. Ex. xxi, 5, 6.

6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that
it perish, he shall let him go _free_ for his eye's sake. And if he
smite out his man servant's tooth or his maid servant's tooth, he shall
let him go _free_ for his tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27.

7. On the Sabbath, rest was secured to servants by the fourth
commandment. Ex. xx, 10.

8. Servants were permitted to unite with their masters three times in
every year in celebrating the Passover, the feast of Weeks, and the
feast of Tabernacles; every male throughout the land was to appear
before the Lord at Jerusalem with a gift; here the bond and the free
stood on common ground. Deut. xvi.

9. If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under
his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a
day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. Ex. xxi, 20,
21.

From these laws we learn, that one class of Hebrew men servants were
bound to serve their masters _only six_ years, unless their attachment
to their employers, their wives and children, should induce them to wish
to remain in servitude, in which case, in order to prevent the
possibility of deception on the part of the master, the servant was
first taken before the magistrate, where he openly declared his
intention of continuing in his master's service, (probably a public
register was kept of such,) he was then conducted to the door of the
house, (in warm climates doors are thrown open.) and _there_ his ear was
_publicly_ bored, and by submitting to this operation, he testified his
willingness to serve him in subserviency to the law of God; for let it
be remembered, that the door-post was covered with the precepts of that
law. Deut. vi, 9. xi, 20: _for ever_, i.e., during his life, for Jewish
Rabbins, who must have understood Jewish _slavery_ (as it is called),
"affirm that servants were set free at the death of their masters, and
did _not_ descend to their heirs;" or that he was to serve him until the
year of Jubilee, when _all_ servants were set at liberty. The other
class, when they first sold themselves, agreed to remain until the year
of Jubilee. To protect servants from violence, it was ordained, that if
a master struck out the tooth or destroyed the eye of a servant, that
servant immediately became _free_, for such an act of violence evidently
showed he was unfit to possess the power of a master, and therefore that
power was taken from him. All servants enjoyed the rest of the Sabbath,
and partook of the privileges and festivities of the three great Jewish
Feasts; and if a servant died under the infliction of chastisement, his
master was surely to be punished. As a tooth for a tooth and life for
life was the Jewish law, of course he was punished with death. I know
that great stress has been laid upon the following verse:
"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished,
for he is his money."

Slaveholders, and the apologists of slavery, have eagerly seized upon
this little passage of Scripture, and held it up as the masters' Magna
Charta, by which they were licensed by God himself to commit the
greatest outrages upon the defenceless victims of their oppression. But,
my friends, was it designed to be so? If our Heavenly Father would
protect by law the _eye_ and the _tooth_ of a Hebrew servant, can we for
a moment believe that he would abandon that same servant to the brutal
rage of a master who would destroy even life itself? Let us then examine
this passage with the help of the context. In the 18th and 19th verses
we have a law which was made for _freemen_ who strove together. Here we
find, that if one man smote another, so that he died not, but only kept
his bed from being disabled, and he rose again and walked abroad upon
his staff, then _he_ was to be paid for the loss of his time, and all
the expenses of his sickness were to be borne by the man who smote him.
The freeman's time was _his own_, and therefore he was to be remunerated
for the loss of it. But _not_ so with the _servant_, whose time was, as
it were, _the money of his master_, because he had already paid for it:
If he continued a day or two after being struck, to keep his bed in
consequence of any wound received, then his lost time was _not_ to be
paid for, because it was _not his own_, but his master's, who had
already paid him for it. The loss of his time was the _master's loss_,
and _not_ the servant's. This explanation is confirmed by the fact, that
the Hebrew word translated continue, means "to stand still;" _i.e._, to
be unable to go out about his master's work.

Here then we find this stronghold of slavery completely demolished.
Instead of its being a license to inflict such chastisement upon a
servant as to cause even death itself, it is in fact a law merely to
provide that a man should not be required to pay his servant twice over
for his time. It is altogether an unfounded assumption on the part of
the slaveholder, that this servant _died_ after a day or two; the text
does not say so, and I contend that he _got well_ after a day or two,
just as the man mentioned in the 19th verse recovered from the effects
of the blows he received. The cases are completely parallel, and the
first law throws great light on the second. This explanation is far more
consonant with the character of God, and were it not that our vision has
been so completely darkened by the existence of slavery in our country,
we never could so far have dishonored Him as to have supposed that He
sanctioned the murder of a servant; although slaveholding legislators
might legalize the killing of a slave in _four_ different
ways.--(_Stroud's Sketch of Slave Laws_.)

But I pass on now to the consideration of how the _female_ Jewish
servants were protected by _law_.

1. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then
shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto another nation he shall
have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after
the manner of daughters.

3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of
marriage, shall he not diminish.

4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out _free_
without money.

On these laws I will give you Calmet's remarks; "A father could not sell
his daughter as a slave, according to the Rabbins, until she was at the
age of puberty, and unless he were reduced to the utmost indigence.
Besides, when a master bought an Israelitish girl, it was _always_ with
the presumption that he would take her to wife. Hence Moses adds, 'if
she please not her master, and he does not think fit to marry her, he
shall set her at liberty,' or according to the Hebrew, 'he shall let her
be redeemed.' 'To sell her to another nation he shall have no power,
seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her;' as to the engagement
implied, at least of taking her to wife. 'If he have betrothed her unto
his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters;' i.e., he
shall take care that his son uses her as his wife, that he does not
despise or maltreat her. If he make his son marry another wife, he shall
give her her dowry, her clothes, and compensation for her virginity; if
he does none of these three, she shall _go out free_ without money."
Thus were the _rights of female servants carefully secured by law_ under
the Jewish Dispensation; and now I would ask, are the rights of female
slaves at the South thus secured? Are _they_ sold only as wives and
daughters-in-law, and when not treated as such, are they allowed to _go
out free?_ No! They have _all_ not only been illegally obtained as
servants according to Hebrew law, but they are also illegally _held_ in
bondage. Masters at the South and West have all forfeited their claims,
(_if they ever had any,_) to their female slaves.

We come now to examine the case of those servants who were "of the
heathen round about;" Were _they_ left entirely unprotected by law?
Horne, in speaking of the law, "Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor,
but shalt fear thy God," remarks, "this law, Lev. xxv, 43, it is true,
speaks expressly of slaves who were of Hebrew descent; but as _alien
born_ slaves were ingrafted into the Hebrew Church by circumcision,
_there is no doubt_ but that it applied to _all_ slaves:" if so, then we
may reasonably suppose that the other protective laws extended to them
also; and that the only difference between Hebrew and Heathen servants
lay in this, that the former served but six years, unless they chose to
remain longer, and were always freed at the death of their masters;
whereas, the latter served until the year of Jubilee, though that might
include a period of forty-nine years,--and were left from father to son.

There are, however, two other laws which I have not yet noticed. The one
effectually prevented _all involuntary_ servitude, and the other
completely abolished Jewish servitude every fifty years. They were
equally operative upon the Heathen and the Hebrew.

1. "Thou shalt _not_ deliver unto his master the servant that 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." Deut. xxiii, 15, 16.

2. "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim _Liberty_
throughout _all_ the land, unto _all_ the inhabitants thereof; it shall
be a jubilee unto you." Lev. xxv, 10.

Here, then, we see that by this first law, the _door of Freedom was
opened wide to every servant who_ had any cause whatever for complaint;
if he was unhappy with his master, all he had to do was to leave him,
and _no man_ had a right to deliver him back to him again, and not only
so, but the absconded servant was to _choose_ where he should live, and
no Jew was permitted to oppress him. He left his master just as our
Northern servants leave us; we have no power to compel them to remain
with us, and no man has any right to oppress them; they go and dwell in
that place where it chooseth them, and live just where they like. Is it
so at the South? Is the poor runaway slave protected _by law_ from the
violence of that master whose oppression and cruelty has driven him from
his plantation or his house? No! no! Even the free states of the North
are compelled to deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped
from his master into them. By _human_ law, under the _Christian
Dispensation_, in the _nineteenth century we_ are commanded to do, what
_God_ more than _three thousand_ years ago, under the _Mosaic
Dispensation_, _positively commanded_ the Jews _not_ to do. In the wide
domain even of our free states, there is not _one_ city of refuge for
the poor runaway fugitive; not one spot upon which he can stand and say,
I am a free man--I am protected in my rights as a _man_, by the strong
arm of the law; no! _not one_. How long the North will thus shake hands
with the South in sin, I know not. How long she will stand by like the
persecutor Saul, _consenting_ unto the death of Stephen, and keeping the
raiment of them that slew him. I know not; but one thing I do know, the
_guilt of the North_ is increasing in a tremendous ratio as light is
pouring in upon her on the subject and the sin of slavery. As the sun of
righteousness climbs higher and higher in the moral heavens, she will
stand still more and more abashed as the query is thundered down into
her ear, "_Who_ hath required _this_ at thy hand?" It will be found _no_
excuse then that the Constitution of our country required that _persons
bound to service_ escaping from their masters should be delivered up; no
more excuse than was the reason which Adam assigned for eating the
forbidden fruit. _He was condemned and punished because_ he hearkened to
the voice of _his wife_, rather than to the command of his Maker; and
_we_ shall assuredly be condemned and punished for obeying _Man_ rather
than _God_, if we do not speedily repent and bring forth fruits meet for
repentance. Yea, are we not receiving chastisement even _now_?

But by the second of these laws a still more astonishing fact is
disclosed. If the first effectually prevented _all involuntary
servitude_, the last absolutely forbade even _voluntary servitude being
perpetual_. On the great day of atonement every fiftieth year the
Jubilee trumpet was sounded throughout the land of Judea, and _Liberty_
was proclaimed to _all_ the inhabitants thereof. I will not say that the
servants' _chains_ fell off and their _manacles_ were burst, for there
is no evidence that Jewish servants _ever_ felt the weight of iron
chains, and collars, and handcuffs; but I do say that even the man who
had voluntarily sold himself and the _heathen_ who had been sold to a
Hebrew master, were set free, the one as well as the other. This law was
evidently designed to prevent the oppression of the poor, and the
possibility of such a thing as _perpetual servitude_ existing among
them.

Where, then, I would ask, is the warrant, the justification, or the
palliation of American Slavery from Hebrew servitude? How many of the
southern slaves would now be in bondage according to the laws of Moses;
Not one. You may observe that I have carefully avoided using the term
_slavery_ when speaking of Jewish servitude; and simply for this reason,
that _no such thing_ existed among that people; the word translated
servant does _not_ mean _slave_, it is the same that is applied to
Abraham, to Moses, to Elisha and the prophets generally. _Slavery_ then
_never_ existed under the Jewish Dispensation at all, and I cannot but
regard it as an aspersion on the character of Him who is "glorious in
Holiness" for any one to assert that "_God sanctioned, yea commanded
slavery_ under the old dispensation." I would fain lift my feeble voice
to vindicate Jehovah's character from so foul a slander. If slaveholders
are determined to hold slaves as long as they can, let them not dare to
say that the God of mercy and of truth _ever_ sanctioned such a system
of cruelty and wrong. It is blasphemy against Him.

We have seen that the code of laws framed by Moses with regard to
servants was designed to _protect them_ as _men and women_, to secure to
them their _rights_ as _human beings_, to guard them from oppression and
defend them from violence of every kind. Let us now turn to the Slave
laws of the South and West and examine them too. I will give you the
substance only, because I fear I shall trespass too much on your time,
were I to quote them at length.

1. _Slavery_ is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the
slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants to the latest
posterity.

2. The labor of the slave is compulsory and uncompensated; while the
kind of labor, the amount of toil, the time allowed for rest, are
dictated solely by the master. No bargain is made, no wages given. A
pure despotism governs the human brute; and even his covering and
provender, both as to quantity and quality, depend entirely on the
master's discretion[A].

[Footnote A: There are laws in some of the slave states, limiting the
labor which the master may require of the slave to fourteen hours daily.
In some of the states there are laws requiring the masters to furnish a
certain amount of food and clothing, as for instance, _one quart_ of
corn per day, or _one peck_ per week, or _one bushel_ per month, and
"_one_ linen shirt and pantaloons for the summer, and a linen shirt and
woolen great coat and pantaloons for the winter," &c. But "still," to
use the language of Judge Stroud "the slave is entirely under the
control of his master.--is unprovided with a protector,--and, especially
as he cannot be a witness or make complaint in any known mode against
his master, the _apparent_ object of these laws may _always_ be
defeated." ED.]

3. The slave being considered a personal chattel may be sold or pledged,
or leased at the will of his master. He may be exchanged for marketable
commodities, or taken in execution for the debts or taxes either of a
living or dead master. Sold at auction, either individually, or in lots
to suit the purchaser, he may remain with his family, or be separated
from them for ever.

4. Slaves can make no contracts and have no _legal_ right to any
property, real or personal. Their own honest earnings and the legacies
of friends belong in point of law to their masters.

5. Neither a slave nor a free colored person can be a witness against
any _white_, or free person, in a court of justice, however atrocious
may have been the crimes they have seen him commit, if such testimony
would be for the benefit of a _slave_; but they may give testimony
_against a fellow slave_, or free colored man, even in cases affecting
life, if the _master_ is to reap the advantage of it.

6. The slave may be punished at his master's discretion--without
trial--without any means of legal redress; whether his offence be real
or imaginary; and the master can transfer the same despotic power to any
person or persons, he may choose to appoint.

7. The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under _any_
circumstances, _his_ only safety consists in the fact that his _owner_
may bring suit and recover the price of his body, in case his life is
taken, or his limbs rendered unfit for labor.

8. Slaves cannot redeem themselves, or obtain a change of masters,
though cruel treatment may have rendered such a change necessary for
their personal safety.

9. The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations.

10. The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even where the
master is willing to enfranchise them.

11. The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious
instruction and consolation.

12. The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a state of
the lowest ignorance.

13. There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and right.
What is a trifling fault in the _white_ man, is considered highly
criminal in the _slave_; the same offences which cost a white man a few
dollars only, are punished in the negro with death.

14. The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color[A].

[Footnote A: See Mrs. Child's Appeal, Chap. II.]

Shall I ask you now my friends, to draw the _parallel_ between Jewish
_servitude_ and American _slavery_? No! For there is _no likeness_ in
the two systems; I ask you rather to mark the contrast. The laws of
Moses _protected servants_ in their _rights_ as _men and women_, guarded
them from oppression and defended them from wrong. The Code Noir of the
South _robs the slave of all his rights_ as a _man_, reduces him to a
chattel personal, and defends the _master_ in the exercise of the most
unnatural and unwarrantable power over his slave. They each bear the
impress of the hand which formed them. The attributes of justice and
mercy are shadowed out in the Hebrew code; those of injustice and
cruelty, in the Code Noir of America. Truly it was wise in the
slaveholders of the South to declare their slaves to be "chattels
personal;" for before they could be robbed of wages, wives, children,
and friends, it was absolutely necessary to deny they were human beings.
It is wise in them, to keep them in abject ignorance, for the strong man
armed must be bound before we can spoil his house--the powerful
intellect of man must be bound down with the iron chains of nescience
before we can rob him of his rights as a man; we must reduce him to a
_thing_ before we can claim the right to set our feet upon his neck,
because it was only _all things_ which were originally _put under the
feet of man_ by the Almighty and Beneficent Father of all, who has
declared himself to be _no respecter_ of persons, whether red, white or
black.

But some have even said that Jesus Christ did not condemn slavery. To
this I reply that our Holy Redeemer lived and preached among the Jews
only. The laws which Moses had enacted fifteen hundred years previous to
his appearance among them, had never been annulled, and these laws
protected every servant in Palestine. If then He did not condemn Jewish
servitude this does not prove that he would not have condemned such a
monstrous system as that of American _slavery_, if that had existed
among them. But did not Jesus condemn slavery? Let us examine some of
his precepts. "_Whatsoever_ ye would that men should do to you, do _ye
even so to them_." Let every slaveholder apply these queries to his own
heart; Am _I_ willing to be a slave--Am _I_ willing to see my wife the
slave of another--Am _I_ willing to see my mother a slave, or my father,
my sister or my brother? If not, then in holding others as slaves, I am
doing what I would _not_ wish to be done to me or any relative I have;
and thus have I broken this golden rule which was given _me_ to walk by.

But some slaveholders have said, "we were never in bondage to any man,"
and therefore the yoke of bondage would be insufferable to us, but
slaves are accustomed to it, their backs are fitted to the burden. Well,
I am willing to admit that you who have lived in freedom would find
slavery even more oppressive than the poor slave does, but then you may
try this question in another form--Am I willing to reduce _my little
child_ to slavery? You know that _if it is brought up a slave_ it will
never know any contrast, between freedom and bondage, its back will
become fitted to the burden just as the negro child's does--_not by
nature_--but by daily, violent pressure, in the same way that the head
of the Indian child becomes flattened by the boards in which it is
bound. It has been justly remarked that "_God never made a slave_," he
made man upright; his back was _not_ made to carry burdens, nor his neck
to wear a yoke, and the _man_ must be crushed within him, before _his_
back can be _fitted_ to the burden of perpetual slavery; and that his
back is _not_ fitted to it, is manifest by the insurrections that so
often disturb the peace and security of slaveholding countries. Who ever
heard of a rebellion of the beasts of the field; and why not? simply
because _they_ were all placed _under the feet of man_, into whose hand
they were delivered; it was originally designed that they should serve
him, therefore their necks have been formed for the yoke, and their
backs for the burden; but _not so with man_, intellectual, immortal man!
I appeal to you, my friends, as mothers; Are you willing to enslave
_your_ children? You start back with horror and indignation at such a
question. But why, if slavery is _no wrong_ to those upon whom it is
imposed? why, if as has often been said, slaves are happier than their
masters, free from the cares and perplexities of providing for
themselves and their _wanting_? Try yourselves by another of the Divine
precepts, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Can we love a man
_as_ we love _ourselves if we do, and continue to do_ unto him, what we
would not wish any one to do to us? Look, too, at Christ's example, what
does he say of himself, "I came _not_ to be ministered unto, but to
minister." Can you for a moment imagine the meek and lowly, and
compassionate Saviour, _a slaveholder_? Do you not shudder at this
thought as much as at that of his being _a warrior_? But why, if slavery
is not sinful?

Again, it has been said, the Apostle Paul did not condemn slavery, for
he sent Onesimus back to Philemon. I do not think it can be said he sent
him back, for no coercion was made use of. Onesimus was not thrown into
prison and then sent back in chains to his master, as your runaway
slaves often are--this could not possibly have been the case, because
you know Paul as a Jew, was _bound to protect_ the runaway; _he had no
right_ to send _any_ fugitive back to his master. The state of the case
then seems to have been this. Onesimus had been an unprofitable servant
to Philemon and left him--he afterwards became converted under the
Apostle's preaching, and seeing that he had been to blame in his
conduct, and desiring by future fidelity to atone for past error, he
wished to return, and the Apostle gave him the letter we now have as a
recommendation to Philemon, informing him of the conversion of Onesimus,
and entreating him as "Paul the aged" "to receive him, _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. If thou
count _me_ therefore as a partner, _receive him as myself_." This, then,
surely cannot be forced into a justification of the practice of
returning runaway slaves back to their masters, to be punished with
cruel beatings and scourgings as they often are. Besides the word
_doulos_ here translated servant, is the same that is made use of in
Matt. xviii, 27. Now it appears that this servant _owed_ his lord ten
thousand talents; he possessed property to a vast amount. And what is
still more surprising, if he was a _slave_, is, that "forasmuch as he
had not to pay, his lord commanded _him_ to be sold, and his wife and
children, and all that he had, and payment to be made." Whoever heard of
a slaveholder selling a _slave_ and his family to pay himself a debt due
to him from a _slave_? What would he gain by it when the slave is
himself his _property_, and his wife and children also? Onesimus could
not, then, have been a _slave_, for slaves do not own their wives or
children; no, not even their own bodies, much less property. But again,
the servitude which the apostle was accustomed to, must have been very
different from American slavery, for he says, "the heir (or son), as
long as he is a child, differeth _nothing from a servant_, though he be
lord of all. But is under _tutors_ and governors until the time
appointed of the father." From this it appears, that the means of
_instruction_ were provided for _servants_ as well as children; and
indeed we know it must have been so among the Jews, because their
servants were not permitted to remain in perpetual bondage, and
therefore it was absolutely necessary they should be prepared to occupy
higher stations in society than those of servants. Is it so at the
South, my friends? Is the daily bread of instruction provided for _your
slaves_? are their minds enlightened, and they gradually prepared to
rise from the grade of menials into that of _free_, independent members
of the state? Let your own statute book, and your own daily experience,
answer these questions.

If this apostle sanctioned _slavery_, why did he exhort masters thus in
his epistle to the Ephesians, "and ye, masters, do the same things unto
them (i.e. perform your duties to your servants as unto Christ, not unto
men) _forbearing threatening_; knowing that your master also is in
heaven, neither is _there respect of persons with him_." And in
Colossians, "Masters give unto your servants that which is _just and
equal_, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." Let slaveholders
only _obey_ these injunctions of Paul, and I am satisfied slavery would
soon be abolished. If he thought it sinful even to _threaten_ servants,
surely he must have thought it sinful to flog and to beat them with
sticks and paddles; indeed, when delineating the character of a bishop,
he expressly names this as one feature of it, "_no striker_." Let
masters give unto their servants that which is _just_ and _equal_, and
all that vast system of unrequited labor would crumble into ruin. Yes,
and if they once felt they had no right to the _labor_ of their servants
without pay, surely they could not think they had a right to their
wives, their children, and their own bodies. Again, how can it be said
Paul sanctioned slavery, when, as though to put this matter beyond all
doubt, in that black catalogue of sins enumerated in his first epistle
to Timothy, he mentions "_menstealers_," which word may be translated
"_slavedealers_." But you may say, we all despise slavedealers as much
as any one can; they are never admitted into genteel or respectable
society. And why not? Is it not because even you shrink back from the
idea of associating with those who make their fortunes by trading in the
bodies and souls of men, women, and children? whose daily work it is to
break human hearts, by tearing wives from their husbands, and children
from their parents? But why hold slavedealers as despicable, if their
trade is lawful and virtuous? and why despise them more than the
_gentlemen of fortune and standing_ who employ them as _their_ agents?
Why more than the _professors of religion_ who barter their
fellow-professors to them for gold and silver? We do not despise the
land agent, or the physician, or the merchant, and why? Simply because
their processions are virtuous and honorable; and if the trade of
men-jobbers was honorable, you would not despise them either. There is
no difference in _principle_, in _Christian ethics_, between the
despised slavedealer and the _Christian_ who buys slaves from, or sells
slaves to him; indeed, if slaves were not wanted by the respectable, the
wealthy, and the religious in a community, there would be no slaves in
that community, and of course no _slavedealers_. It is then the
_Christians_ and the _honorable men_ and _women_ of the South, who are
the _main pillars_ of this grand temple built to Mammon and to Moloch.
It is the _most enlightened_, in every country who are _most_ to blame
when any public sin is supported by public opinion, hence Isaiah says,
"_When_ the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount _Zion_ and on
_Jerusalem_, (then) I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the
king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks." And was it not so?
Open the historical records of that age, was not Israel carried into
captivity B.C. 721, Judah B.C. 588, and the stout heart of the heathen
monarchy not punished until B.C. 536, fifty-two years _after_ Judah's,
and 185 years, _after_ Israel's captivity, when it was overthrown by
Cyrus, king of Persia? Hence, too, the apostle Peter says, "judgment
must _begin at the house of God_." Surely this would not be the case, if
the _professors of religion_ were not _most worthy_ of blame.

But it may be asked, why are _they_ most culpable? I will tell you, my
friends. It is because sin is imputed to us just in proportion to the
spiritual light we receive. Thus the prophet Amos says, in the name of
Jehovah, "_You only_ have I known of all the families of the earth:
_therefore_ I will punish _you_ for all your iniquities." Hear too the
doctrine of our Lord on this important subject: "The servant who _knew_
his Lord's will and _prepared not_ himself, neither did according to his
will, shall be beaten with _many stripes_:" and why? "For unto
whomsoever _much_ is given, _of him_ shall _much_ be required; and to
whom men have committed _much_, of _him_ they will ask the _more_." Oh!
then that the _Christians_ of the south would ponder these things in
their hearts, and awake to the vast responsibilities which rest _upon
them_ at this important crisis.

I have thus, I think, clearly proved to you seven propositions, viz.:
First, that slavery is contrary to the declaration of our independence.
Second, that it is contrary to the first charter of human rights given
to Adam, and renewed to Noah. Third, that the fact of slavery having
been the subject of prophecy, furnishes _no_ excuse whatever to
slaveholders. Fourth, that no such system existed under the patriarchal
dispensation. Fifth, that _slavery never_ existed under the Jewish
dispensation; but so far otherwise, that every servant was placed under
the _protection of law_, and care taken not only to prevent all
_involuntary_ servitude, but all _voluntary perpetual_ bondage. Sixth,
that slavery in America reduces a _man_ to a _thing_, a "chattel
personal," _robs him_ of _all_ his rights as a _human being_, fetters
both his mind and body, and protects the _master_ in the most unnatural
and unreasonable power, whilst it _throws him out_ of the protection of
law. Seventh, that slavery is contrary to the example and precepts of
our holy and merciful Redeemer, and of his apostles.

But perhaps you will be ready to query, why appeal to _women_ on this
subject? _We_ do not make the laws which perpetuate slavery. _No_
legislative power is vested in _us; we_ can do nothing to overthrow the
system, even if we wished to do so. To this I reply, I know you do not
make the laws, but I also know that _you are the wives and mothers, the
sisters and daughters of those who do_; and if you really suppose _you_
can do nothing to overthrow slavery, you are greatly mistaken. You can
do much in every way: four things I will name. 1st. You can read on this
subject. 2d. You can pray over this subject. 3d. You can speak on this
subject. 4th. You can act on this subject. I have not placed reading
before praying because I regard it more important, but because, in order
to pray right, we must understand what we are praying for; it is only
then we can "pray with the understanding and the spirit also."

1. Read then on the subject of slavery. Search the Scriptures daily,
whether the things I have told you are true. Other books and papers
might be a great help to you in this investigation, but they are not
necessary, and it is hardly probable that your Committees of Vigilance
will allow you to have any other. The _Bible_ then is the book I want
you to read in the spirit of inquiry, and the spirit of prayer. Even the
enemies of Abolitionists, acknowledge that their doctrines are drawn
from it. In the great mob in Boston, last autumn, when the books and
papers of the Anti-Slavery Society, were thrown out of the windows of
their office, one individual laid hold of the Bible and was about
tossing it out to the crowd, when another reminded him that it was the
Bible he had in his hand. _"Oh! 'tis all one,"_ he replied, and out went
the sacred volume, along with the rest. We thank him for the
acknowledgment. _Yes, "it is all one,"_ for our books and papers are
mostly commentaries on the Bible, and the Declaration. Read the _Bible_
then; it contains the words of Jesus, and they are spirit and life.
Judge for yourselves whether _he sanctioned_ such a system of oppression
and crime.

2. Pray over this subject. When you have entered into your closets, and
shut to the doors, then pray to your father, who seeth in secret, that
he would open your eyes to see whether slavery is _sinful_, and if it
is, that he would enable you to bear a faithful, open and unshrinking
testimony against it, and to do whatsoever your hands find to do,
leaving the consequences entirely to him, who still says to us whenever
we try to reason away duty from the fear of consequences, _"What is that
to thee, follow thou me."_ Pray also for the poor slave, that he may be
kept patient and submissive under his hard lot, until God is pleased to
open the door of freedom to him without violence or bloodshed. Pray too
for the master that his heart may be softened, and he made willing to
acknowledge, as Joseph's brethren did, "Verily we are guilty concerning
our brother," before he will be compelled to add in consequence of
Divine judgment, "therefore is all this evil come upon us." Pray also
for all your brethren and sisters who are laboring in the righteous
cause of Emancipation in the Northern States, England and the world.
There is great encouragement for prayer in these words of our Lord.
"Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in any name, he will give it to
you"--Pray then without ceasing, in the closet and the social circle.

3. Speak on this subject. It is through the tongue, the pen, and the
press, that truth is principally propagated. Speak then to your
relatives, your friends, your acquaintances on the subject of slavery;
be not afraid if you are conscientiously convinced it is _sinful_, to
say so openly, but calmly, and to let your sentiments be known. If you
are served by the slaves of others, try to ameliorate their condition as
much as possible; never aggravate their faults, and thus add fuel to the
fire of anger already kindled, in a master and mistress's bosom;
remember their extreme ignorance, and consider them as your Heavenly
Father does the _less_ culpable on this account, even when they do wrong
things. Discountenance _all_ cruelty to them, all starvation, all
corporal chastisement; these may brutalize and _break_ their spirits,
but will never bend them to willing, cheerful obedience. If possible,
see that they are comfortably and _seasonably_ fed, whether in the house
or the field; it is unreasonable and cruel to expect slaves to wait for
their breakfast until eleven o'clock, when they rise at five or six. Do
all you can, to induce their owners to clothe them well, and to allow
them many little indulgences which would contribute to their comfort.
Above all, try to persuade your husband, father, brothers and sons, that
_slavery is a crime against God and man_, and that it is a great sin to
keep _human beings_ in such abject ignorance; to deny them the privilege
of learning to read and write. The Catholics are universally condemned,
for denying the Bible to the common people, but, _slaveholders must not_
blame them, for _they_ are doing the _very same thing_, and for the very
same reason, neither of these systems can bear the light which bursts
from the pages of that Holy Book. And lastly, endeavour to inculcate
submission on the part of the slaves, but whilst doing this be faithful
in pleading the cause of the oppressed.


  "Will _you_ behold unheeding,
    Life's holiest feelings crushed,
  Where _woman's_ heart is bleeding,
    Shall _woman's_ voice be hushed?"


4. Act on this subject. Some of you _own_ slaves yourselves. If you
believe slavery is _sinful_, set them at liberty, "undo the heavy
burdens and let the oppressed go free." If they wish to remain with you,
pay them wages, if not, let them leave you. Should they remain, teach
them, and have them taught the common branches of an English education;
they have minds, and those minds _ought to be improved_. So precious a
talent as intellect, never was given to be wrapt in a napkin and buried
in the earth. It is the _duty_ of all, as far as they can, to improve
their own mental faculties, because we are commanded to love God with
_all our minds_, as well as with all our hearts, and we commit a great
sin, if we _forbid or prevent_ that cultivation of the mind in others,
which would enable them to perform this duty. Teach your servants, then,
to read, &c., and encourage them to believe it is their _duty_ to learn,
if it were only that they might read the Bible.

But some of you will say, we can neither free our slaves nor teach them
to read, for the laws of our state forbid it. Be not surprised when I
say such wicked laws _ought to be no barrier_ in the way of your duty,
and I appeal to the Bible to prove this position. What was the conduct
of Shiprah and Puah, when the king of Egypt issued his cruel mandate,
with regard to the Hebrew children? "_They_ feared _God_, and did _not_
as the King of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive."
And be it remembered, that it was through _their_ faithfulness that
Moses was preserved. This great and immediate emancipator was indebted
to a _woman_ for his spared life, and he became a blessing to the whole
Jewish nation. Did these _women_ do right in disobeying that monarch?
"_Therefore_ (says the sacred text,) _God dealt well_ with them, and
made them houses" Ex. i. What was the conduct of Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abednego, when Nebuchadnezzar set up a golden image in the plain of
Dura, and commanded all people, nations, and languages, to fall down and
worship it? "Be it known, unto thee, (said these faithful _Jews_) O
king, that _we will not_ serve thy gods, nor worship the image which
thou hast set up." Did these men _do right in disobeying the law_ of
their sovereign? Let their miraculous deliverance from the burning fiery
furnace, answer; Dan. iii. What was the conduct of Daniel, when Darius
made a firm decree that no one should ask a petition of any man or God
for thirty days? Did the prophet cease to pray? No! "When Daniel _knew
that the writing was signed_, he went into his house, and his windows
being _open_ towards Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a
day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime."
Did Daniel do right thus to _break_ the law of his king? Let his
wonderful deliverance out of the mouths of the lions answer; Dan. vii.
Look, too, at the Apostles Peter and John. When the rulers of the Jews,
"_commanded them not_ to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus,"
what did they say? "Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken
unto you more than unto God, judge ye." And what did they do? "They
spake the word of God with boldness, and with great power gave the
Apostles witness of the _resurrection_ of the Lord Jesus;" although
_this_ was the very doctrine, for the preaching of which, they had just
been cast into prison, and further threatened. Did these men do right? I
leave _you_ to answer, who now enjoy the benefits of their labors and
sufferings, in that Gospel they dared to preach when positively
commanded _not to teach any more_ in the name of Jesus; Acts iv.

But some of you may say, if we do free our slaves, they will be taken up
and sold, therefore there will be no use in doing it. Peter and John
might just as well have said, we will not preach the gospel, for if we
do, we shall be taken up and put in prison, therefore there will be no
use in our preaching. _Consequences_, my friends, belong no more to
_you_, than they did to these apostles. Duty is ours and events are
God's. If you think slavery is sinful, all _you_ have to do is to set
your slaves at liberty, do all you can to protect them, and in humble
faith and fervent prayer, commend them to your common Father. He can
take care of them; but if for wise purposes he sees fit to allow them to
be sold, this will afford you an opportunity of testifying openly,
wherever you go, against the crime of _manstealing_. Such an act will be
_clear robbery_, and if exposed, might, under the Divine direction, do
the cause of Emancipation more good, than any thing that could happen,
for, "He makes even the wrath of man to praise him, and the remainder of
wrath he will restrain."

I know that this doctrine of obeying _God_, rather than man, will be
considered as dangerous, and heretical by many, but I am not afraid
openly to avow it, because it is the doctrine of the Bible; but I would
not be understood to advocate resistance to any law however oppressive,
if, in obeying it, I was not obliged to commit _sin_. If for instance,
there was a law, which imposed imprisonment or a fine upon me if I
manumitted a slave, I would on no account resist that law, I would set
the slave free, and then go to prison or suffer the penalty. If a law
commands me to _sin I will break it_; if it calls me to _suffer_, I will
let it take its course _unresistingly_. The doctrine of blind obedience
and unqualified submission to _any human_ power, whether civil or
ecclesiastical, is the doctrine of despotism, and ought to have no place
among Republicans and Christians.

But you will perhaps say, such a course of conduct would inevitably
expose us to great suffering. Yes! my christian friends, I believe it
would, but this will _not_ excuse you or any one else for the neglect of
_duty_. If Prophets and Apostles, Martyrs, and Reformers had not been
willing to suffer for the truth's sake, where would the world have been
now? If they had said, we cannot speak the truth, we cannot do what we
believe is right, because the _laws of our country or public opinion are
against us_, where would our holy religion have been now? The Prophets
were stoned, imprisoned, and killed by the Jews. And why? Because they
exposed and openly rebuked public sins; they opposed public opinion; had
they held their peace, they all might have lived in ease and died in
favor with a wicked generation. Why were the Apostles persecuted from
city to city, stoned, incarcerated, beaten, and crucified? Because they
dared to _speak the truth_; to tell the Jews, boldly and fearlessly,
that _they_ were the _murderers_ of the Lord of Glory, and that, however
great a stumbling-block the Cross might be to them, there was no other
name given under heaven by which men could be saved, but the name of
Jesus. Because they declared, even at Athens, the seat of learning and
refinement, the self-evident truth, that "they be no gods that are made
with men's hands", and exposed to the Grecians the foolishness of
worldly wisdom, and the impossibility of salvation but through Christ,
whom they despised on account of the ignominious death he died. Because
at Rome, the proud mistress of the world, they thundered out the terrors
of the law upon that idolatrous, war-making, and slave-holding
community. Why were the martyrs stretched upon the rack, gibbetted and
burnt, the scorn and diversion of a Nero, whilst their tarred and
burning bodies sent up a light which illuminated the Roman capital? Why
were the Waldenses hunted like wild beasts upon the mountains of
Piedmont, and slain with the sword of the Duke of Savoy and the proud
monarch of France? Why were the Presbyterians chased like the partridge
over the highlands of Scotland--the Methodists pumped, and stoned, and
pelted with rotten eggs--the Quakers incarcerated in filthy prisons,
beaten, whipped at the cart's tail, banished and hung? Because they
dared to _speak_ the _truth_, to _break_ the unrighteous _laws_ of their
country, and chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God,
"not accepting deliverance," even under the gallows. Why were Luther and
Calvin persecuted and excommunicated, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer
burnt? Because they fearlessly proclaimed the truth, though that truth
was contrary to public opinion, and the authority of Ecclesiastical
councils and conventions. Now all this vast amount of human suffering
might have been saved. All these Prophets and Apostles, Martyrs, and
Reformers, might have lived and died in peace with all men, but
following the example of their great pattern, "they despised the shame,
endured the cross, and are now set down on the right hand of the throne
of God," having received the glorious welcome of "well _done_ good and
faithful servants, enter ye into the joy of your Lord."

But you may say we are _women_, how can _our_ hearts endure persecution?
And why not? Have not _women_ arisen in all the dignity and strength of
moral courage to be the leaders of the people, and to bear a faithful
testimony for the truth whenever the providence of God has called them
to do so? Are there no _women_ in that noble army of martyrs who are now
singing the song of Moses and the Lamb? Who led out the women of Israel
from the house of bondage, striking the timbrel, and singing the song of
deliverance on the banks of that sea whose waters stood up like walls of
crystal to open a passage for their escape? It was a _woman_; Miriam,
the prophetess, the sister of Moses and Aaron. Who went up with Barak to
Kadesh to fight against Jabin, King of Canaan, into whose hand Israel
had been sold because of their iniquities? It was a _woman_! Deborah the
wife of Lapidoth, the judge, as well as the prophetess of that
backsliding people; Judges iv, 9. Into whose hands was Sisera, the
captain of Jabin's host delivered? Into the hand of a _woman_. Jael the
wife of Heber! Judges vi, 21. Who dared to _speak the truth_ concerning
those judgments which were coming upon Judea, when Josiah, alarmed at
finding that his people "had not kept the word of the Lord to do after
all that was written in the book of the Law," sent to enquire of the
Lord concerning these things? It was a _woman_. Huldah the prophetess,
the wife of Shallum; 2, Chron. xxxiv, 22. Who was chosen to deliver the
whole Jewish nation from that murderous decree of Persia's King, which
wicked Haman had obtained by calumny and fraud? It was a _woman_; Esther
the Queen; yes, weak and trembling _woman_ was the instrument appointed
by God, to reverse the bloody mandate of the eastern monarch, and save
the _whole visible church_ from destruction. What human voice first
proclaimed to Mary that she should be the mother of our Lord? It was a
_woman_! Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias; Luke i, 42, 43. Who united
with the good old Simeon in giving thanks publicly in the temple, when
the child, Jesus, was presented there by his parents, "and spake of him
to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem?" It was a _woman_!
Anna the prophetess. Who first proclaimed Christ as the true Messiah in
the streets of Samaria, once the capital of the ten tribes? It was a
_woman_! Who ministered to the Son of God whilst on earth, a despised
and persecuted Reformer, in the humble garb of a carpenter? They were
_women_! Who followed the rejected King of Israel, as his fainting
footsteps trod the road to Calvary? "A great company of people and of
_women_;" and it is remarkable that to _them alone_, he turned and
addressed the pathetic language, "Daughters of Jerusalem weep not for
me, but weep for yourselves and your children." Ah! who sent unto the
Roman Governor when he was set down on the judgment seat, saying unto
him, "Have thou nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered
many things this day in a dream because of him?" It was a _woman_! the
wife of Pilate. Although "_he knew_ that for envy the Jews had delivered
Christ," yet _he_ consented to surrender the Son of God into the hands
of a brutal soldiery, after having himself scourged his naked body. Had
the _wife_ of Pilate sat upon that judgment seat, what would have been
the result of the trial of this "just person?"

And who last hung round the cross of Jesus on the mountain of Golgotha?
Who first visited the sepulchre early in the morning on the first day of
the week, carrying sweet spices to embalm his precious body, not knowing
that it was incorruptible and could not be holden by the bands of death?
These were _women_! To whom did he _first_ appear after his
resurrection? It was to a _woman_! Mary Magdalene; Mark xvi, 9. Who
gathered with the apostles to wait at Jerusalem, in prayer and
supplication, for "the promise of the Father;" the spiritual blessing of
the Great High Priest of his Church, who had entered, _not_ into the
splendid temple of Solomon, there to offer the blood of bulls, and of
goats, and the smoking censer upon the golden altar, but into Heaven
itself, there to present his intercessions, after having "given himself
for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor?"
_Women_ were among that holy company; Acts i, 14. And did _women_ wait
in vain? Did those who had ministered to his necessities, followed in
his train, and wept at his crucifixion, wait in vain? No! No! Did the
cloven tongues of fire descend upon the heads of _women_ as well as men?
Yes, my friends, "it sat upon _each one of them_;" Acts ii, 3. _Women_
as well as men were to be living stones in the temple of grace, and
therefore _their_ heads were consecrated by the descent of the Holy
Ghost as well as those of men. Were _women_ recognized as fellow
laborers in the gospel field? They were! Paul says in his epistle to the
Philippians, "help those _women_ who labored with me, in the gospel;"
Phil. iv, 3.

But this is not all. Roman _women_ were burnt at the stake, _their_
delicate limbs were torn joint from joint by the ferocious beasts of the
Ampitheatre, and tossed by the wild bull in his fury, for the diversion
of that idolatrous, warlike, and slaveholding people. Yes, _women_
suffered under the ten persecutions of heathen Rome, with the most
unshrinking constancy and fortitude; not all the entreaties of friends,
nor the claims of new born infancy, nor the cruel threats of enemies
could make _them_ sprinkle one grain of incense upon the altars of Roman
idols. Come now with me to the beautiful valleys of Piedmont. Whose
blood stains the green sward, and decks the wild flowers with colors not
their own, and smokes on the sword of persecuting France? It is
_woman's_, as well as man's? Yes, _women_ were accounted as sheep for
the slaughter, and were cut down as the tender saplings of the wood.

But time would fail me, to tell of all those hundreds and thousands of
_women_, who perished in the Low countries of Holland, when Alva's sword
of vengeance was unsheathed against the Protestants, when the Catholic
Inquisitions of Europe became the merciless executioners of vindictive
wrath, upon those who dared to worship God, instead of bowing down in
unholy adoration before "my Lord God the _Pope_," and when England, too,
burnt her Ann Ascoes at the stake of martyrdom. Suffice it to say, that
the Church, after having been driven from Judea to Rome, and from Rome
to Piedmont, and from Piedmont to England, and from England to Holland,
at last stretched her fainting wings over the dark bosom of the
Atlantic, and found on the shores of a great wilderness, a refuge from
tyranny and oppression--as she thought, but _even here_, (the warm blush
of shame mantles my cheek as I write it,) _even here, woman_ was beaten
and banished, imprisoned, and hung upon the gallows, a trophy to the
Cross. And what, I would ask in conclusion, have _women_ done for the
great and glorious cause of Emancipation? Who wrote that pamphlet which
moved the heart of Wilberforce to pray over the wrongs, and his tongue
to plead the cause of the oppressed African? It was a _woman_, Elizabeth
Heyrick. Who labored assiduously to keep the sufferings of the slave
continually before the British public? They were _women_. And how did
they do it? By their needles, paint brushes and pens, by speaking the
truth, and petitioning Parliament for the abolition of slavery. And what
was the effect of their labors? Read it in the Emancipation bill of
Great Britain. Read it, in the present state of her West India Colonies.
Read it, in the impulse which has been given to the cause of freedom, in
the United States of America. Have English women then done so much for
the negro, and shall American women do nothing? Oh no! Already are there
sixty female Anti-Slavery Societies in operation. These are doing just
what the English women did, telling the story of the colored man's
wrongs, praying for his deliverance, and presenting his kneeling image
constantly before the public eye on bags and needle-books, card-racks,
pen-wipers, pin-cushions, &c. Even the children of the north are
inscribing on their handy work, "May the points of our needles prick the
slaveholder's conscience." Some of the reports of these Societies
exhibit not only considerable talent, but a deep sense of religious
duty, and a determination to persevere through evil as well as good
report, until every scourge, and every shackle, is buried under the feet
of the manumitted slave.

The Ladies' Anti-Slavery Society of Boston was called last fall, to a
severe trial of their faith and constancy. They were mobbed by "the
gentlemen of property and standing," in that city at their anniversary
meeting, and their lives were jeoparded by an infuriated crowd; but
their conduct on that occasion did credit to our sex, and affords a full
assurance that they will _never_ abandon the cause of the slave. The
pamphlet, Right and Wrong in Boston, issued by them in which a
particular account is given of that "mob of broad cloth in broad day,"
does equal credit to the head and the heart of her who wrote it. I wish
my Southern sisters could read it; they would then understand that the
women of the North have engaged in this work from a sense of _religious
duty_, and that nothing will ever induce them to take their hands from
it until it is fully accomplished. They feel no hostility to you, no
bitterness or wrath; they rather sympathize in your trials and
difficulties; but they well know that the first thing to be done to help
you, is to pour in the light of truth on your minds, to urge you to
reflect on, and pray over the subject. This is all _they_ can do for
you, _you_ must work out your own deliverance with fear and trembling,
and with the direction and blessing of God, _you can do it_. Northern
women may labor to produce a correct public opinion at the North, but if
Southern women sit down in listless indifference and criminal idleness,
public opinion cannot be rectified and purified at the South. It is
manifest to every reflecting mind, that slavery must be abolished; the
era in which we live, and the light which is overspreading the whole
world on this subject, clearly show that the time cannot be distant when
it will be done. Now there are only two ways in which it can be
effected, by moral power or physical force, and it is for _you_ to
choose which of these you prefer. Slavery always has, and always will
produce insurrections wherever it exists, because it is a violation of
the natural order of things, and no human power can much longer
perpetuate it. The opposers of abolitionists fully believe this; one of
them remarked to me not long since, there is no doubt there will be a
most terrible overturning at the South in a few years, such cruelty and
wrong, must be visited with Divine vengeance soon. Abolitionists
believe, too, that this must inevitably be the case if you do not
repent, and they are not willing to leave you to perish without
entreating you, to save yourselves from destruction; well may they say
with the apostle, "am I then your enemy because I tell you the truth,"
and warn you to flee from impending judgments.

But why, my dear friends, have I thus been endeavoring to lead you
through the history of more than three thousand years, and to point you
to that great cloud of witnesses who have gone before, "from works to
rewards?" Have I been seeking to magnify the sufferings, and exalt the
character of woman, that she "might have praise of men?" No! no! my
object has been to arouse _you_, as the wives and mothers, the daughters
and sisters, of the South, to a sense of your duty as _women_, and as
Christian women, on that great subject, which has already shaken our
country, from the St. Lawrence and the lakes, to the Gulf of Mexico, and
from the Mississippi to the shores of the Atlantic; _and will continue
mightily to shake it_, until the polluted temple of slavery fall and
crumble into ruin. I would say unto each one of you, "what meanest thou,
O sleeper! arise and call upon thy God, if so be that God will think
upon us that we perish not." Perceive you not that dark cloud of
vengeance which hangs over our boasting Republic? Saw you not the
lightnings of Heaven's wrath, in the flame which leaped from the
Indian's torch to the roof of yonder dwelling, and lighted with its
horrid glare the darkness of midnight? Heard you not the thunders of
Divine anger, as the distant roar of the cannon came rolling onward,
from the Texian country, where Protestant American Rebels are fighting
with Mexican Republicans--for what? For the re-establishment of
_slavery_; yes! of American slavery in the bosom of a Catholic Republic,
where that system of robbery, violence, and wrong, had been legally
abolished for twelve years. Yes! citizens of the United States, after
plundering Mexico of her land, are now engaged in deadly conflict, for
the privilege of fastening chains, and collars, and manacles--upon whom?
upon the subjects of some foreign prince? No! upon native born American
Republican citizens, although the fathers of these very men declared to
the whole world, while struggling to free themselves from the three
penny taxes of an English king, that they believed it to be a
_self-evident_ truth that _all men_ were created equal, and had an
_unalienable right to liberty_.

Well may the poet exclaim in bitter sarcasm,


  "The fustian flag that proudly waves
  In solemn mockery o'er _a land of slaves_."


Can you not, my friends, understand the signs of the times; do you not
see the sword of retributive justice hanging over the South, or are you
still slumbering at your posts?--Are there no Shiphrahs, no Puahs among
you, who will dare in Christian firmness and Christian meekness, to
refuse to obey the _wicked laws_ which require _woman to enslave, to
degrade and to brutalize woman_? Are there no Miriams, who would rejoice
to lead out the captive daughters of the Southern States to liberty and
light? Are there no Huldahs there who will dare to _speak the truth_
concerning the sins of the people and those judgments, which it requires
no prophet's eye to see, must follow if repentance is not speedily
sought? Is there no Esther among you who will plead for the poor devoted
slave? Read the history of this Persian queen, it is full of
instruction; she at first refused to plead for the Jews; but, hear the
words of Mordecai, "Think not within thyself, that _thou_ shalt escape
in the king's house more than all the Jews, for _if thou altogether
holdest thy peace at this time_, then shall there enlargement and
deliverance arise to the Jews from another place: but _thou and thy
father's house shall be destroyed_." Listen, too, to her magnanimous
reply to this powerful appeal; "_I will_ go in unto the king, which is
_not_ according to law, and if I perish, I perish." Yes! if there were
but _one_ Esther at the South, she _might_ save her country from ruin;
but let the Christian women there arise, as the Christian women of Great
Britain did, in the majesty of moral power, and that salvation is
certain. Let them embody themselves in societies, and send petitions up
to their different legislatures, entreating their husbands, fathers,
brothers and sons, to abolish the institution of slavery; no longer to
subject _woman_ to the scourge and the chain, to mental darkness and
moral degradation; no longer to tear husbands from their wives, and
children from their parents; no longer to make men, women, and children,
work _without wages_; no longer to make their lives bitter in hard
bondage; no longer to reduce _American citizens_ to the abject condition
of _slaves_, of "chattels personal;" no longer to barter the _image of
God_ in human shambles for corruptible things such as silver and gold.

The _women of the South can overthrow_ this horrible system of
oppression and cruelty, licentiousness and wrong. Such appeals to your
legislatures would be irresistible, for there is something in the heart
of man which _will bend under moral suasion_. There is a swift witness
for truth in his bosom, which _will respond to truth_ when it is uttered
with calmness and dignity. If you could obtain but six signatures to
such a petition in only one state, I would say, send up that petition,
and be not in the least discouraged by the scoffs and jeers of the
heartless, or the resolution of the house to lay it on the table. It
will be a great thing if the subject can be introduced into your
legislatures in any way, even by _women_, and _they_ will be the most
likely to introduce it there in the best possible manner, as a matter of
_morals_ and _religion_, not of expediency or politics. You may
petition, too, the different ecclesiastical bodies of the slave states.
Slavery must be attacked with the whole power of truth and the sword of
the spirit. You must take it up on _Christian_ ground, and fight against
it with Christian weapons, whilst your feet are shod with the
preparation of the gospel of peace. And _you are now_ loudly called upon
by the cries of the widow and the orphan, to arise and gird yourselves
for this great moral conflict "with the whole armour of righteousness on
the right hand and on the left."

There is every encouragement for you to labor and pray, my friends,
because the abolition of slavery as well as its existence, has been the
theme of prophecy. "Ethiopia (says the Psalmist) shall stretch forth her
hands unto God." And is she not now doing so? Are not the Christian
negroes of the south lifting their hands in prayer for deliverance, just
as the Israelites did when their redemption was drawing nigh? Are they
not sighing and crying by reason of the hard bondage? And think you,
that He, of whom it was said, "and God heard their groaning, and their
cry came up unto him by reason of the hard bondage," think you that his
ear is heavy that he cannot _now_ hear the cries of his suffering
children? Or that He who raised up a Moses, an Aaron, and a Miriam, to
bring them up out of the land of Egypt from the house of bondage, cannot
now, with a high hand and a stretched out arm, rid the poor negroes out
of the hands of their masters? Surely you believe that his arm is _not_
shortened that he cannot save. And would not such a work of mercy
redound to his glory? But another string of the harp of prophecy
vibrates to the song of deliverance: "But they shall sit every man under
his vine, and under his fig-tree, and _none shall make them afraid_; for
the mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it." The _slave_ never can do
this as long as he is a _slave_; whilst he is a "chattel personal" he
can own _no_ property; but the time _is to come_ when _every_ man is to
sit under _his own_ vine and _his own_ fig-tree, and no domineering
driver, or irresponsible master, or irascible mistress, shall make him
afraid of the chain or the whip. Hear, too, the sweet tones of another
string: "Many shall run to and fro, and _knowledge_ shall be increased."
Slavery is an insurmountable barrier to the increase of knowledge in
every community where it exists; _slavery, then, must be abolished
before_ this prediction can be fulfilled. The last chord I shall touch,
will be this, "They shall _not_ hurt nor destroy in all my holy
mountain."

_Slavery, then, must be overthrown before_ the prophecies can be
accomplished, but how are they to be fulfilled? Will the wheels of the
millennial car be rolled onward by miraculous power? No! God designs to
confer this holy privilege upon _woman_; it is through _their_
instrumentality that the great and glorious work of reforming the world
is to be done. And see you not how the mighty engine of _moral power_ is
dragging in its rear the Bible and peace societies, anti-slavery and
temperance, sabbath schools, moral reform, and missions? or to adopt
another figure, do not these seven philanthropic associations compose
the beautiful tints in that bow of promise which spans the arch of our
moral heaven? Who does not believe, that if these societies were broken
up, their constitutions burnt, and the vast machinery with which they
are laboring to regenerate mankind was stopped, that the black clouds of
vengeance would soon, burst over our world, and every city would witness
the fate of the devoted cities of the plain? Each one of these societies
is walking abroad through the earth scattering the seeds of truth over
the wide field of our world, not with the hundred hands of a Briareus,
but with a hundred thousand.

Another encouragement for you to labor, my friends, is, that you will
have the prayers and co-operation of English and Northern
philanthropists. You will never bend your knees in supplication at the
throne of grace for the overthrow of slavery, without meeting there the
spirits of other Christians, who will mingle their voices with yours, as
the morning or evening sacrifice ascends to God. Yes, the spirit of
prayer and of supplication has been poured out upon many, many hearts;
there are wrestling Jacobs who will not let go of the prophetic promises
of deliverance for the captive, and the opening, of prison doors to them
that are bound. There are Pauls who are saying, in reference to this
subject, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" There are Marys sitting
in the house now, who are ready to arise and go forth in this work as
soon as the message is brought, "the master is come and calleth for
thee." And there are Marthas, too, who have already gone out to meet
Jesus, as he bends his footsteps to their brother's grave, and weeps,
_not_ over the lifeless body of Lazarus bound hand and foot in
grave-clothes, but over the politically and intellectually lifeless
slave, bound hand and foot in the iron chains of oppression and
ignorance. Some may be ready to say, as Martha did, who seemed to expect
nothing but sympathy from Jesus, "Lord, by this time he stinketh, for he
hath been dead four days." She thought it useless to remove the stone
and expose the loathsome body of her brother; she could not believe that
so great a miracle could be wrought, as to raise _that putrified body_
into life; but "Jesus said, take _ye_ away the stone;" and when _they_
had taken away the stone where the dead was laid, and uncovered the body
of Lazarus, then it was that "Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father,
I thank thee that thou hast heard me," &c. "And when he had thus spoken,
he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth." Yes, some may be ready
to say of the colored race, how can _they_ ever be raised politically
and intellectually, they have been dead four hundred years? But _we_
have _nothing_ to do with _how_ this is to be done; _our business_ is to
take away the stone which has covered up the dead body of our brother,
to expose the putrid carcass, to show _how_ that body has been bound
with the grave-clothes of heathen ignorance, and his face with the
napkin of prejudice, and having done all it was our duty to do, to stand
by the negro's grave, in humble faith and holy hope, waiting to hear the
life-giving command of "Lazarus, come forth." This is just what
Anti-Slavery Societies are doing; they are taking away the stone from
the mouth of the tomb of slavery, where lies the putrid carcass of our
brother. They want the pure light of heaven to shine into that dark and
gloomy cave; they want all men to see _how_ that dead body has been
bound, _how_ that face has been wrapped in the _napkin of prejudice_;
and shall they wait beside that grave in vain? Is not Jesus still the
resurrection and the life? Did He come to proclaim liberty to the
captive, and the opening of prison doors to them that are bound, in
vain? Did He promise to give beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for
mourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness unto
them that mourn in Zion, and will He refuse to beautify the mind, anoint
the head, and throw around the captive negro the mantle of praise for
that spirit of heaviness which has so long bowed him down to the ground?
Or shall we not rather say with the prophet, "the zeal of the Lord of
Hosts _will_ perform this?" Yes, his promises are sure, and amen in
Christ Jesus, that he will assemble her that halteth, and gather her
that is driven out, and her that is afflicted.

But I will now say a few words on the subject of Abolitionism. Doubtless
you have all heard Anti-Slavery Societies denounced as insurrectionary
and mischievous, fanatical and dangerous. It has been said they publish
the most abominable untruths, and that they are endeavoring to excite
rebellions at the South. Have you believed these reports, my friends?
have _you_ also been deceived by these false assertions? Listen to me,
then, whilst I endeavor to wipe from the fair character of Abolitionism
such unfounded accusations. You know that _I_ am a Southerner: your know
that my dearest relatives are now in a slave State. Can you for a moment
believe I would prove so recreant to the feelings of a daughter and a
sister, as to join a society which seeking to overthrow slavery by
falsehood, bloodshed and murder? I appeal to you who have known and
loved me in days that are passed, can _you_ believe it? No! my friends.
As a Carolinian, I was peculiarly jealous of any movements on this
subject; and before I would join an Anti-Slavery Society, I took the
precaution of becoming acquainted with some of the leading
Abolitionists, of reading their publications and attending their
meetings, at which I heard addresses both from colored and white men;
and it was not until I was fully convinced that their principles were
_entirely pacific,_ and their efforts _only moral,_ that I gave my name
as a member to the Female Anti-Slavery Society of Philadelphia. Since
that time, I have regularly taken the Liberator, and read many
Anti-Slavery pamphlets and papers and books, and can assure you I
_never_ have seen a single insurrectionary paragraph, and never read any
account of cruelty which I could not believe. Southerners may deny the
truth of these accounts, but why do they not _prove_ them to be false.
Their violent expressions of horror at such accounts being believed,
_may_ deceive some, but they cannot deceive _me,_ for I lived too long
in the midst of slavery, not to know what slavery is. Such declarations
remind me of an assertion made by a Catholic priest, who said that his
Church had never persecuted Protestants for their religion, when it is
well known that the pages of history are black with the crimes of the
Inquisition. Oh! if the slaves of the South could only write a book, it
would vie, I have no doubt, with the horrible details of Catholic
cruelty. When _I_ speak of this system, "I speak that I do know," and I
am not afraid to assert, that Anti-Slavery publications have _not_
overdrawn the monstrous features of slavery at all. And many a
Southerner _knows_ this as well as I do. A lady in North Carolina
remarked to a friend of mine, about eighteen months since, "Northerners
know nothing at all about slavery; they think it is perpetual bondage
only; but of the _depth of degradation_ that word involves, they have no
conception; if they had, _they would never cease_ their efforts until so
_horrible_ a system was overthrown." She did not, know how faithfully
some Northern men and Northern women had studied this subject; how
diligently they had searched out the cause of "him who had none to help
him," and how fearlessly they had told the story of the negro's wrongs.
Yes, Northerners know _every_ thing about slavery now. This monster of
iniquity has been unveiled to the world, his frightful features
unmasked, and soon, very soon, will he be regarded with no more
complacency by the American republic than is the idol of Juggernaut,
rolling its bloody wheels over the crushed bodies of its prostrate
victims.

But you will probably ask, if Anti-Slavery societies are not
insurrectionary, why do Northerners tell us they are! Why, I would ask
you in return, did Northern senators and Northern representatives give
their votes, at the last sitting of congress, to the admission of
Arkansas Territory as a slave state? Take those men, one by one, and ask
them in their parlours, do you _approve of slavery?_ ask them on
_Northern_ ground, where they will speak the truth, and I doubt not
_every man_ of them will tell you, _no_! Why then, I ask, did _they_
give their votes to enlarge the mouth of that grave which has already
destroyed its tens of thousands! All our enemies tell _us_ they are as
much anti slavery as we are. Yes, my friends, thousands who are helping
you to bind the fetters of slavery on the negro, despise you in their
hearts for doing it; they rejoice that such an institution has not been
entailed upon them. Why then, I would ask, do _they_ lend you their
help? I will tell you, "they love _the praise of men more_ than the
praise of God." The Abolition cause has not yet become so popular as to
induce them to believe, that by advocating it in congress, they shall
sit still more securely in their seats there, and like the _chief
rulers_ in the days of our Saviour, though _many_ believed on him, yet
they did _not_ confess him, lest they should _be put out of the
synagogue_; John xii, 42, 43. Or perhaps like Pilate, thinking they
could prevail nothing, and fearing a tumult, they determined to release
Barabbas and surrender the just man, the poor innocent slave to be
stripped of his rights and scourged. In vain will such men try to wash
their hands, and say, with the Roman governor, "I am innocent of the
blood of this just person." Northern American statesmen are no more
innocent of the crime of slavery, than Pilate was of the murder of
Jesus, or Saul of that of Stephen. These are high charges, but I appeal
to _their hearts_; I appeal to public opinion ten years from now.
Slavery then is a national sin.

But you will say, a great many other Northerners tell us so, who can
have no political motives. The interests of the North, you must know, my
friends, are very closely combined with those of the South. The Northern
merchants and manufacturers are making _their_ fortunes out of the
_produce of slave labor_; the grocer is selling your rice and sugar; how
then can these men bear a testimony against slavery without condemning
themselves? But there is another reason, the North is most dreadfully
afraid of Amalgamation. She is alarmed at the very idea of a thing so
monstrous, as she thinks. And lest this consequence _might_ flow from
emancipation, she is determined to resist all efforts at emancipation
without expatriation. It is not because she _approves of slavery_, or
believes it to be "the corner stone of our republic," for she is as much
_anti-slavery_ as we are; but amalgamation is too horrible to think of.
Now I would ask _you_, is it right, is it generous, to refuse the
colored people in this country the advantages of education and the
privilege, or rather the _right_, to follow honest trades and callings
merely because they are colored? The same prejudice exists here against
our colored brethren that existed against the Gentiles in Judea. Great
numbers cannot bear the idea of equality, and fearing lest, if they had
the same advantages we enjoy, they would become as intelligent, as
moral, as religious, and as respectable and wealthy, they are determined
to keep them as low as they possibly can. Is this doing as they would be
done by? Is this loving their neighbor as _themselves_? Oh! that _such_
opposers of Abolitionism would put their souls in the stead of the free
colored man's and obey the apostolic injunction, to "remember them that
are in bonds _as bound with them_." I will leave you to judge whether
the fear of amalgamation ought to induce men to oppose anti-slavery
efforts, when _they_ believe _slavery_ to be _sinful_. Prejudice against
color, is the most powerful enemy we have to fight with at the North.

You need not be surprised, then, at all, at what is said _against_
Abolitionists by the North, for they are wielding a two-edged sword,
which even here, cuts through the _cords of caste_, on the one side, and
the _bonds of interest_ on the other. They are only sharing the fate of
other reformers, abused and reviled whilst they are in the minority; but
they are neither angry nor discouraged by the invective which has been
heaped upon them by slaveholders at the South and their apologists at
the North. They know that when George Fox and William Edmundson were
laboring in behalf of the negroes in the West Indies in 1671 that the
very _same_ slanders were propogated against them, which are _now_
circulated against Abolitionists. Although it was well known that Fox
was the founder of a religious sect which repudiated _all_ war, and
_all_ violence, yet _even he_ was accused of "endeavoring to excite the
slaves to insurrection and of teaching the negroes to cut their master's
throats." And these two men who had their feet shod with the preparation
of the Gospel of Peace, were actually compelled to draw up a formal
declaration that _they were not_ trying to raise a rebellion in
Barbadoes. It is also worthy of remark that these Reformers did not at
this time see the necessity of emancipation under seven years, and their
principal efforts were exerted to persuade the planters of the necessity
of instructing their slaves; but the slaveholder saw then, just what the
slaveholder sees now, that an _enlightened_ population _never_ can be a
_slave_ population, and therefore they passed a law that negroes should
not even attend the meetings of Friends. Abolitionists know that the
life of Clarkson was sought by slavetraders, and that even Wilberforce
was denounced on the floor of Parliament as a fanatic and a hypocrite by
the present King of England, the very man who, in 1834 set his seal to
that instrument which burst the fetters of eight hundred thousand slaves
in his West India colonies. They know that the first Quaker who bore a
_faithful_ testimony against the sin of slavery was cut off from
religious fellowship with that society. That Quaker was a _woman_. On
her deathbed she sent for the committee who dealt with her--she told
them, the near approach of death had not altered her sentiments on the
subject of slavery and waving her hand towards a very fertile and
beautiful portion of country which lay stretched before her window, she
said with great solemnity, "Friends, the time will come when there will
not be friends enough in all this district to hold one meeting for
worship, and this garden will be turned into a wilderness."

The aged friend, who with tears in his eyes, related this interesting
circumstance to me, remarked, that at that time there were seven
meetings of friends in that part of Virginia, but that when he was there
ten years ago, not a single meeting was held, and the country was
literally a desolation. Soon after her decease, John Woolman began his
labors in our society, and instead of disowning a member for testifying
_against_ slavery, they have for sixty-two years positively forbidden
their members to hold slaves.

Abolitionists understand the slaveholding spirit too well to be
surprised at any thing that has yet happened at the South or the North;
they know that the greater the sin is, which is exposed, the more
violent will be the efforts to blacken the character and impugn the
motives of those who are engaged in bringing to light the hidden things
of darkness. They understand the work of Reform too well to be driven
back by the furious waves of opposition, which are only foaming out
their own shame. They have stood "the world's dread laugh," when only
twelve men formed the first Anti-Slavery Society in Boston in 1831. They
have faced and refuted the calumnies of their enemies, and proved
themselves to be emphatically _peace men_ by _never resisting_ the
violence of mobs, even when driven by them from the temple of God, and
dragged by an infuriated crowd through the streets of the emporium of
New-England, or subjected by _slaveholders_ to the pain of corporal
punishment. "None of these things move them;" and, by the grace of God,
they are determined to persevere in this work of faith and labor of
love: they mean to pray, and preach, and write, and print, until slavery
is completely overthrown, until Babylon is taken up and cast into the
sea, to "be found no more at all." They mean to petition Congress year
after year, until the seat of our government is cleansed from the sinful
traffic of "slaves and the souls of men." Although that august assembly
may be like the unjust judge who "feared not God neither regarded man,"
yet it _must_ yield just as he did, from the power of importunity. Like
the unjust judge, Congress _must_ redress the wrongs of the widow, lest
by the continual coming up of petitions, it be wearied. This will be
striking the dagger into the very heart of the monster, and once this
done, he must soon expire.

Abolitionists have been accused of abusing their Southern brethren. Did
the prophet Isaiah _abuse_ the Jews when he addressed to them the
cutting reproof contained in the first chapter of his prophecies, and
ended by telling them, they would be _ashamed_ of the oaks they had
desired, and _confounded_ for the garden they had chosen? Did John the
Baptist _abuse_ the Jews when he called them "_a generation of vipers_,"
and warned them "to bring forth fruits meet for repentance!" Did Peter
abuse the Jews when he told them they were the murderers of the Lord of
Glory? Did Paul abuse the Roman Governor when he reasoned before him of
righteousness, temperance, and judgment, so as to send conviction home
to his guilty heart, and cause him to tremble in view of the crimes he
was living in? Surely not. No man will _now_ accuse the prophets and
apostles of _abuse_, but what have Abolitionists done more than they? No
doubt the Jews thought the prophets and apostles in their day, just as
harsh and uncharitable as slaveholders now, think Abolitionists; if they
did not, why did they beat, and stone, and kill them?

Great fault has been found with the prints which have been employed to
expose slavery at the North, but my friends, how could this be done so
effectively in any other way? Until the pictures of the slave's
sufferings were drawn and held up to public gaze, no Northerner had any
idea of the cruelty of the system, it never entered their minds that
such abominations could exist in Christian, Republican America; they
never suspected that many of the _gentlemen_ and _ladies_ who came from
the South to spend the summer months in traveling among them, were petty
tyrants at home. And those who had lived at the South, and came to
reside at the North, were too _ashamed of slavery_ even to speak of it;
the language of their hearts was, "tell it _not_ in Gath, publish it
_not_ in the streets of Askelon;" they saw no use in uncovering the
loathsome body to popular sight, and in hopeless despair, wept in secret
places over the sins of oppression. To such hidden mourners the
formation of Anti-Slavery Societies was as life from the dead, the first
beams of hope which gleamed through the dark clouds of despondency and
grief. Prints were made use of to effect the abolition of the
Inquisition in Spain, and Clarkson employed them when he was laboring to
break up the Slave trade, and English Abolitionists used them just as we
are now doing. They are powerful appeals and have invariably done the
work they were designed to do, and we cannot consent to abandon the use
of these until the _realities_ no longer exist.

With regard to those white men, who, it was said, did try to raise an
insurrection in Mississippi a year ago, and who were stated to be
Abolitionists, none of them were proved to be members of Anti-Slavery
Societies, and it must remain a matter of great doubt whether, even they
were guilty of the crimes alledged against them, because when any
community is thrown into such a panic as to inflict Lynch law upon
accused persons, they cannot be supposed to be capable of judging with
calmness and impartiality. _We know_ that the papers of which the
Charleston mail was robbed, were _not_ insurrectionary, and that they
were _not_ sent to the colored people as was reported. _We know_ that
Amos Dresser was _no insurrectionist_ though he was accused of being so,
and on this false accusation was publicly whipped in Nashville in the
midst of a crowd of infuriated _slaveholders_. Was that young man
disgraced by this infliction of corporal punishment? No more than was
the great apostle of the Gentile; who five times received forty stripes,
save one. Like him, he might have said, "henceforth I bear in my body
the marks of the Lord Jesus," for it was for the _truth's sake, he
suffered_, as much as did the Apostle Paul. Are Nelson, and Garrett, and
Williams, and other Abolitionists who have recently been banished from
Missouri, insurrectionists? _We know_ they are _not_, whatever
slaveholders may choose to call them. The spirit which now asperses the
character of the Abolitionists, is the _very same_ which dressed up the
Christians of Spain in the skins of wild beasts and pictures of devils
when they were led to execution as heretics. Before we condemn
individuals, it is necessary, even in a wicked community, to accuse them
of some crime; hence, when Jezebel wished to compass the death of
Naboth, men of Belial were suborned to bear false witness against him,
and so it was with Stephen, and so it ever has been, and ever will be,
as long as there is any virtue to suffer on the rack, or the gallows.
_False_ witnesses must appear against Abolitionists before they can be
condemned.

I will now say a few words on George Thompson's mission to this country.
This Philanthropist was accused of being a foreign emissary. Were
Lafayette, and Steuben, and De Kalb, and Pulawski, foreign emissaries
when they came over to America to fight against the tories, who
preferred submitting to what was termed, "the yoke of servitude," rather
than bursting the fetters which bound them to the mother country? _They_
came with _carnal weapons_ to engage in _bloody_ conflict against
American citizens, and yet, where do their names stand on the page of
History. Among the honorable, or the base? Thompson came here to war
against the giant sin of slavery, _not_ with the sword and the pistol,
but with the smooth stones of oratory taken from the pure waters of the
river of Truth. His splendid talents and commanding eloquence rendered
him a powerful coadjutor in the Anti-Slavery cause, and in order to
neutralize the effects of these upon his auditors, and rob the poor
slave of the benefits of his labors, his character was defamed, his life
was sought, and he at last driven from our Republic, as a fugitive. But
was _Thompson_ disgraced by all this mean and contemptible and wicked
chicanery and malice? No more than was Paul, when in consequence of a
vision he had seen at Treas, he went over the Macedonia to help the
Christians there, and was beaten and imprisoned, because he cast out a
spirit of divination from a young damsel which had brought much gain to
her masters. Paul was as much a _foreign emissary_ in the Roman colony
of Philippi, as George Thompson was in America, and it was because he
was a _Jew_, and taught customs it was not lawful for them to receive or
observe being Romans, that the Apostle was thus treated.

It was said, Thompson was a felon, who had fled to this country to
escape transportation to New Holland. Look at him now pouring the
thundering strains of his eloquence, upon crowded audiences in Great
Britain, and see in this a triumphant vindication of his character. And
have the slaveholder, and his obsequious apologist, gained anything by
all their violence and falsehood? No! for the stone which struck Goliath
of Gath, had already been thrown from the sling. The giant of slavery
who had so proudly defied the armies of the living God, had received his
death-blow before he left our shores. But what is George Thompson doing
there? Is he not now laboring there, as effectually to abolish American
slavery as though he trod our own soil, and lectured to New York or
Boston assemblies? What is he doing there, but constructing a stupendous
dam, which will turn the overwhelming tide of public opinion over the
wheels of that machinery which Abolitionists are working here. He is now
lecturing to _Britons_ on _American Slavery_, to the _subjects_ of a
_King_, on the abject condition of the _slaves of a Republic_. He is
telling them of that mighty Confederacy of petty tyrants which extends
over thirteen States of our Union. He is telling them of the munificent
rewards offered by slaveholders, for the heads of the most distinguished
advocates for freedom in this country. He is moving the British Churches
to send out to the churches of America the most solemn appeals,
reproving, rebuking, and exhorting, them with all long suffering and
patience to abandon the sin of slavery immediately. Where then I ask,
will the name of George Thompson stand on the page of History? Among the
honorable, or the base?

What can I say more, my friends, to induce you to set your hands, and
heads, and hearts, to the great work of justice and mercy. Perhaps you
have feared the consequences of immediate emancipation, and been
frightened by all those dreadful prophecies of rebellion, bloodshed and
murder, which have been uttered. "Let no man deceive you;" they are the
predictions of that same "lying spirit" which spoke through the four
hundred prophets of old, to Ahab king of Israel, urging him on to
destruction. _Slavery_ may produce these horrible scenes if it is
continued five years longer, but Emancipation _never will_.

I can prove the _safety_ of immediate Emancipation by history. In St.
Domingo in 1793 six hundred thousand slaves were set free in a white
population of forty-two thousand. That Island "marched as by enchantment
towards its ancient splendor", cultivation prospered, every day produced
perceptible proofs of its progress, and the negroes all continued
quietly to work on the different plantations, until in 1802, France
determined to reduce these liberated slaves again to bondage. It was at
_this time_ that all those dreadful scenes of cruelty occurred, which we
so often _unjustly_ hear spoken of, as the effects of Abolition. They
were occasioned _not_ by Emancipation, but by the base attempt to fasten
the chains of slavery on the limbs of liberated slaves.

In Guadaloupe eighty-five thousand slaves were freed in a white
population of thirteen thousand. The same prosperous effects followed
manumission here, that had attended it in Hayti, every thing was quiet
until Buonaparte sent out a fleet to reduce these negroes again to
slavery, and in 1802 this institution was re-established in that Island.
In 1834, when Great Britain determined to liberate the slaves in her
West India colonies, and proposed the apprenticeship system; the
planters of Bermuda and Antigua, after having joined the other planters
in their representations of the bloody consequences of Emancipation, in
order if possible to hold back the hand which was offering the boon of
freedom to the poor negro; as soon as they found such falsehoods were
utterly disregarded, and Abolition must take place, came forward
voluntarily, and asked for the compensation which was due to them,
saying, _they preferred immediate emancipation_, and were not afraid of
any insurrection. And how is it with these islands now? They are
decidedly more prosperous than any of those on which the apprenticeship
system was adopted, and England is now trying to abolish that system, so
fully convinced is she that immediate Emancipation is the _safest_ and
the best plan.

And why not try it in the Southern States, if it _never_ has occasioned
rebellion; if _not a drop of blood_ has ever been shed in consequence of
it, though it has been so often tried, why should we suppose it would
produce such disastrous consequences now? "Be not deceived then, God is
not mocked," by such false excuses for not doing justly and loving
mercy. There is nothing to fear from immediate Emancipation, but _every
thing_ from the continuance of slavery.

Sisters in Christ, I have done. As a Southerner, I have felt it was my
duty to address you. I have endeavoured to set before you the exceeding
sinfulness of slavery, and to point you to the example of those noble
women who have been raised up in the church to effect great revolutions,
and to suffer for the truth's sake. I have appealed to your sympathies
as women, to your sense of duty as _Christian women_. I have attempted
to vindicate the Abolitionists, to prove the entire safety of immediate
Emancipation, and to plead the cause of the poor and oppressed. I have
done--I have sowed the seeds of truth, but I well know, that even if an
Apollos were to follow in my steps to water them, "_God only_ can give
the increase." To Him then who is able to prosper the work of his
servant's hand, I commend this Appeal in fervent prayer, that as he
"hath _chosen the weak things of the world_, to confound the things
which are mighty," so He may guise His blessing, to descend and carry
conviction to the hearts of many Lydias through these speaking pages.
Farewell--Count me not your "enemy because I have told you the truth,"
but believe me in unfeigned affection,



Your sympathizing Friend,

ANGELINA E. GRIMKÉ.

Shrewsbury, N.J., 1836.









       *       *       *       *       *




THIRD EDITION.

Price 6 1-4 cents single, 62 1-2 cents per dozen, $4 per hundred.


No. 3.


THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.


       *       *       *       *       *


LETTER OF GERRIT SMITH

TO

REV. JAMES SMYLIE,

OF THE

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI.


1837.

LETTER, ETC.

PETERBORO', October 28, 1836.


Rev. JAMES SMYLIE,

_Late Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Mississippi:_

SIR,--Accept my thanks for your politeness in sending me a copy of your
book on slavery. This book proves, that the often repeated assertion,
that the whole South is opposed to the discussion of the question of
slavery, is not true:--and so far, I rejoice in its appearance. I
presume--I know, indeed, that you are not the only man in the South, who
is in favor of this discussion. There are, doubtless, many persons in
the South, who believe, that all attempts to suppress it, are vain, as
well as wicked. Besides, you virtually admit, that the South is
compelled to discuss the question of slavery; or, at least, to give her
own views of it, in order to prevent the conscience of Southern
Christians--that conscience, "which does make cowards of us all"--from
turning traitor to the cause of slavery. I rejoice, too, that you
accompanied the copy sent to me, with the request, that I should review
it, and make "candid remarks" upon it; and, that you have thus put it in
my power to send to the South some of my views on slavery, without
laying myself open to the charge of being discourteous and obtrusive.

You undertake to show that slavery existed, and, with the Divine
approbation, amongst the Old Testament Jews; and that it also existed,
whilst our Saviour and his Apostles were on the earth, and was approved
by them. You thence argue, that it is not only an innocent institution,
but one which it is a religious duty to maintain.

I admit, for the sake of argument, that there was a servitude in the
patriarchal families which was approved by God. But what does this avail
in your defence of slavery, unless you show, that that servitude and
slavery are essentially alike? The literal terms of the relation of
master and servant, under that servitude, are not made known to us; but
we can, nevertheless, confidently infer their spirit from facts, which
illustrate their practical character; and, if this character be found to
be opposite to that of slavery, then it is manifest, that what you say
of patriarchal servitude is impertinent, and tends to mislead, rather
than enlighten your readers. To a few of these facts and a few of the
considerations arising from them, I now call your attention.

1st. Read the first eight verses of the eighteenth chapter of Genesis,
and tell me, if you ever saw Gov. McDuffie or any other Southern
patriarch (for the governor desires to have all slaveholders looked upon
in the character of patriarchs) putting himself on a level with his
servants, and "working with his hands," after the manner of Abraham and
Sarah?

2d. There was such a community of interest--so much of mutual
confidence--between Abraham and his servants, that they fought his
battles. Indeed, the terms of this patriarchal servitude were such, that
in the event of the master's dying without issue, one of his servants
inherited his property (Gen. 15: 3). But, according to the code of
Southern slavery, the slave can no more own property, than he can own
himself. "All that a slave possesses belongs to his master"--"Slaves are
incapable of inheriting or transmitting property." These, and many
similar phrases, are found in that code. Severe as was the system of
Roman slavery, yet in this respect, it was far milder than yours; for
its subjects could acquire property (their peculium); and frequently did
they purchase their liberty with it. So far from Southern slaves being,
as Abraham's servants were, a dependence in war, it is historically
true, that they are accustomed to improve this occasion to effect their
escape, and strengthen the hands of the enemy. As a further proof that
Southern slavery begets none of that confidence between master and
slave, which characterized the mutual intercourse of Abraham and his
servants--the slave is prohibited, under severe penalties, from having
any weapons in his possession, even in time of peace; and the nightly
patrol, which the terror-stricken whites of Southern towns keep up, in
peace, as well as in war, argues any thing, rather than the existence of
such confidence. "For keeping or carrying a gun, or powder or shot, or a
club, or other weapon whatsoever, offensive or defensive, a slave
incurs, says Southern statute book, for each offence, thirty-nine
lashes."

3d. When I read your quotation from the twenty-fourth chapter of
Genesis, made for the purpose of showing that God allowed Abraham to
have slaves, I could not but wonder at your imprudence, in meddling with
this chapter, which is of itself, enough to convince any unbiased mind,
that Abraham's servants held a relation to their master and to society,
totally different from that held by Southern slaves. Have you ever known
a great man in your state send his slave into another to choose a wife
for his son?--And if so, did the lily white damsel he selected call the
sable servant "my lord?"--And did her family spare no pains to manifest
respect for their distinguished guest, and promote his comfort? But this
chapter, which you call to your aid, informs us, that Abraham's servant
was honored with such tokens of confidence and esteem. If a Southern
slave shall ever be employed in such a mission, he may count himself
highly favored, if he be not taken up by the way, imprisoned, and "sold
for his jail fees."

4th. Did you ever know Southern slaves contend for their rights with
their masters? When a Southern master reads the thirteenth verse of the
thirty-first chapter of Job, he must think that Job was in the habit of
letting down his dignity very low.

5th. Do Southern masters accord religious privileges and impart
religious instruction equally to their slaves and their children? Your
laws, which visit with stripes, imprisonment, and death, the attempt to
teach slaves to read the Bible, show but too certainly, that the
Southern master, who should undertake to place "his children and his
household" on the same level, in respect to their religious advantages,
as it is probable that Abraham did (Gen. 18:19), would soon find himself
in the midst of enemies, not to his reputation only, but to his life
also.

And now, sir, admitting that the phrase, on which you lay so much
stress--"bought with his money"--was used in connexion with a form of
servitude which God approved--I put it to your candor, whether this
phrase should be allowed to weigh at all against the facts I have
adduced and the reasonings I have employed to show the true nature of
that servitude, and how totally unlike it is to slavery? Are you not
bound by the principles of sound reasoning, to attach to it a meaning
far short of what, I grant, is its natural import in this age, and,
especially, amongst a people who, like ourselves, are accustomed to
associate such an expression with slavery? Can you deny, that you are
bound to adopt such a meaning of it, as shall harmonize with the facts,
which illustrate the nature of the servitude in question, and with the
laws and character of Him, whose sanction you claim for that servitude?
An opposite course would give a preference to words over things, which
common sense could not tolerate. Many instances might be cited to show
the absurdity of the assumption that whatever is spoken of in the
Scriptures as being "bought," is property. Boaz "purchased" his wife.
Hosea "bought her (his wife) for fifteen pieces of silver." Jacob, to
use a common expression, "took his wages" in wives. Joseph "bought" the
Egyptians, after they had said to him "buy us." But, so far from their
having become the property of Joseph or of his king, it was a part of
the bargain, that they were to have as much land as they wanted--seed to
sow it--and four-fifths of the crops. The possessors of such
independence and such means of wealth are not the property of their
fellow-men.

I need say no more, to prove that slavery is entirely unlike the
servitude in the patriarchal families. I pass on, now, to the period
between the promulgation of the Divine law by Moses, and the birth of
Christ.

You argue from the fifth and sixth verses of the twenty-first chapter of
Exodus, that God authorized the enslavement of the Jews: but, on the
same page, on which you do so, you also show the contrary. It may,
nevertheless, be well for me to request you to read and read again
Leviticus 25:39-42, until your remaining doubts, on this point, shall
all be put to flight. I am free to admit the probability, that under
some of the forms of servitude, in which Jews were held, the servant was
subjected to a control so extensive as to expose him to suffer great
cruelties. These forms corresponded with the spirit and usages of the
age, in which they existed; entirely unsuited, as they are, to a period
and portion of the world, blessed with the refining and softening
influences of civilization and the gospel. Numerous as were the
statutory regulations for the treatment of the servant, they could not
preclude the large discretion of the master. The apprentice, in our
country, is subjected to an authority, equaling a parent's authority,
but not always tempered in its exercise, with a parent's love. His
condition is, therefore, not unfrequently marked with severity and
suffering. Now, imagine what this condition would be, under the harsh
features of a more barbarous age, and you will have in it, as I
conjecture, no distant resemblance to that of some of the Jewish
servants. But how different is this condition from that of the slave!

I am reminded in this connexion, of the polished, but pernicious,
article on slavery in a late number of the Biblical Repertory. In that
article Professor Hodge says, that the claim of the slaveholder "is
found to be nothing more than a transferable claim of service either for
life, or for a term of years." Will he allow me to ask him, where he
discovered that the pretensions of the slaveholder are all resolvable
into this modest claim? He certainly did not discover it in any slave
code; nor in any practical slavery. Where then? No where, but in that
undisclosed system of servitude, which is the creation of his own fancy.
To this system I raise no objection whatever. On the contrary, I am
willing to admit its beauty and its worthiness of the mint in which it
was coined. But I protest against his right to bestow upon it the name
of another and totally different thing. He must not call it slavery.

Suppose a poor German to be so desirous of emigrating with his family to
America, as to agree to give his services for ten years, as a
compensation for the passage. Suppose further, that the services are to
be rendered to the captain of the ship in which they sail, or to any
other person, to whom he may assign his claim. Such a bargain is not
uncommon. Now, according to Professor Hodge, this German may as rightly
as any of your Southern servants, be called a slave. He may as rightly
be called _property_, as they may be, who, in the language of the South
Carolina laws, "shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in
law, to be chattels personal, in the hands of their owners and
possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, _to all
intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever_."

We will glance at a few points of difference in their condition. 1st.
The German is capable of making a contract, and in the case supposed,
does make a contract; but your slave is incapable of making any
contract. 2d. The German receives wages; the price of carrying himself
and family being the stipulated price for his services, during the ten
years; but your slave receives no wages. 3d. The German, like any other
hireling, and, like any apprentice in our country, is under the
protection of law. But, there is no law to shield the slave from wrongs.
Being a mere chattel or thing, he has no rights; and, therefore, he can
have no wrongs to be redressed. Does Professor Hodge say, that there are
statutes limiting and regulating the power of the slaveholder? I grant
there are; though it must be remembered, that there is one way of even
murdering a slave, which some of the slave States do not only not
forbid, but impliedly and practically admit[A]. The Professor should
know, however, that all these statutes are, practically, a mere nullity.
Nevertheless, they show the absoluteness of the power which they
nominally qualify. This absoluteness is as distinctly implied by them,
as the like was by the law of the Emperor Claudius, which imposed
limitations upon the "jus vitae et necis" (the right of life and death)
which Roman slavery put into the hand of the master. But if the
Professor should be so imprudent as to cite us to the slave code for
evidence of its merciful provisions, he will, in so doing, authorize us
to cite him to that code for evidence of the _nature_ of slavery. This
authority, however, he would not like to give us; for he is unwilling to
have slavery judged of by its own code. He insists, that it shall be
judged of by that ideal system of slavery, which is lodged in his own
brain, and which he can bring forth by parcels, to suit present
occasions, as Mahomet produced the leaves of the Koran.

[Footnote A: The licensed murder referred to, is that where the slave
dies under "moderate correction." But is not the murder of a slave by a
white man, _in any way_, practically licensed in all the slave States?
Who ever heard of a white man's being put to death, under Southern laws,
for the murder of a slave? American slavery provides impunity for the
white murderer of the slave, by its allowing none but whites--none but
those who construct and uphold the system of abominations--to testify
against the murderer. But why particularize causes of this impunity? The
whole policy of the Southern slave system goes to provide it. How
unreasonable is it to suppose, that they, who have conspired against a
portion of their fellow-beings, and mutually pledged themselves to treat
them as _mere things_--how unreasonable, I say, is it to suppose, that
they would consent to put a _man_ to death, on account of his treatment,
in whatever way, of a _mere thing_? Not long ago, I was informed by a
highly respectable lawyer of the State of Georgia, that he had known a
number of attempts (attempts most probably but in form and name) to
effect the conviction of whites for their undoubted murder of slaves.
But in every instance, the jurors perjured themselves, rather than
consent that a _man_ should be put to death, for the liberty he had
taken in disposing of a _thing_. They had rather perjure themselves,
than by avenging the blood of a _slave_ with that of a _man_, make a
breach upon the policy of keeping the slave ignorant, that he has the
_nature_, and consequently the _rights_, of a man.]

Professor Hodge tells his readers, in substance, that the selling of
men, as they are sold under the system of slavery, is to be classed with
the cessions of territory, occasionally made by one sovereign to
another; and he would have the slave, who is sold from hand to hand, and
from State to State, at the expense to his bleeding heart, of the
disruption of its dearest ties, think his lot no harder than that of the
inhabitant of Louisiana, who was passed without his will, from the
jurisdiction of the French government to that of the United States.

When a good man lends himself to the advocacy of slavery, he must, at
least for a time, feel himself to be anywhere but at home, amongst his
new thoughts, doctrines, and modes of reasoning. This is very evident in
the case before us--especially, when now and then, old habits of thought
and feeling break out, in spite of every effort to repress them, and the
Professor is himself again, and discourses as manfully, as fearlessly,
and as eloquently, as he ever had done before the slaveholders got their
hands upon him. It is not a little amusing to notice, that, although the
burden of his article is to show that slavery is one of God's
institutions, (what an undertaking for a Professor of Theology in the
year 1836!) he so far forgets the interests of his new friends and their
expectations from him, as to admit on one page, that "the general
principles of the gospel have destroyed domestic slavery throughout the
greater part of Christendom;" and on another, that "the South has to
choose between emancipation, by the silent and holy influence of the
gospel, or to abide the issue of a long continued conflict against the
laws of God." Whoever heard, until these strange times on which we have
fallen, of any thing, which, to use the Professor's language about
slavery, "it is in vain, to contend is sin, and yet profess reverence
for the Scriptures," being at war with and destroyed by the principles
of the gospel. What sad confusion of thought the pro-slavery influences,
to which some great divines have yielded, have wrought in them!

I will proceed to argue, that the institution in the Southern States
called "slavery," is radically unlike any form of servitude under which
Jews were held, agreeably to the Divine will; and also radically unlike
any form of servitude approved of God in the patriarchal families.

1st. God does not contradict Himself. He is "without variableness or
shadow of turning." He loves his word and has "magnified it above all
his name." He commands his rational creatures to "search the
Scriptures." He cannot, therefore, approve of a system which forbids the
searching of them, and shuts out their light from the soul; and which,
by the confession of your own selves, turns men in this gospel land into
heathen. He has written his commandment against adultery, and He cannot,
therefore, approve of a system, which induces this crime, by forbidding
marriage. The following extract from an opinion of the Attorney General
of Maryland, shows some of the consequences of this "forbidding to
marry." "A slave has never maintained an action against the violator of
his bed. A slave is not admonished for incontinence, or punished for
fornication or adultery; never prosecuted for bigamy." Again, God has
written his commandment, that children should honor their parents. How,
then, can He approve of a system, which pours contempt on the relation
of parent and child? Which subjects them to be forcibly separated from
each other, and that too, beyond the hope of reunion?--under which
parents are exposed and sold in the market-place along with horses and
cattle?--under which they are stripped and lashed, and made to suffer
those innumerable, and some of them, nameless indignities, that tend to
generate in their children, who witness them, any feelings, rather than
those of respect and honor, for parents thus degraded? Some of these
nameless indignities are alluded to in a letter written to me from a
slave state, in March, 1833. "In this place," says the writer, "I find a
regular and a much frequented slave market, where thousands are yearly
sold like cattle to the highest bidder. It is the opinion of gentlemen
here, that not far from five hundred thousand dollars are yearly paid in
this place for negroes; and at this moment, I can look from the window
of my room and count six droves of from twenty to forty each, sitting in
the market place for sale. This morning I witnessed the sale of twelve
slaves, and I could but shudder at the language used and the liberties
taken with the females!"

2d. As a proof, that in the kinds of servitude referred to, God did not
invest Abraham, or any other person with that absolute ownership of his
fellow-men, which is claimed by Southern slaveholders--I would remark,
that He has made man accountable to Himself; but slavery makes him
accountable to, and a mere appendage to his fellow-man. Slavery
substitutes the will of a fallible fellow-man for that infallible rule
of action--the will of God. The slave, instead of being allowed to make
it the great end of his existence to glorify God and enjoy Him for ever,
is degraded from his exalted nature, which borders upon angelic dignity,
to be, to do, and to suffer what a mere man bids him be, do, and suffer.

The Southern slave would obey God in respect to marriage, and also to
the reading and studying of His word. But this, as we have seen, is
forbidden him. He may not marry; nor may he read the Bible. Again, he
would obey God in the duties of secret and social prayer. But he may not
attend the prayer-meeting--certainly not that of his choice; and
instances are known, where the master has intruded upon the slave's
secret audience with heaven, to teach him by the lash, or some other
instrument of torture, that he would allow "no other God before"
himself.

Said Joseph Mason, an intelligent colored man, who was born and bred
near Richmond, in Virginia, in reply to my question whether he and his
fellow-slaves cared about their souls--"We did not trouble ourselves
about our souls; we were our masters' property and not our own; under
their and not our own control; and we believed that our masters were
responsible for our souls." This unconcern for their spiritual interests
grew very naturally out of their relation to their masters; and were the
relation ordained of God, the unconcern would, surely, be both
philosophical and sinless.

God cannot approve of a system of servitude, in which the master is
guilty of assuming absolute power--of assuming God's place and relation
towards his fellow-men. Were the master, in every case, a wise and good
man--as wise and good as is consistent with this wicked and
heaven-daring assumption on his part--the condition of the slave would
it is true, be far more tolerable, than it now is. But even then, we
should protest as strongly as ever against slavery; for it would still
be guilty of its essential wickedness of robbing a man of his right to
himself, and of robbing God of His right to him, and of putting these
stolen rights into the hand of an erring mortal. Nay, if angels were
constituted slaveholders, our objection to the relation would remain
undiminished; since there would still be the same robbery of which we
now complain.

But you will say, that I have overlooked the servitude in which the Jews
held strangers and foreigners; and that it is on this, more than any
other, that you rely for your justification of slavery. I will say
nothing now of this servitude; but before I close this communication, I
will give my reasons for believing, that whatever was its nature, even
if it were compulsory, it cannot be fairly pleaded in justification of
slavery.

After you shall have allowed, as you will allow, that slavery, as it
exists, is at war with God, you will be likely to say, that the fault is
not in the theory of it; but in the practical departure from that
theory; that it is not the system, but the practice under it, which is
at war with God. Our concern, however, is with slavery as it is, and not
with any theory of it. But to indulge you, we will look at the system of
slavery, as it is presented to us, in the laws of the slave States; and
what do we find here? Why, that the system is as bad as the practice
under it. Here we find the most diabolical devices to keep millions of
human beings in a state of heathenism--in the deepest ignorance and most
loathsome pollution. But you will tell me, that I do not look far enough
to find the true theory of slavery; and that the cruelties and
abominations, which the laws of the slave States have ingrafted on this
theory, are not acknowledged by the good men in those States to be a
part of the theory. Well, you shall have the benefit of this plea; and I
admit, for the sake of argument, that this theory of slavery, which lies
far back, and out of sight of every thing visible and known about
slavery, is right. And what does this admission avail you? It is slavery
as it is--as it is seen and known, that the abolitionists are contending
against. But, say you, to induce our forbearance, "We good men at the
South are restoring slavery, as fast as we can, to what it should be;
and we will soon make its erring practice quadrate with its perfect and
sinless theory." Success to your endeavors! But let me ask these good
men, whether similar representations would avail to make them forbearing
towards any other class of offenders; and whether they would allow these
offenders to justify the wickedness of their hands, by pleading the
purity of their hearts. Suppose that I stand in court confessedly guilty
of the crime of passing counterfeit money; and that I ask for my
acquittal on the ground, that, notwithstanding I am practically wrong, I
am, nevertheless, theoretically right. "Believe me," I say, in tones of
deep and unfeigned pathos, and with a corresponding pressure of my hand
upon my heart, "that the principles within are those of the purest
morality; and that it is my faithful endeavor to bring my deportment,
which, as you this day witness, is occasionally devious, into perfect
conformity with my inward rectitude. My theory of honest and holy living
is all that you could wish it to be. Be but patient, and you shall
witness its beautiful exhibitions in my whole conduct." Now, you
certainly would not have this plea turn to my advantage;--why then
expect that your similar plea should be allowed?

We must continue to judge of slavery by what it is, and not by what you
tell us it will, or may be. Until its character be righteous, we shall
continue to condemn it; but when you shall have brought it back to your
sinless and beautiful theory of it, it will have nothing to fear from
the abolitionists. There are two prominent reasons, however, for
believing that you will never present Southern slavery to us in this
lovely character, the mere imagination of which is so dear to you. The
first is, that you are doing nothing to this end. It is an indisputable
fact that Southern slavery is continually getting wider and wider from
God, and from an innocent theory of servitude; and the "good men at the
South," of whom we have spoken, are not only doing nothing to arrest
this increasing divergency, but they are actually favoring it. The
writings of your Dews, and Baxters, and Plummers, and Postells, and
Andersons, and the proceedings of your ecclesiastical bodies, abundantly
show this. Never, and the assertion is borne out by your statute books,
as well as other evidences, has Southern slavery multiplied its
abominations so rapidly, as within the last ten years; and never before
had the Southern Church been so much engaged to defend and perpetuate
these abominations. The other of these reasons for believing that
Southern slavery will never be conformed to your _beau ideal_ of
slavery, in which it is presupposed there are none but principles of
righteousness, is, that on its first contact with these principles, it
would "vanish into thin air," leaving "not a wreck behind." In proof of
this, and I need not cite any other case, it would be immediate death to
Southern slavery to concede to its subjects, God's institution of
marriage; and hence it is, that its code forbids marriage. The rights of
the husband in the wife, and of the wife in the husband, and of parents
in their children, would stand directly in the way of that traffic in
human flesh, which is the very life-blood of slavery; and the
assumptions of the master would, at every turn and corner, be met and
nullified by these rights; since all his commands to the children of
those servants (for now they should no longer be called slaves) would be
in submission to the paramount authority of the parents[A]. And here,
sir, you and I might bring our discussion to a close, by my putting the
following questions to you, both of which your conscience would compel
you to answer in the affirmative.

[Footnote A: I am aware that Professor Hodge asserts, that "slavery may
exist without those laws which interfere with their (the slaves) marital
or parental right" Now, this is a point of immense importance in the
discussion of the question, whether slavery is sinful; and I, therefore,
respectfully ask him either to retract the assertion, or to prove its
correctness. Ten thousands of his fellow-citizens, to whom the assertion
is utterly incredible, unite with me in this request. If he can show,
that slavery does not "interfere with marital or parental rights," they
will cease to oppose it. Their confident belief is, that slavery and
marriage, whether considered in the light of a civil contract, or a
scriptural institution, are entirely incompatible with each other.]

1st. Is not Southern slavery guilty of a most heaven-daring crime, in
substituting concubinage for God's institution of marriage?

2d. Would not that slavery, and also every theory and modification of
slavery, for which you may contend, come speedily to nought, if their
subjects were allowed to marry? Slavery, being an abuse, is incapable of
reformation. It dies, not only when you aim a fatal blow at its life
principle--its foundation doctrine of man's right to property in
man[B]--but it dies as surely, when you prune it of its manifold
incidents of pollution and irreligion.

[Footnote B: I mean by this phrase, "right to property in man," a right
to hold man as property; and I do not see with what propriety certain
writers construe it to mean, a property in the mere services of a man.]

But it would be treating you indecorously to stop you at this stage of
the discussion, before we are a third of the way through your book, and
thus deny a hearing to the remainder of it. We will proceed to what you
say of the slavery which existed in the time of the New Testament
writers. Before we do so, however, let me call your attention to a few
of the specimens of very careless reasoning in that part of your book,
which we have now gone over. They may serve to inspire you with a modest
distrust of the soundness of other parts of your argument.

After concluding that Abraham was a slaveholder, you quote the following
language from the Bible; "Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my
commandments, my statutes, and my laws." You then inquire, "How could
this be true of Abraham, holding as he did, until he was an old man,
more slaves than any man in Mississippi or Louisiana?" To be consistent
with your design in quoting this passage, you must argue from it, that
Abraham was perfect. But this he was not; and, therefore, your quotation
is vain. Again, if the slaveholder would quiet his conscience with the
supposition, that "Abraham held more slaves than any man in Mississippi
or Louisiana," let him remember, that he had also more concubines (Gen.
25: 6), "than any man in Mississippi or Louisiana;" and, if Abraham's
authority be in the one case conclusive for slaveholding, equally so
must it be in the other, for concubinage.

Perhaps, in saying that "Abraham had more concubines than any man in
Mississippi or Louisiana," I have done injustice to the spirit of
propagation prevailing amongst the gentlemen of those States. It may be,
that some of your planters quite distance the old patriarch in obedience
to the command to "multiply and replenish the earth." I am correctly
informed, that a planter in Virginia, who counted, I know not how many
slaves upon his plantation, confessed on his death-bed, that his
licentiousness had extended to every adult female amongst them. This
planter was a near relative of the celebrated Patrick Henry. It may be,
that you have planters in Mississippi and Louisiana, who avail
themselves to the extent that he did, of the power which slaveholding
gives to pollute and destroy. The hundreds of thousands of mulattoes,
who constitute the Southern commentary on the charge, that the
abolitionists design amalgamation, bear witness that this planter was
not singular in his propensities. I do not know what you can do with
this species of your population. Besides, that it is a standing and deep
reproach on Southern chastity, it is not a little embarrassing and
puzzling to those who have received the doctrine, that the descendants
of Africa amongst us must be returned to the land of their ancestors.
How the poor mulatto shall be disposed of, under this doctrine, between
the call which Africa makes for him, on the one hand, and that which
some state of Europe sends out for him on the other, is a problem more
difficult of solution than that which the contending mothers brought
before the matchless wisdom of Solomon.

In the paragraph, which relates to the fourth and tenth commandments,
there is another specimen of your loose reasoning. You say, that the
language, "In it (the Sabbath) thou shalt do no work, thou, nor thy son,
nor thy daughter, nor thy man servant, nor thy maid servant,"
"recognises the authority of the master over the servant." I grant, that
it does: but does it at all show, that these servants were slaves? Does
it recognise any more authority than the master should exercise over his
voluntary servants? Should not the head of a family restrain all his
servants, as well the voluntary as the involuntary, from unnecessary
labor on the Sabbath? You also say, that the tenth commandment
"recognizes servants as the _property_ of their masters." But how does
it appear from the language of this commandment, that the man servant
and maid servant are property any more than the wife is? We will
proceed, however, to the third section of your book.

Your acquaintance with history has enabled you to show some of the
characteristics and fruits of Greek and Roman slavery. You state the
facts, that the subjects of this slavery were "absolutely the property
of their masters"--that they "were used like dogs"--that "they were
forbidden to learn any liberal art or perform any act worthy of their
masters"--that "once a day they received a certain number of stripes for
fear they should forget they were slaves"--that, at one time, "sixty
thousand of them in Sicily and Italy were chained and confined to work
in dungeons"--that "in Rome there was a continual market for slaves,"
and that "the slaves were commonly exposed for sale naked"--that, when
old, they were turned away," and that too by a master, highly esteemed
for his superior virtues, to starve to death"--that they were thrown
into ponds to be food for fish--that they were in the city of Athens
near twenty times as numerous as free persons--that there were in the
Roman Empire sixty millions of slaves to twenty millions of freemen mind
that many of the Romans had five thousand, some ten thousand, and others
twenty thousand.

And now, for what purpose is your recital of these facts?--not, for its
natural effect of awakening, in your readers, the utmost abhorrence of
slavery:--no--but for the strange purpose (the more strange for being in
the breast of a minister of the gospel) of showing your readers, that
even Greek and Roman slavery was innocent, and agreeable to God's will;
and that, horrid as are the fruits you describe, the tree, which bore
them, needed but to be dug about and pruned--not to be cut down. This
slavery is innocent, you insist, because the New Testament does not
show, that it was specifically condemned by the Apostles. By the same
logic, the races, the games, the dramatic entertainments, and the shows
of gladiators, which abounded in Greece and Rome, were, likewise,
innocent, because the New Testament does not show a specific
condemnation of them by the apostles[A]. But, although the New Testament
does not show such condemnation, does it necessarily follow, that they
were silent, in relation to these sins? Or, because the New Testament
does not specifically condemn Greek and Roman slavery, may we,
therefore, infer, that the Apostles did not specifically condemn it?
Look through the published writings of many of the eminent divines, who
have lived in modern times, and have written and published much for the
instruction of the churches, and you will not find a line in them
against gambling or theatres or the slave-trade;--in some of them, not a
line against the very common sin of drunkenness. Think you, therefore,
that they never spoke or wrote against these things? It would be
unreasonable to expect to find, in print, their sentiments against all,
even of the crying sins of their times. But how much more unreasonable
is it to expect to find in the few pages of the Apostles' published
letters, the whole of which can be read in a few hours, their sentiments
in relation to all the prominent sins of the age in which they lived!
And far greater still is the unreasonableness of setting them down, as
favorable to all practices which these letters do not specifically
condemn.

[Footnote A: Prof. Hodge says, if the apostles did abstain from
declaring slavery to be sinful, "it must have been, because they did not
consider it as, in itself, a crime. No other solution of their conduct
is consistent with their truth or fidelity." But he believes that they
did abstain from so doing; and he believes this, on the same evidence,
on which he believes, that they abstained from declaring the races,
games, &c., above enumerated, to be sinful. His own mode of reasoning,
therefore, brings him unavoidably to the conclusion, that these races,
games, &c., were not sinful.]

It may be, that the Saviour and the Apostles, in the course of their
teachings, both oral and written, did specify sins to a far greater
extent, than they are supposed to have done. It may be, that their
followers had much instruction, in respect to the great sin of slavery.
We must bear in mind, that but a very small part of that Divine
instruction, which, on the testimony of an Apostle, "the world itself
could not contain if written," has come down to us. Of the writings of
our Saviour we have nothing. Of those of his Apostles a very small part.
It is probable, that, during his protracted ministry, the learned
apostle to the Gentiles wrote many letters on religious subjects to
individuals and to churches. So also of the immense amount of
instruction, which fell from the lips of the Apostles, but very little
is preserved. It was Infinite Wisdom, however, which determined the size
of the New, as well as of the Old Testament, and of what kinds and
portions of the Saviour's and the Apostles' instructions it should
consist. For obvious considerations, it is made up, in a great measure,
of general truths and propositions. Its limited size, if no other
reason, accounts for this. But, these general truths and propositions
are as comprehensive as the necessity of the case requires; and, carried
out into all their suitable applications they leave no sin unforbidden.
Small as is the New Testament, it is as large as we need. It instructs
us in relation to all our duties. It is as full on the subject of
slavery, as is necessary; and, if we will but obey its directions, that
bear on this subject, and "love one another," and love our neighbors as
ourselves, and, as we would that men should do to us, do "also to them
likewise," and "remember them, that are in bonds as bound with them,"
and "give unto servants, that which is just and equal"--not a vestige of
this abomination will remain.

For the sake of the argument, I will admit, that the Apostles made no
specific attack on slavery[A]; and that they left it to be reached and
overthrown, provided it be sinful, by the general principles and
instructions which they had inculcated. But you will say, that it was
their practice, in addition to inculcating such principles and
instructions, to point out sins and reprove them:--and you will ask,
with great pertinence and force, why they did not also point out and
reprove slavery, which, in the judgment of abolitionists, is to be
classed with the most heinous sins. I admit, that there is no question
addressed to abolitionists, which, after the admission I have made for
them, it is less easy to answer; and I admit further, that they are
bound to answer it. I will proceed to assign what to me appear to be
some of the probable reasons, why the Apostles specified the sins of
lying, covetousness, stealing, &c., and, agreeably to the admission,
which lays me under great disadvantage, did not specify slavery.

[Footnote A: This is no small admission in the face of the passage, in
the first chapter of Timothy, which particularizes manstealing, as a
violation of the law of God. I believe all scholars will admit, that one
of the crimes referred to by the Apostle, is kidnapping. But is not
kidnapping an integral and most vital part of the system of slavery? And
is not the slaveholder guilty of this crime? Does he not, indeed, belong
to a class of kidnappers stamped with peculiar meanness? The pirate, on
the coast of Africa, has to cope with the strength and adroitness of
mature years. To get his victim into his clutches is a deed of daring
and of peril demanding no little praise, upon the principles of the
world's "code of honor." But the proud chivalry of the South is securely
employed in kidnapping newborn infants. The pirate, in the one case,
soothes his conscience with the thought, that the bloody savages merit
no better treatment, than they are receiving at his hands:--but the
pirate, in the other, can have no such plea--for they, whom he kidnaps,
are untainted with crime.

And what better does it make the case for you, if we adopt the
translation of "men stealers?" Far better, you will say, for, on the
authority of Othello himself,

  "He that is robb'd------
  Let him not know it, and he's not robbed at all."


But, your authority is not conclusive. The crime of the depredation is
none the less, because the subject is ignorant or unconscious of it. It
is true, the slave, who never possessed liberty--who was kidnapped at
his birth--may not grieve, under the absence of it, as he does, from
whose actual and conscious possession it had been violently taken: but
the robbery is alike plain, and is coupled with a meanness, in the one
case, which does not disgrace it in the other. ]

1st. The book of Acts sets forth the fundamental doctrines and
requirements of Christianity. It is to the letters of the Apostles we
are to look for extended specifications of right and wrong affections,
and right and wrong practices. Why do these letters omit to specify the
sin of slaveholding? Because they were addressed to professing
Christians exclusively; who, far more emphatically then than now, were
"the base things of the world," and were in circumstances to be slaves,
rather than slaveholders. Doubtless, there were many slaves amongst
them--but I cannot admit, that there were slaveholders. There is not the
least probability, that slaveholding was a prevalent sin amongst
primitive Christians[B]. Instructions to them on that sin might have
been almost as superfluous, as would be lectures on the sin of luxury,
addressed to the poor Greenland disciples, whose poverty compels them to
subsist on filthy oil. No one, acquainted with the history of their
lives, believes that the Apostles were slave-holders. They labored,
"working with (their) own hands." The supposition, that they were
slaveholders, is inconsistent with their practice, and with the tenor of
their instructions to others on the duty of manual labor. But if the
Apostles were not slaveholders, why may we suppose, that their disciples
were? At the South, it is, "like people, like priest," in this matter.
There, the minister of the gospel thinks, that he has as good right to
hold slaves, as has his parishioner: and your Methodists go so far, as
to say, that even a bishop has as good right, as any other person, to
have slaves

[Footnote B: How strongly does the following extract from the writings
of the great and good Augustine, who lived in the fourth century, argue,
that slaveholding was not a prevalent sin amongst primitive Christians!
"Non opurtet Christianum possidere servum quomodo equum aut argentum.
Quis dicere audeat ut vestimentum cum debere contemni? Hominem namque
homo tamquam seipsum diligere debet cui ab omnium Domino, ut inimicos
diligat, imperatur." _A Christian ought not to hold his servant as he
does his horse or his money. Who dares say that he should be thought as
lightly of as a garment? For man, whom the Lord of all has commanded to
love his enemies, should love his fellow-man as himself._]

  "------to fan him while he sleeps,
  And tremble when he wakes."


Indeed, they already threaten to separate from their Northern brethren,
unless this right be conceded. But have we not other and conclusive
evidence, that primitive Christians were not slaveholders? We will cite
a few passages from the Bible to show, that it was not the will of the
Apostles to have their disciples hold manual labor in disrepute, as it
is held, in all slaveholding communities. "Do your own business, and
work with your own hands, as we commanded you." "For this we commanded
you, that, if any would not work, neither should he eat." "Let him that
stole, steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands
the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth."
In bringing the whole verse into this last quotation, I may have
displeased you. I am aware, that you slaveholders proudly and
indignantly reject the applicableness to yourselves of the first phrase
in this verse, and also of the maxim, that "the partaker of stolen goods
is as bad as the thief." I am aware, that you insist, that the
kidnapping of a man, or getting possession of him, after he has been
kidnapped, is not to be compared, if indeed it can be properly called
theft at all, with the crime of stealing a _thing_. It occurs to me,
that if a shrewd lawyer had you on trial for theft, he would say, that
you were _estopped_ from going into this distinction between a _man_ and
a _thing_, inasmuch as, by your own laws, the slave is expressly
declared to be a _chattel_--is expressly _elevated_ into a _thing_. He
would say, however competent it may be for others to justify themselves
on the ground, that it was but a _man_, and not a _thing_, they had
stolen; your own statutes, which, with magic celerity, convert stolen
men into things, make such a plea, on your part, utterly inadmissible.
He would have you as fast, as though the stolen goods, in your hands,
were a bushel of wheat, or some other important _thing_, instead of _a
mere man_.

But, if you are not yet convinced that primitive Christians were not
slaveholders, let me cite another passage to show you, how very
improbable it is, that they stood in this capacity:--"all, that
believed, had all things common, and sold their possessions and goods,
and parted them to all men, as every man had need." Now I do not say,
that all the primitive believers did so. But if a portion of them did,
and met with the Apostles' approbation in it, is it at all probable,
that a course, so diverse from it, as that of slaveholding in the
Church, met likewise with their approbation?

2d. I go on to account for the Apostles' omission to specify slavery.

Criminality is not always obvious, in proportion to its extent. The sin
of the traffic in intoxicating liquors, was, until the last few years,
almost universally unfelt and unperceived. But now, we meet with men,
who, though it was "in all good conscience," that they were once engaged
in it, would not resume it for worlds; and who see more criminality, in
taking money from a fellow man, in exchange for the liquor which
intoxicates him, than in simple theft. However it may be with others, in
this employment, they now see, that, for them to traffic in intoxicating
liquors, would be to stain themselves with the twofold crime of robbery
and murder. How is it, that good men ever get into this
employment?--and, under what influences and by what process of thought,
do they come to the determination to abandon it? The former is accounted
for, by the fact, that they grow up--have their education--their moral
and intellectual training--in the midst of a public opinion, and even of
laws also, which favor and sanction the employment. The latter is
accounted for, by the fact, that they are brought, in the merciful
providence of God, to observe and study and understand the consequences
of their employment--especially on those who drink their liquor--the
liquor which they sell or make, or, with no less criminality, furnish
the materials for making. These consequences they find to be "evil, only
evil, and that continually." They find, that this liquor imparts no
benefit to them who drink it, but tends to destroy, and, oftentimes,
does destroy, their healths and lives. To continue, therefore, in an
employment in which they receive their neighbor's money, without
returning him an equivalent, or any portion of an equivalent, and, in
which they expose both his body and soul to destruction, is to make
themselves, in their own judgments, virtually guilty of theft and
murder.

Thus it is in the case of a national war, waged for conquest. Christians
have taken part in it; and, because they were blinded by a wrong
education, and were acting in the name of their country and under the
impulses of patriotism, they never suspected that they were doing the
devil, instead of "God, service." But when, in the kind providence of
God, one of these butchers of their fellow beings is brought to pause
and consider his ways, and to resolve his enormous and compound sin into
its elements of wickedness,--into the lies, theft, covetousness,
adultery, murder, and what not of crime, which enter into it,--he is
amazed that he has been so "slow of heart to believe," and abandon the
iniquity of his deeds.

What I have said to show that Christians, even in enlightened and
gospelized lands, may be blind to the great wickedness of certain
customs and institutions, serves to introduce the remark; that there
were probably some customs and institutions, in the time of the
Apostles, on which it would have been even worse than lost labor for
them to make direct attacks. Take, for example, the kind of war of which
we have been speaking. If there are reasons why the modern Christian can
be insensible to the sin of it, there are far stronger reasons why the
primitive Christian could be. If the light and instruction which have
been accumulating for eighteen centuries, are scarcely sufficient to
convince Christians of its wickedness, is it reasonable to suppose that,
at the commencement of this long period, they could have been
successfully taught it? Consider, that at that time the literature and
sentiment of the world were wholly on the side of war; and especially,
consider how emphatically the authority of civil government and of human
law was in favor of its rightfulness. Now, to how great an extent such
authority covers over and sanctifies sin, may be inferred from the fact,
that there are many, who, notwithstanding they believe slavery to be a
most Heaven-daring sin, yet, because it is legalized and under the wing
of civil government, would not have it spoken against. Even Rev. Dr.
Miller, in certain resolutions which he submitted to the last General
Assembly, indicated his similar reverence for human laws; and the
lamented Dr. Rice distinctly recognises, in his letter to Mr. Maxwell,
the doctrine that the Church is bound to be quiet about every sin which
the civil government adopts and whitewashes. That the Christian
Spectator should indorse the Doctor's sentiments on this point is still
more worthy of remark than that he should utter them. Indeed, I judge
from what you say on the 68th and 69th pages of your book, that you are
yourself opposed to calling in question the morality of that which civil
government approves. But, to doubt the infallibility of civil
government,--to speak against Caesar,--was manifestly held to be quite
as presumptuous in the time of the Apostles as it is now.

Another reason why an Apostle would probably have deemed it hopeless to
attempt to persuade his disciples, immediately and directly, of the sin
of war, is to be found in the fact of their feeble and distorted
perception of truth and duty. We, whose advantage it is to have lived
all our days in the light of the gospel, and whose ancestors, from time
immemorial, had the like precious advantage, can hardly conceive how
very feeble and distorted was that perception. But, consider for a
moment who those disciples were. They had, most of them, but just been
taken out of the gross darkness and filth of heathenism. In reading
accounts which missionaries give of converted heathen--of such, even, as
have for ten, fifteen, or twenty years, been reputed to be pious--you
are, doubtless, often surprised to find how grossly erroneous are their
moral perceptions. Their false education still cleaves to them. They are
yet, to a great extent, in the mould of a corrupted public opinion; and,
as far from having a clear discernment of moral truth, as were the
partially unsealed eyes which saw "men, as trees, walking." The first
letter to the Church at Corinth, proves that the new principles
implanted in its members had not yet purged out the leaven of their old
wickedness; and that their conceptions of Christian purity and conduct
were sadly defective. As it was with the Corinthian Christians, so was
it to a great extent with the other Christians of that age. Now, if the
Apostles did not directly teach the primitive believers that wars, and
theatres, and games, and slavery, are sinful, it is because they thought
it more fit to exercise their ignorant pupils chiefly in the mere
alphabet and syllables of Christianity. (Acts xv, 28, 29.) The
construction of words and sentences would naturally follow. The
rudiments of the gospel, if once possessed by them, would be apt to lead
them on to greater attainments. Indeed, the love, peace, truth, and
other elements of holy living inculcated by the Apostles, would, if
turned to all proper account, be fatal to every, even the most gigantic,
system of wickedness. Having these elements in their minds and hearts,
they would not fail of condemning the great and compound sin of war
whenever they should be led to take it up, examine it, resolve it into
its constituent parts, and lay these parts for comparison, by the side
of those elements. But, such an advance was hardly to be expected from
many of these heathen converts during the brief period in which they
enjoyed Apostolic instruction; and it is but too probable, that most of
them died in great ignorance of the sin of national wars. Converts from
the heathen, in the present age, when conviction of the sinfulness of
war is spreading in different parts of Christendom, would be more likely
to imbibe correct views of it.

The Apostles "fed with milk" before they fed with meat, as did our
Saviour, who declared, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye
cannot bear them now." In every community, the foundation principles of
righteousness must be laid, before there can be fulcrums for the levers
to be employed in overthrowing the sins which prevail in it. You will
doubtless, then, agree with me, that it is not probable that the
Apostles taught their heathen converts, directly and specifically, the
sinfulness of war. But slaves, in that age, with the exception of the
comparative few who were reduced to slavery on account of the crimes of
which they had been judicially convicted, were the spoils of war. How
often in that age, as was most awfully the fact, on the final
destruction of Jerusalem, were the slave-markets of the world glutted by
the captives of war! Until, therefore, they should be brought to see the
sinfulness of war, how could they see the sinfulness of so direct and
legitimate a fruit of it as slavery?--and, if the Apostles thought their
heathen converts too weak to be instructed in the sinfulness of war, how
much more would they abstain from instructing them, directly and
specifically, in the sin of slavery!

3d. In proceeding with my reasons why the Apostles did not extend their
specification of sins to slavery, I remark, that it is apparent from the
views we have taken, and from others which might have been taken, that
nothing would have been gained by their making direct and specific
attacks on the institutions of the civil governments under which they
lived. Indeed, much might have been lost by their doing so. Weak
converts, with still many remains of heathenism about them, might in
this wise have been incurably prejudiced against truths, which, by other
modes of teaching,--by general and indirect instructions,--would
probably have been lodged in their minds. And there is another point of
view in which vastly more, even their lives, might have been lost, by
the Apostles making the direct and specific attacks referred to. I know
that you ridicule the idea of their consulting their personal safety.
But what right have you to do so? They did, on many occasions, consult
the security of their lives. They never perilled them needlessly, and
through a presumptuous reliance on God. It is the devil, who, in a
garbled quotation from the Scriptures, lays down, in unlimited terms,
the proposition, that God will keep his children. But, God promises them
protection only when they are in their own proper ways. The Saviour
himself consulted the safety of his life, until his "time" had "full
come;" and his command to his Apostles was, "when they persecute you in
this city, flee ye into another." If you suppose me to admit for a
moment, that regard for the safety of their lives ever kept them from
the way of their duty, you are entirely mistaken; and, if you continue
to assert, in the face of my reasoning to the contrary, that on the
supposition of the sinfulness of slavery, their omission to make direct
and specific attacks on it would have been a failure of their duty, then
I can only regret that this reasoning has had no more influence upon
you.

I observe that Professor Hodge agrees with you, that if slavery is sin,
it would have been specifically attacked by the Apostles at any hazard
to their lives. This is his conclusion, because they did not hesitate to
specify and rebuke idolatry. Here is another of the Professor's
sophisms. The fact, that the Apostles preached against idolatry, is no
reason at all why, if slavery is sin, they would have preached against
that also. On the one hand, it is not conceivable that the gospel can be
preached where there is idolatry, without attacking it: for, in setting
forth the true God to idolaters, the preacher must denounce their false
gods. On the other hand, gospel sermons can be preached without number,
and the true God presented, not only in a nation of idolaters, but
elsewhere, without one allusion being made to such crying sins as
slavery, lewdness, and intemperance.

In the same connexion, Professor Hodge makes the remark "We do not
expect them (our missionaries) to refrain from denouncing the
institutions of the heathen as sinful, because they are popular, or
intimately interwoven with society." If he means by this language, that
it is the duty of missionaries on going into a heathen nation, to array
themselves against the civil government, and to make direct and specific
attacks on its wicked nature and wicked administration, then is he at
issue, on this point, with the whole Christian public; and, if he does
not mean this, or what amounts to this, I do not see how his remark will
avail any thing, in his attempt to show that the Apostles made such
attacks on whatever sinful institutions came under their observation.

What I have said on a former page shows sufficiently how fit it is for
missionaries to the heathen, more especially in the first years of their
efforts among them, to labor to instruct their ignorant pupils in the
elementary principles of Christianity, rather than to call their
attention to the institutions of civil government, the sinfulness of
which they would not be able to perceive until they had been grounded in
those elementary principles; and the sinfulness of which, more than of
any thing else, their prejudices would forbid them to suspect. Another
reason why the missionary to the heathen should not directly, and
certainly not immediately, assail their civil governments, is that he
would thereby arouse their jealousies to a pitch fatal to his influence,
his usefulness, and most probably his life; and another reason is, that
this imprudence would effectually close the door, for a long time,
against all efforts, even the most judicious, to spread the gospel
amongst a people so needlessly and greatly prejudiced against it by an
unwise and abrupt application of its principles. For instance, what
folly and madness it would be for our missionaries to Burmah, to make a
direct assault on the political institutions of that country! How fatal
would it be to their lives, and how incalculably injurious to the cause
entrusted to their hands! And, if this can be said of them, after they
have spent ten, fifteen, and twenty years, in efforts to bring that
portion of the heathen world to a knowledge and love of the truth, how
much more emphatically could it be said if they had been in the field of
their labors but three or four years! And yet, even this short space of
time exceeds the average period of the Apostles' labor among those
different portions of the heathen world which they visited;--labor, too,
it must be remembered, not of the whole, nor even of half of "the
twelve."

That the Apostles could not have made direct attacks on the institutions
of the Roman government, but at the expense of their lives, is not to be
doubted. Our Saviour well knew how fatal was the jealousy of that
government to the man who was so unhappy as to have excited it; and he
accordingly avoided the excitement of it, as far as practicable and
consistent. His ingenious and beautiful disposition of the question, "Is
it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not," is among the instances, in
which He studied to shun the displeasure of the civil government. Pilate
gave striking evidence of his unwillingness to excite the jealousy of
his government, when, every other expedient to induce him to consent to
the Saviour's death having failed, the bare charge, utterly unproven and
groundless, that, the Divine prisoner had put forth pretensions,
interfering with Caesar's rights, availed to procure His death-warrant
from the hands of that truth-convicted, but man-fearing governor. Had it
not availed, Pilate would have been exposed to the suspicion of
disloyalty to his government; and so perilous was this suspicion, that
he was ready, at any expense to his conscience and sense of justice, to
avoid incurring it.

A direct attack on Roman slavery, as it would have called in question
the rightfulness of war--the leading policy of the Roman
government--would, of course, have been peculiarly perilous to its
presumptuous author. No person could have made this attack, and lived;
or, if possibly he might have escaped the vengeance of the government,
do we not know too much of the deadly wrath of slaveholders, to believe
that he could have also escaped the summary process of Lynch law? If it
be at the peril of his life that a Northern man travels in the Southern
States,--and that, too, whether he do or do not say a word about
slavery, or even whether he be or be not an abolitionist;--if your
leading men publicly declare, that it is your religious duty to put to
an immediate death, whenever they come within your power, those who
presume to say that slavery is sin (and such a declaration did a South
Carolina gentleman make on the floor of congress, respecting the
inconsiderable person who is addressing you);--and, if your professing
Christians, not excepting ministers of the gospel, thirst for the blood
of abolitionists[A], as I will abundantly show, if you require
proof;--if, in a gospel land, all this be so, then I put it to your
candor, whether it can reasonably be supposed that the Apostles would
have been allowed to attack slavery in the midst of heathen
slaveholders. Why it is that slaveholders will not allow a word to be
breathed against slavery, I cannot, perhaps, correctly judge.
Abolitionists think that this unwillingness denotes that man is unfit
for absolute power over his fellow men. They think as unfavorably of the
influence of this power on the slaveholder, as your own Jefferson did.
They think that it tends to make him impatient of contradiction,
self-willed, supercilious, cruel, murderous, devilish; and they think
that they can establish this opinion, not by the soundest philosophy
only, but by the pages of many of your own writers, and by those daily
scenes of horrid brutality which make the Southern States, in the sight
both of God and man, one of the most frightful and loathsome portions of
the world--of the whole world--barbarous as well as civilized.

[Footnote A: I will relate an incident, to show what a fiend even woman,
gentle, lovely woman, may become, after she has fallen under the sway of
the demon of slavery. Said a lady of Savannah, on a visit in the city of
New York, "I wish he (Rev. Dr. Samuel H. Cox) would come to Savannah. I
should love to see him tarred and feathered, and his head cut off and
carried on a pole around Savannah." This lady is a professing Christian.
Her language stirs me up to retaliate upon her, and to express the wish
that she would come to the town, and even to the dwelling, in which Dr.
Cox resides. She would find that man of God--that man of sanctified
genius--as glad to get his enemies into his hands, as she would be to
get him into the hands of his enemies:--not, however, for the purpose of
disgracing and decapitating them, but, that he might pour out upon them
the forgiveness and love of his generous and _abolitionized_ heart. In
the city of New York there are thousands of whole-souled abolitionists.
What a striking testimony is it, in behalf of their meekness and
forbearance, when a southern fury is perfectly secure, in belching out
such words of wrath in the midst of them! We abolitionists never love
our principles better, than when we see the slaveholder feeling safe
amongst us. No man has been more abusive of us than Governor McDuffie;
and yet, were he to travel in the Northern States, he would meet with no
unkindness at the hands of any abolitionist. On the other hand, let it
be known to the governor, that he has within his jurisdiction a
prominent abolitionist--one, whose heart of burning love has made him
specially anxious to persuade the unfortunate slaveholder to be just to
himself, to his fellow men, and to his God,--and the governor, true to
the horrid sentiments of his famous message, would advise that he be
"put to death without benefit of clergy." Let slaveholders say what they
will about our blood-thirstiness, there is not one of them who fears to
put himself in our power. The many of them, who have been beneath my
roof, and the roofs of other abolitionists, have manifested their
confidence in our kindness. Were a stranger to the institution of
slavery to learn, in answer to his inquiries, that "an abolitionist" is
"an outlaw amongst slaveholders," and that "a slaveholder" is "the
kindly entertained guest of abolitionists,"--here would be a puzzle
indeed. But the solution of it would not fail to be as honorable to the
persecuted man of peace, as it would be disgraceful to the bloody
advocate and executioner of Lynch law.]

I need not render any more reasons why the Apostles did not specifically
attack slavery; but I will reply to a question, which I am sure will be
upon your lips all the time you are reading those I have rendered. This
question is, "If the Apostles did not make such an attack on slavery,
why may the American abolitionists?" I answer, that the difference
between the course of the abolitionists and of the Apostles, in this
matter, is justified by the difference in their circumstances. Professor
Hodge properly says, that our course should be like theirs, "unless it
can be shown that their circumstances were so different from ours, as to
make the rule of duty different in the two cases." And he as properly
adds, "the obligation to point out and establish this difference rests
upon the abolitionists."

The reasons I have given, why the Apostles did not directly attack
slavery, do not apply to the abolitionists. The arm of civil power does
not restrain us from attacking it. To open our lips against the policy
and institutions of civil government is not certain death. A despotic
government restricted the efforts of the Apostles to do good. But we
live under governments which afford the widest scope for exertions to
bless our fellow men and honor God. Now, if we may not avail ourselves
of this advantage, simply because the Apostles did not have it to avail
themselves of, then whatever other interests may prosper under a
republican government, certain it is, that the cause of truth and
righteousness is not to be benefited by it. Far better never to have had
our boasted form of government, if, whilst it extends the freedom and
multiplies the facilities of the wicked, it relieves the righteous of
none of the restrictions of a despotic government. Again, there is a
religious conscience all over this land, and an enlightened and gospel
sense of right and wrong; on which we can and do (as in your
Introduction you concede is the fact) bring our arguments against
slavery to bear with mighty power. But, on the other hand, the creating
of such a conscience and such a sense, in the heathen and semi-heathen
amongst whom they lived and labored, was the first, and appropriate, and
principal work of the Apostles. To employ, therefore, no other methods
for the moral and religious improvement of the people of the United
States, than were employed by the Apostles for that of the people of the
Roman empire, is as absurd as it would be to put the highest and lowest
classes in a school to the same lessons; or a raw apprentice to those
higher branches of his trade which demand the skill of an experienced
workman.

I am here reminded of what Professor Hodge says were the means relied on
by the Saviour and Apostles for abolishing slavery. "It was," says he,
"by teaching the true nature, dignity, equality, and destiny of men; by
inculcating the principles of justice and love; and by leaving these
principles to produce their legitimate effects in ameliorating the
condition of all classes of society." I would not speak disparagingly of
such a course of instruction; so far from it, I am ready to admit that
it is indispensable for the removal of evils, in every age and among
every people. When general instructions of this character shall have
ceased to be given, then will all wholesome reforms have ceased also.
But, I cannot approve of the Professor's object in this remark. This
object is to induce his readers to believe, that these abstract and
general instructions are all that is needed to effect the termination of
slavery. Now, I maintain that one thing more is wanting; and that is,
the application of these instructions--of the principles contained in
them--to the evil in hand. As well may it be supposed, that the mechanic
can accomplish his work without the application, and by the mere
possession, of his tools, as that a given reformation can be effected by
unapplied general principles. Of these principles, American
philanthropists have been possessed from time immemorial; and yet all
the while American slavery has been flourishing and growing strong. Of
late, however, these principles have been brought to bear upon the
system, and it manifestly is already giving way. The groans of the
monster prove that those rays of truth, which did not disturb him whilst
they continued to move in the parallel lines of abstractions and
generalities, make it quite too hot for him since they are converged to
a burning focus upon his devoted head. Why is it, for example, that the
influence of the Boston Recorder and New-York Observer--why is it, that
the influence of most of our titled divines--is decidedly hostile to the
abolition of slavery? It is not because they are deficient in just
general sentiments and principles respecting man's duties to God and his
fellow man. It is simply because they stand opposed to the application
of these sentiments and principles to the evil in question; or, in other
words, stand opposed to the Anti-Slavery Society, which is the chosen
lens of Divine Providence for turning these sentiments and principles,
with all the burning, irresistible power of their concentration, against
a giant wickedness. What is the work of the Temperance Societies, but to
make a specific application of general truths and principles to the vice
of intemperance? And the fact, that from the time of Noah's
intoxication, until the organization of the American Temperance Society,
the desolating tide of intemperance had been continually swelling,
proves that this reliance on unapplied principles, however sound--this
"faith without works"--is utterly vain. Nathan found that nothing, short
of a specific application of the principles of righteousness, would
answer in the case of the sin of adultery. He had to abandon all
generalities and circuitousness, and come plump upon the royal sinner
with his "Thou art the man." Those divines, whose policy it is to handle
slaveholders "with gloves," if they must handle them at all, doubtless
regard Nathan as an exceedingly impolite preacher.

But, not only is it far less difficult to instruct the people of the
United States than it was the people of the Roman Empire, in the sin of
slavery; it is also--for the reason that the sin is ours, to a far
greater extent, than it was theirs--much more important for us than for
them to be instructed in it. They had no share in the government which
upheld it. They could not abolish it by law. But, on the other hand, the
people of the United States are themselves the government of their
country. They are the co-sovereigns of their nation. They uphold slavery
by law, and they can put it down by law. In this point of view,
therefore, slavery is an incomparably greater sin in us, than it was in
them.

Only one other reason will be given why it is more needful to overthrow
American, than it was to overthrow Roman slavery. The Church was then
but a handful of "strangers scattered throughout" the heathen world. It
was made up of those who had little influence, and who were esteemed
"the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all things." It had,
probably, little, if any thing, to do with slavery, except to suffer its
rigors in the persons of many of its members. But here, the Church,
comprising no very small proportion of the whole population, and
exerting a mighty influence for good or ill on the residue, is tainted,
yes, rotten with slavery. In this contrast, we not only see another
reason why the destruction of American slavery is more important than
was that of Roman slavery; but we also see, that the Apostles could have
been little, if at all, actuated by that motive, which is more urgent
than any other in the breasts of the American abolitionists--the motive
of purging the Church of slavery.

To return to what you say of the abominations and horrors of Greek and
Roman slavery:--I should be doing you great injustice, were I to convey
the idea that you approve of them. It is admitted that you disapprove of
them; and, it is also admitted, that no responsibility for them rests on
the relation of slaveholder and slave, if that relation have, as you
labor to show, the stamp of Divine approbation. You say, that slavery,
like marriage, is an institution sanctioned by the New Testament; and
that, therefore, neither for the evils which attend it, nor for any
other cause, is it to be argued against. This is sound reasoning, on
your part; and, if your premises are correct, there is no resisting your
deduction. We are, in that case, not only not to complain of the
institution of slavery, but we are to be thankful for it. Considering,
however, that the whole fabric of your argument, in the principal or New
Testament division of your book, is based on the alleged fact that the
New Testament approves of slavery, it seems to me that you have
contented yourself, and sought to make your readers contented, with very
slender evidences of the truth of this proposition. These evidences are,
mainly--that the New Testament does not declare slavery to be a sin:
and, that the Apostles enjoin upon masters and servants their respective
duties; and this, too, in the same connexion in which they make similar
injunctions upon those who stand in the confessedly proper relations of
life--the husband and wife, the parent and child. Your other evidences,
that the New Testament approves of slavery, unimportant as they are,
will not be left unnoticed.

I have attempted to show, that the omission of the New Testament to
declare slavery to be a sin, is not proof that it is not a sin. I pass
on to show, that the Apostolic injunction of duties upon masters and
servants does not prove that slavery is sinless.

I have now reached another grand fallacy in your book. It is also found
in Professor Hodge's article. You, gentlemen, take the liberty to depart
from our standard English translation of the Bible, and to substitute
"slaveholder" for "master"--"slave" for "servant"--and, in substance,
"emperor" for "ruler"--and "subject of an imperial government" for
"subject of civil government generally." I know that this substitution
well suits your purposes: but, I know not by what right you make it.
Professor Hodge tells the abolitionists, certainly without much respect
for either their intelligence or piety, that "it will do no good (for
them) to attempt to tear the Bible to pieces." There is but too much
evidence, that he himself has not entirely refrained from the folly and
crime, which he is so ready to impute to others.

I will proceed to offer some reasons for the belief, that when the
Apostles enjoined on masters and servants their respective duties, they
had reference to servitude in general, and not to any modification of
it.

1st. You find passages in the New Testament, where you think _despotes_
refers to a person who is a slaveholder, and _doulos_ to a person who is
a slave. Admit that you are right: but this (which seems to be your only
ground for it) does not justify you in translating these words
"slaveholder" and "slave," whenever it may be advantageous to your side
of the question to have them thus translated. These words, have a great
variety of meanings. For instance, there are passages in the New
Testament where _despotes_ means "God"--Jesus Christ"--Head of a
family:" and where _doulos_ means "a minister or agent"--a subject of a
king"--a disciple or follower of Christ." _Despotes_ and _doulos_ are
the words used in the original of the expression: "Lord, now lettest
thou thy servant depart in peace:" _doulos_ in that of the expressions,
"servant of Christ," and "let him be servant of all." Profane writers
also use these words in various senses. My full belief is, that these
words were used in both a generic and special sense, as is the word
corn, which denotes bread-stuffs in general, and also a particular kind
of them; as is the word meat, the meaning of which is, sometimes,
confined to flesh that is eaten, and, at other times, as is frequently
the case in the Scriptures, extends to food in general; and, as is the
word servant, which is suitable, either in reference to a particular
form of servitude, or to servitude in general. There is a passage in the
second chapter of Acts, which is, of itself, perhaps, sufficient to
convince an unbiased mind, that the Apostles used the word _doulos_ in
a, generic, as well as in a special sense. _Doulos_ and _doule_ are the
words in the phrase: "And on my servants and on my handmaidens." A
reference to the prophecy as it stands; in Joel 2: 28, 29, makes it more
obvious, that persons in servitude are referred to under the words
_doulos_ and _doule_; and, that the predicted blessing was to be shed
upon persons of all ages, classes, and conditions--upon old men and
young men--upon sons and daughters--and upon man-servants and
maid-servants. But, under the interpretation of those, who, like
Professor Hodge and yourself, confine the meaning of _doulos_ and
_doule_ to a species of servants, the prophecy would have reference to
persons of all ages, classes, and conditions--_excepting certain
descriptions of servants_. Under this interpretation, we are brought to
the absurd conclusion, that the spirit is to be poured out upon the
master and his slaves--_but not upon his hired servants_.

I trust that enough has been said, under this my first head, to show
that the various senses in which the words _despotes_ and _doulos_ are
employed, justify me in taking the position, that whenever we meet with
them, we are to determine, from the nature of the case, and from the
connexion in which they are used, whether they refer to servitude in
general, or to a species of it.

2d. The confinement of the meaning of the words in question supposes,
what neither religion nor common sense allows us to suppose, that
slaveholders and slaves, despots and those in subjection to them, were
such especial favorites of the Apostles, as to obtain from them specific
instructions in respect to their relative duties, whilst all other
masters and servants, and all other rulers and subjects, throughout all
future time, were left unprovided with such instructions. According to
this supposition, when slavery and despotism shall, agreeably to
Professor Hodge's expectations, have entirely ceased, there will be not
one master nor servant, not one ruler nor subject in the whole earth, to
fall, as such, under the Apostolic injunctions.

3d. You admit that there were hirelings, in a community of primitive
believers; and I admit, for the moment, that there were slaves in it.
Now, under my interpretation of the Apostolic injunction, all husbands,
all wives, all parents, all children, and all servants, in this
community, are told their respective duties: but, under yours, these
duties are enjoined on all husbands, all wives, all parents, all
children, and a _part of the servants_. May we not reasonably complain
of your interpretation, that it violates analogy?

Imagine the scene, in which a father, in the Apostolic age, assembles
his family to listen to a letter from the glowing Peter, or "such an one
as Paul the aged." The letter contains instructions respecting the
relative duties of life. The venerable pair, who stand in the conjugal
and parental relations, receive, with calm thankfulness, what is
addressed to themselves;--the bright-eyed little ones are eager to know
what the Apostle says to children--a poor slave blesses God for his
portion of the Apostolic counsel;--and the scene would be one of
unmingled joy, if the writer had but addressed hired servants, as well
as slaves. One of the group goes away to weep, because the Apostle had
remembered the necessities of all other classes of men, and forgotten
those of the hireling. Sir, do you believe that the Apostle was guilty
of such an omission? I rejoice that my side of the question between us,
does not call for the belief of what is so improbable and
unnatural--and, withal, so dishonoring to the memory of the Apostle.

4th. Another reason for believing, that the Apostles intended no such
limitation as that which you impose upon their words, is, that their
injunctions are as applicable to the other classes of persons occupying
these relations, as they are to the particular class to which you
confine them. The hired servant, as well as the slave, needs to be
admonished of the sins of "eye service" and "purloining;" and the master
of voluntary, as well as involuntary servants, needs to be admonished to
"give that which is just and equal." The ruler in a republic, or, in a
limited monarchy, as well as the despot, requires to be reminded, that
he is to be "a minister of God for good." So the subject of one kind of
civil government, as well as that of another, needs to be told to be
"subject unto the higher powers."

I need not extend my remarks to prove, that _despotes_ and _doulos_ are,
in the case before us, to be taken in their comprehensive sense of
master and servant: and, clearly, therefore, the abolitionist is not
guilty of violating your rule, "not to interfere with a civil relation
(in another place, you say, 'any of the existing relations of life') for
which, and to regulate which, either Christ or his Apostles have
prescribed regulations." He believes, as fully as yourself, that the
relation of master and servant is approved of God. It is the slavery
modification of it--the slaveholder's abuse and perversion of the
relation, in reducing the servant to a chattel--which, he believes, is
not approved of God.

For the sake of the argument, I will admit, that the slave alone, of all
classes of servants, was favored with specific instructions from the
Apostles: and then, how should we account for the selection? In no other
way, can I conceive, than, on the ground, that his lot is so peculiarly
hard--so much harder than that of persons under other forms of
servitude--that he needs, whilst they do not, Apostolic counsel and
advice to keep him just, and patient, and submissive. Let me be spared
from the sin of reducing a brother man to such a lot. Your doctrine,
therefore, that the Apostles addressed slaves only, and not servants in
general, would not, were its correctness admitted, lift you out of all
the difficulties in your argument.

Again, does it necessarily follow from this admission, that the relation
of slaveholder and slave is sinless? Was the despotism of the Roman
government sinless? I do not ask whether the _abuses_ of civil
government, in that instance, were sinless. But, I ask, was a
government, despotic in its constitution, depriving all its subjects of
political power, and extending absolute control over their property and
persons--was such a government, independently of the consideration of
its _abuses_, (if indeed we may speak of the abuses of what is in itself
an _abuse_,) sinless? I am aware, that Prof. Hodge says, that it was so:
and, when he classes despotism and slavery with _adiaphora_, "things
indifferent;" and allows no more moral character to them than to a table
or a broomstick, I trust no good man envies his optics. May I not hope
that you, Mr. Smylie, perceive a difference between despotism and an
"indifferent thing." May I not hope, that you will, both as a Republican
and a Christian, take the ground, that despotism has a moral character,
and a bad one? When our fathers prayed, and toiled, and bled, to obtain
for themselves and their children the right of self-government, and to
effect their liberation from a power, which, in the extent and rigor of
its despotism, is no more to be compared to the Roman government, than
the "little finger" to the "loins," I doubt not, that they felt that
despotism had a moral, and a very bad moral character. And so would
Prof. Hodge have felt, had he stood by their side, instead of being one
of their ungrateful sons. I say ungrateful--for, who more so, than he
who publishes doctrines that disparage the holy cause in which they were
embarked, and exhibits them, as contending for straws, rather than for
principles? Tell me, how long will this Republic endure after our people
shall have imbibed the doctrine, that the _nature_ of civil government
is an indifferent thing: and that the poet was right when he said,

  "For forms of government let _fools_ contest?"


This, however, is but one of many doctrines of ruinous tendency to the
cause of civil liberty, advanced by pro-slavery writers to sustain their
system of oppression.

It would surely be superfluous to go into proofs, that the Roman
government was vicious and wicked in its constitution and nature.
Nevertheless, the Apostle enjoined submission to it, and taught its
subjects how to demean themselves under it. Here, then, we have an
instance, in which we cannot argue the sinlessness of a relation, from
the fact of Apostolic injunctions on those standing in it. Take another
instance. The Chaldeans went to a foreign land, and enslaved its
people--as members of your guilty partnership have done for some of the
slaves you now own, and for the ancestors of others. And God destroyed
the Chaldeans expressly "for all their evil that they had done in Zion."
But, wicked as they were, for having instituted this relation between
themselves and the Jews, God, nevertheless, tells the Jews to submit to
it. He tells them, "Serve the King of Babylon." He even says, "seek the
peace of the city, whither I have caused you to be carried away
captives, and pray unto the Lord for it; for, in the peace thereof,
shall ye have peace." Here then, we have another instance, in addition
to that of the Roman despot and his subjects, in which the Holy Spirit
prescribed regulations for wicked relations. You will, at least, allow,
that the relation established by the Chaldeans between themselves and
the captive Jews, was wicked. But, you will perhaps say, that this is
not a relation coming within the contemplation of your rule. Your rule
speaks of a civil relation, and also of the existing relations of life.
But, the relation in question, being substantially that of slaveholder
and slave, is, according to your own showing, a civil relation. Perhaps
you will say, it is not an "existing relation of life." But what do you
mean by "an existing relation of life?" Do you mean, that it is a
relation approved of God? If you do, and insist that the relation of
slaveholder and slave is "an existing relation of life," then you are
guilty of begging the great question between us. Your rule, therefore,
can mean nothing more than this--that any relation is rightful, for
which the Bible prescribes regulations. But the relation referred to
between the Chaldeans and Jews, proves the falsity of the rule. Again,
when a man compels me to go with him, is not the compelled relation
between him and me a sinful one? And the relation of robber and robbed,
which a man institutes between himself and me, is not this also sinful?
But, the Bible has prescribed regulations for the relations in both
these cases. In the one, it requires me to "go with him twain;" and, in
the other, to endure patiently even farther spoliation and, "let him
have (my) cloak also." In these cases, also, do we see the falsity of
your rule--and none the less clearly, because the relations in question
are of brief duration.

Before concluding my remarks on this topic, let me say, that your
doctrine, that God has prescribed no rules for the behaviour of persons
in any other than the just relations of life, reflects no honor on His
compassion. Why, even we "cut-throat" abolitionists are not so
hard-hearted as to overlook the subjects of a relation, because it is
wicked. Pitying, as we do, our poor colored brethren, who are forced
into a wicked relation, which, by its very nature and terms, and not by
its _abuses_, as you would say, has robbed them of their all--even we
would, nevertheless, tell them to "resist not evil"--to be obedient unto
their own masters"--not purloining, but showing all good fidelity." We
would tell them, as God told the captive Jews, to "seek the peace of
those, whither they are carried away captives, and to pray unto the
Lord" for them: and our hope of their emancipation is not, as it is most
slanderously and wickedly reported to be, in their deluging the South
with blood: but, it is, to use again those sweet words of inspiration,
that "in the peace thereof they shall have peace." We do not communicate
with the slave; but, if we did, we would teach him, that our hope of his
liberation is grounded largely in his patience, and that, if he would
have us drop his cause from our hands, he has but to take it into his
own, and attempt to accomplish by violence, that which we seek to effect
through the power of truth and love on the understanding and heart of
his master.

Having disposed of your reasons in favor of the rightfulness of the
relation of slaveholder and slave, I will offer a few reasons for
believing that it is not rightful.

1st. My strongest reason is, that the great and comprehensive
principles, and the whole genius and spirit of Christianity, are opposed
to slavery.

2d. In the case of Pharoah and his Jewish slaves, God manifested his
abhorrence of the relation of slavery. The fact that the slavery in this
case was political, instead of domestic, and, therefore, of a milder
type than that of Southern slavery, does not forbid my reasoning from
the one form to the other. Indeed, if I may receive your declaration on
this point, for the truth, I need not admit that the type of the slavery
in question is milder than that of Southern slavery;--for you say, that
"their (the Jews) condition was that of the most abject bondage or
slavery." But the supposition that it is milder, being allowed to be
correct, would only prove, that God's abhorrence of Southern bondage as
much exceeds that which he expressed of Egyptian bondage, as the one
system is more full than the other of oppression and cruelty.

We learn from the Bible, that it was not because of the _abuses_ of the
Egyptian system of bondage, but, because of its sinful nature, that God
required its abolition. He did not command Pharaoh to cease from the
_abuses_ of the system, and to correct his administration of it, but to
cease from the system itself. "I have heard," says God, "the groaning of
the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage;"--not whom
the Egyptians, availing themselves of their absolute power, compel to
make brick without straw, and seek to waste and exterminate by the
murder of their infant children;--but simply "whom the Egyptians keep in
bondage." These hardships and outrages were but the leaves and branches.
The root of the abomination was the bondage itself, the assertion of
absolute and slaveholding power by "a new king over Egypt, which knew
not Joseph." In the next verse God says: "I will rid you"--not only from
the burdens and abuses, as you would say, of bondage,--but "out of their
(the Egyptians) bondage" itself--out of the relation in which the
Egyptians oppressively and wickedly hold you.

God sends many messages to Pharaoh. In no one of them does He reprove
him for the abuses of the relation into which he had forced the Jews. In
no one of them is he called on to correct the evils which had grown out
of that relation. But, in every one, does God go to the root of the
evil, and command Pharaoh, "let my people go"--"let my people go, that
they may serve me." The abolitionist is reproachfully called an
"ultraist" and "an immediatist." It seems that God was both, when
dealing with this royal slaveholder:--for He commanded Pharaoh, not to
mitigate the bondage of the Israelites, but to deliver them from it--and
that, too, immediately. The system of slavery is wicked in God's sight,
and, therefore, did He require of Pharaoh its immediate abandonment. The
phrase, "let my people go, that they may serve me," shows most
strikingly one feature of resemblance between Egyptian and American
slavery. Egyptian slavery did not allow its subjects to serve God,
neither does American. The Egyptian master stood between his slave and
their God: and how strikingly and awfully true is it, that the American
master occupies the like position! Not only is the theory of slavery,
the world over, in the face of God's declaration; "all souls are mine:"
but American slaveholders have brought its practical character to
respond so fully to its theory--they have succeeded, so well, in
excluding the light and knowledge of God from the minds of their
slaves--that they laugh at His claim to "all souls."

3d. Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthian Church, tells
servants--say slaves, to suit your views--if they may be free, to prefer
freedom to bondage. But if it be the duty of slaves to prefer freedom to
bondage, how clearly is it the correlative duty of the master to grant
it to him! You interpret the Apostle's language, in this case, as I do;
and it is not a little surprising, that, with your interpretation of it,
you can still advocate slavery. You admit, that Paul says--I use your
own words--"a state of freedom, on the whole, is the best." Now, it
seems to me, that this admission leaves you without excuse, for
defending slavery. You have virtually yielded the ground. And this
admission is especially fatal to your strenuous endeavors to class the
relation of master and slave with the confessedly proper relations of
life, and to show that, like these, it is approved of God. Would Paul
say to the child, "a state of freedom" from parental government "on the
whole is the best?" Would he say to the wife, "a state of freedom from
your conjugal bonds" on the whole is the best? Would he say to the child
and wife, in respect to this freedom, "use it rather?" Would he be thus
guilty of attempting to annihilate the family relation?

Does any one wonder, that the Apostle did not use stronger language, in
advising to a choice and enjoyment of freedom? It is similar to that
which a pious, intelligent, and prudent abolitionist would now use under
the like circumstances. Paul was endeavoring to make the slave contented
with his hard lot, and to show him how unimportant is personal liberty,
compared with liberation from spiritual bondage: and this explains why
it is, that he spoke so briefly and moderately of the advantages of
liberty. His advice to the slave to accept the boon of freedom, was a
purely incidental remark: and we cannot infer from it, how great stress
he would have laid on the evils of slavery, and on the blessings of
liberty, in a discourse treating directly and mainly of those subjects.
What I have previously said, however, shows that it would, probably,
have been in vain, and worse than in vain, for him to have come out, on
any occasion whatever, with an exposition of the evils of slavery.

On the thirty-second page of your book, you say, "Masters cannot,
according to the command of Christ, render to their slaves that which is
just and equal, if you abolish the relation; for, then they will cease
to be masters." Abolish any of the relations for which regulations are
provided "in the New Testament, and, in effect, you abolish some of the
laws of Christ." But, we have just seen that Paul was in favor of
abolishing the relation of master and slave; which, as you insist, is a
relation for which regulations are provided in the New Testament. It is,
therefore, irresistibly deduced from your own premises, that he was in
favor of abolishing "the laws of Christ." It would require but little,
if any, extension of your doctrine, to make it wrong to remove all the
graven images out of a nation. For, in that event, the law of God
against bowing down to them would have nothing left to act upon. It
would thenceforth be inoperative.

4th. Another reason for believing, that the Apostles did not approve of
the slavery modification of servitude, is found in Paul's injunction;
"Remember them that are in bonds as bound with them." I admit, that it
is probable that others as well as slaves, are referred to in this
injunction: but it certainly is not probable, that others, to the
exclusion of slaves, are referred to. But, even on the supposition that
slaves are not referred to, but those only who are tenants of prisons,
let me ask you which you would rather be--a slave or a prisoner, as Paul
probably was when he wrote this injunction?--and whether your own
description of the wretched condition of the Roman slave, does not
prepare you to agree with me, that if the Apostle could ask sympathy for
the prisoner, who, with all his deprivations, has still the protection
of law, it is not much more due to the poor slave, who has no protection
whatever against lawless tyranny and caprice!

But to proceed, if slaves are the only, or even a part of the persons
referred to in the injunction, then you will observe, that the Apostle
does not call for the exercise of sympathy towards those who are said to
be suffering what you call the _abuses_ of slavery; but towards those
who are so unhappy as to be but the subjects of it--towards those who
are "in bonds." The bare relation of a slave is itself so grievous, as
to call for compassion towards those who bear it. Now, if this relation
were to be classed with the approved relations of life, why should the
Apostle have undertaken to awaken compassion for persons, simply because
they were the subject, of it? He never asked for sympathy for persons,
simply because they were parties to the relations of husband and wife,
parent and child. It may be worthy of notice, that the injunction under
consideration is found in Paul's letter to the Jewish Christians. This
attempt to awaken pity in behalf of the slave, and to produce abhorrence
of slavery, was made upon these, and not upon the Gentile Christians;
because, perhaps, that they, who had always possessed the Oracles of
God, could bear it; and they who had just come up out of the mire of
heathenism, could not. If this explanation be just, it enforces my
argument for ascribing to causes, other than the alleged sinfulness of
the institution, the Apostle's omission to utter specific rebukes of
slavery.

5th. Another reason for believing that the slavery modification of
servitude should not be classed with the confessedly proper relations
with which you class it, is the conclusive one, that it interferes with,
and tends to subvert, and does actually subvert, these relations. The
Apostles prescribe duties, which are necessary to sustain these
relations, and make them fruitful sources of happiness to the parties to
them. Among these duties are the following: "Wives, submit yourselves to
your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord"--"Children, obey your
parents"--"Husbands, dwell with them" (your wives). But slavery, where
it does not make obedience to these commands utterly impossible,
conditions it on the permission of usurpers, who have presumed to step
between the laws of God and those on whom they are intended to bear.
Slavery, not the law of God, practically determines whether husbands
shall dwell with their wives: and an amount of anguish, which God alone
can compute, testifies that slavery has thus determined, times without
number, that husbands shall not dwell with their wives. A distinguished
gentleman, who has been much at the South, is spending a little time in
my family. He told me but this day, that he had frequently known the air
filled with shrieks of anguish for a whole mile around the spot, where,
under the hammer of the auctioneer, the members of a family were
undergoing an endless separation from each other. It was but last week,
that a poor fugitive reached a family, in which God's commands, "Hide
the outcasts, betray not him that wandereth"--"Hide not thyself from thy
own flesh"--are not a dead letter. The heaviest burden of his heart is,
that he has not seen his wife for five years, and does not expect to see
her again: his master, in Virginia, having sold him to a Georgian, and
his wife to an inhabitant of the District of Columbia. Whilst the law of
God requires wives to "submit themselves to their husbands, as it is fit
in the Lord;" the law of slavery commands them, under the most terrific
penalties, to submit to every conceivable form of violence, and the most
loathsome pollution, "as it is fit" in the eyes of slaveholders--no
small proportion of whom are, as a most natural fruit of slavery,
abandoned to brutality and lust. The laws of South Carolina and Georgia
make it an offence punishable with death, "if any slave shall presume to
strike a white person." By the laws of Maryland and Kentucky, it is
enacted "if any negro, mulatto, or Indian, bond or free, shall, at any
time, lift his or her hand in opposition to any person, not being a
negro or Indian, he or she shall, in the first-mentioned State, suffer
the penalty of cropped ears; and, in the other, thirty-nine lashes on
his or her bare back, well laid on, by order of the justice." In
Louisiana there is a law--for the enactment of which, slavery is, of
course, responsible--in these words: "Free people of color ought never
to insult or strike white people, nor presume to conceive themselves
equal to the whites: but, on the contrary, they ought _to yield to them
on every occasion_, and never speak or answer them but with respect,
under the penalty of imprisonment, according to the nature of the
offence." The following extract of a letter, written to me from the
South, by a gentleman who still resides there, serves to show how true
it is, that "on every occasion," the colored person must yield to the
white, and, especially, if the white be clothed with the authority of an
ambassador of Christ. "A negro was executed in Autauga Co., not long
since, for the murder of his master. The latter, it seems, attempted to
violate the wife of his slave in his presence, when the negro enraged,
smote the wretch to the ground. And this master--this brute--this
fiend--was a preacher of the gospel, in regular standing!" In a former
part of this communication, I said enough to show, that slavery prevents
children from complying with the command to obey their parents. But, in
reply to what I have said of these outrages on the rights of husbands
and wives, parents and children, you maintain, that they are no part of
the system of slavery. Slaveholders, however, being themselves judges,
they are a part of it, or, at least, are necessary to uphold it; else
they would not by deliberate, solemn legislation, authorize them. But,
be this as it may, it is abundantly proven, that slavery is, essentially
and inevitably, at war with the sacred rights of the family state. Let
me say, then, in conclusion under this head, that in whatever other
company you put slavery, place it not in that of the just relations of
husband and wife, parent and child. They can no more company with each
other, than can fire with water. Their natures are not only totally
opposite to, but destructive of, each other.

6th. The laws, to which you refer on the sixty-eighth page of your book,
tend to prove, and, so far as your admission of the necessity of them
goes, do prove, that the relation of slaveholder and slave does not
deserve a place, in the class of innocent and proper relations. You
there say, that the writings of "such great and good men as Wesley,
Edwards, Porteus, Paley, Horsley, Scott, Clark, Wilberforce, Sharp,
Clarkson, Fox, Johnson, and a host of as good if not equally great, men
of later date," have made it necessary for the safety of the institution
of slavery, to pass laws, forbidding millions of our countrymen to read.
You should have, also, mentioned the horrid sanctions of these
laws--stripes, imprisonment, and death. Now, these laws disable the
persons on whom they bear, from fulfilling God's commandments, and,
especially, His commandment to "search the Scriptures." They are,
therefore, wicked. What then, in its moral character, must be a
relation, which, to sustain it, requires the aid of wicked laws?--and,
how entirely out of place must it be, when you class it with those just
relations of life, that, certainly, require none of the support, which,
you admit, is indispensable to the preservation of the relation of
slaveholder and slave! It is true, that you attempt to justify the
enactment of the laws in question, by the occasions which you say led to
it. But, every law forbidding what God requires, is a wicked law--under
whatever pretexts, or for whatever purposes, it may have been enacted.
Let the occasions which lead to a wicked measure be what they may, the
wickedness of the measure is still sufficient to condemn it.

In the case before us, we see how differently different persons are
affected by the same fact. Whilst the stand taken against slavery by
Wesley, Edwards, and the other choice spirits you enumerate, serves but
to inspire you with concern for its safety, it would, of itself, and
without knowing their reasons for it, be well nigh enough to destroy my
confidence in the institution. Let me ask you, Sir, whether it would not
be more reasonable for those, who are so industriously engaged in
insulating the system of American slavery, and shrouding it with
darkness, to find less fault with the bright and burning light which the
writings of the wisest and best men pour upon it, and more with the
system which "hateth the light, neither cometh to the light."

You would have your readers believe, that the blessings of education are
to be withheld from your slaves--only "until the storm shall be
overblown," and that you hope that "Satan's being let loose will be but
for a little season." I say nothing more about the last expression, than
that I most sincerely desire you may penitently regret having attributed
the present holy excitement against slavery to the influences of Satan.
By "the storm" you, doubtless, mean the excitement produced by the
publications and efforts of the American Anti-Slavery Society. Now, I
will not suppose that you meant to deceive your readers on this point.
You are, nevertheless, inexcusable for using language so strikingly
calculated to lead them into error. It is not yet three years since that
Society was organized: but the statute books of some of the slave States
contain laws, forbidding the instruction of slaves in reading, which
were enacted long before you and I were born. As long ago as the year
1740, South Carolina passed a law, forbidding to teach slaves to write.
Georgia did so in 1770. In the year 1800, thirty-three years before "the
storm" of the Anti-Slavery Society began to blow, South Carolina passed
a law, forbidding "assemblies of slaves, free negroes, &c., for the
purpose of mental instruction." In the Revised Code of Virginia of 1819,
is a law similar to that last mentioned. In the year 1818, the city of
Savannah forbade by an ordinance, the instruction of all persons of
color, either free or bond, in reading and writing. I need not specify
any more of these man-crushing, soul-killing, God-defying laws;--nor
need I refer again to the shocking penalties annexed to the violation of
most of them. I conclude my remarks under this head, with the advice,
that, in the next edition of your book, you do not assign the
anti-slavery excitement, which is now spreading over our land, as the
occasion of the passage of the laws in question.

7th. The only other reason I will mention for believing, that the
slavery modification of servitude is not approved of God, is, that it
has never been known _to work well_--never been known to promote man's
happiness or God's glory. Wickedness and wretchedness are, so uniformly,
the product of slavery, that they must be looked upon, not as its
abuses, but as its legitimate fruits. Whilst all admit, that the
relations of the family state are, notwithstanding their frequent
perversions, full of blessings to the world; and that, but for them, the
world would be nothing better than one scene of pollution and wo;--to
what history of slavery will you refer me, for proof of its beneficent
operation? Will it be to the Bible history of Egyptian slavery? No--for
that informs us of the exceeding wickedness and wretchedness of Egyptian
slavery. Will it be to the history of Greek and Roman slavery? No--for
your own book acknowledges its unutterable horrors and abominations.
Will you refer me to the history of the West Indies for proofs of the
happy fruits of slavery? Not until the earth is no more, will its
polluted and bloody pages cease to testify against slavery. And, when we
have come down to American slavery, you will not even open the book
which records such facts, as that its subjects are forbidden to be
joined in wedlock, and to read the Bible. No--you will not presume to
look for a single evidence of the benign influences of a system, where,
by the admission of your own ecclesiastical bodies, it has turned
millions of men into heathen. I say nothing now of your beautiful and
harmless theories of slavery:--but this I say, that when you look upon
slavery as it has existed, or now exists, either amidst the darkness of
Mahommedanism or the light of Christianity, you dare not, as you hope
for the Divine favor, say that it is a Heaven-descended institution; and
that, notwithstanding it is like Ezekiel's roll, "written within and
without with lamentations and mourning and wo," it, nevertheless, bears
the mark of being a boon from God to man.

Having disposed of your "strong reasons" for the position, that the New
Testament authorizes slavery, I proceed to consider your remaining
reasons for it.

Because it does not appear, that our Saviour and the Apostle Peter told
certain centurions, who, for the sake of the argument, I will admit were
slaveholders, that slaveholding is sinful, you argue, and most
confidently too, that it is not sinful. But, it does not appear, that
the Saviour and the Apostle charged _any_ sinful practices upon them.
Then, by your logic, all their other practices, as well as their
slaveholding, were innocent, and these Roman soldiers were literally
perfect.--Again; how do you know that the Saviour and the Apostle did
not tell them, on the occasion you refer to, that they were sinners for
being slaveholders? The fact, that the Bible does not inform us that
they told them so, does not prove that they did not; much less does it
prove, that they did not tell them so subsequently to their first
interview with them. And again, the admission that they did not
specifically attack slavery, at any of their interviews with the
centurions, or on any other occasions whatever, would not justify the
inference, that it is sinless. I need not repeat the reasoning which
makes the truth of this remark apparent.

You refer to the Saviour's declaration of the unequaled faith of one of
these centurions, with the view of making it appear that a person of so
great faith could not be a great sinner. But, how long had he exercised
this, or, indeed, any Christian faith? That he was on good terms with
the Jews, and had built them a synagogue, is quite as strong evidence,
that he had not, as that he had, previously to that time, believed in
Jesus:--and, if he had not, then his faith, however strong, and his
conversion, however decided, are nothing towards proving that slavery is
sinless.

It is evident, that the Apostle was sent to Cornelius for the single
purpose of inculcating the doctrine of the remission of sin, through
faith in Christ.

I proceed to examine another of your arguments. From Paul's declaration
to the Elders at Miletus, "I have not shunned to declare unto you all
the counsel of God," taken in connexion with the fact, that the Bible
does not inform us that he spoke to them of slaveholding, you
confidently and exultingly infer that it is innocent. Here, again, you
prove too much, and therefore, prove nothing. It does not appear that he
specified a hundredth part of their duties. If he did not tell them to
abstain from slaveholding, neither did he tell them to abstain from
games and theatres. But, his silence about slaveholding proves to your
mind its sinlessness: equally then should his silence about games and
theatres satisfy you of their innocence. Two radical errors run through
a great part of your book. They are, that the Apostle gave specific
instructions concerning all duties, and that the Bible contains these
instructions. But, for these errors, your book would be far less
objectionable than it is. I might, perhaps, rather say, that but for
these, you could not have made up your book.

And now, since Paul's address to the Elders has been employed by you in
behalf of slavery, allow me to try its virtue against slavery: and, if
it should turn out that you are slain with your own weapon, it will not
be the first time that temerity has met with such a fate. I admit, that
the Apostle does not tell the Elders of any wrong thing which they had
done; but there are some wrong things from which he had himself
abstained, and some right things which he had himself done, of which he
does tell them. He tells them, for instance, that he had not been guilty
of coveting what was another's, and also, that with his own hands he had
ministered to his own necessities and those of others: and he further
tells them, that they ought to copy his example, and labor, as he had
done, "to support the weak." Think you, sir, from this language that
Paul was a slaveholder--and, that his example was such, as to keep lazy,
luxurious slaveholders in countenance? The slaveholder is guilty of
coveting, not only all a man has, but even the man himself. The
slaveholder will not only not labor with his hands to supply the wants
of others, and "to support the weak;" but he makes others labor to
supply his wants:--yes, makes them labor unpaid--night and day--in
storm, as well as in sunshine--under the
lash--bleeding--groaning--dying--and all this, not to minister to his
actual needs, but to his luxuriousness and sensuality.

You ridicule the idea of the abolition of slavery, because it would make
the slaveholder "so poor, as to oblige him to take hold of the maul and
wedge himself--he must catch, curry, and saddle his own horse--he must
black his own brogans (for he will not be able to buy boots)--his wife
must go herself to the wash-tub--take hold of the scrubbing broom, wash
the pots, and cook all that she and her rail-mauler will eat." If Paul
were, as you judge he was, opposed to the abolition of slavery, it is at
least certain, from what he says of the character of his life in his
address to the Elders, that his opposition did not spring from such
considerations as array you against it. In his estimation, manual labor
was honorable. In a slaveholding community, it is degrading. It is so in
your own judgment, or you would not hold up to ridicule those humble
employments, which reflect disgrace, only where the moral atmosphere is
tainted by slavery. That the pernicious influences of slavery in this
respect are felt more or less, in every part of this guilty nation, is
but too true. I put it to your candor, sir, whether the obvious fact,
that slavery makes the honest labor of the hands disreputable, is not a
weighty argument against the supposition that God approves it? I put it
to your candor, sir, whether the fact, which you, at least, cannot
gain-say, that slavery makes even ministers of the gospel despise the
employments of seven-eighths of the human family, and, consequently, the
humble classes, who labor in them--I put it to your candor, whether the
institution, which breeds such contempt of your fellow-men and fellow
Christians, must not be offensive to Him, who commands us to "Honor all
men, and love the brotherhood?"

In another argument, you attempt to show, that Paul's letter to Philemon
justifies slaveholding, and also the apprehension and return of fugitive
slaves. After having recited the Resolution of the Chilicothe
Presbytery--"that to apprehend a slave who is endeavoring to escape from
slavery, with a view to restore him to his master, is a direct violation
of the Divine law, and, when committed by a member of the church, ought
to subject him to censure"--you undertake to make your readers believe,
that Paul's sending Onesimus to Philemon, is a case coming fairly within
the purview of the resolution. Let us see if it does. A man by the name
of Onesimus was converted to Christianity, under Paul's ministry at
Rome. Paul learnt that he had formerly been a servant--say a slave--of
Philemon, who was a "dearly beloved" Christian: and believing that his
return to his old master would promote the cause of Christ, and
beautifully exemplify its power, he advised him to return to him. He
followed the Apostle's advice and returned. Now, from this example, you
attempt to derive a justification for "a member of a Church" to be
engaged in forcibly apprehending and restoring fugitive slaves. I say
forcibly--as the apprehension and return, referred to in the Resolution,
are clearly forcible. I cannot refrain, sir, from saying, that you
greatly wrong the memory of that blessed Apostle of the Lord Jesus, in
construing his writings to authorize such violence upon the persons and
rights of men. And greatly, also, do you wrong the Resolution in
question, by your endeavor to array the Bible against it. The Resolution
is right; it is noble--it denotes in the source whence it emanated, a
proper sense of the rights and dignity of man. It is all the better for
being marked with an honorable contempt of wicked and heaven-daring
laws. May I, having the suspicion, or even the certain knowledge, that
my fellow man was once held in slavery, and is still _legally_ a slave,
seize upon him and reduce him again to slavery? May I thus deal with a
guiltless and unaccused brother? Human laws may, it is true, bear me out
in this man-stealing, which is not less flagrant than that committed on
the coast of Africa:--but, says the Great Law-giver, "The word that I
have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day:"--and, it is a
part of this "word," that "he that stealeth a man shall surely be put to
death." In that last day, the mayors, recorders, sheriffs, and others,
who have been engaged, whether in their official or individual capacity,
in slave-catching and man-stealing, will find human laws but a flimsy
protection against the wrath of Him, who judges his creatures by his own
and not by human laws. In that "last day," all who have had a part, and
have not repented of it, in the sin of treating man as property; all, I
say, whether slaveholders or their official or unofficial assistants,
the drivers upon their plantations, or their drivers in the free
States--all, who have been guilty of throwing God's "image" into the
same class with the brutes of the field--will find, that He is the
avenger of his poorest, meanest ones--and that the crime of transmuting
His image into property, is but aggravated by the fact and the plea that
it was committed under the sanction of human laws.

But, to return--wherein does the letter of Paul to Philemon justify
slaveholding? What evidence does it contain, that Philemon was a
slaveholder at the time it was written? He, who had been his slave "in
time past," had, very probably, escaped before Philemon's conversion to
Christ. This "time past," may have been a _long_ "time past." The word
in the original, which is translated "in time past," does not forbid the
supposition. Indeed, it is the same word, which the Apostle uses in the
thirteenth verse of the first chapter of Galatians; and there it denotes
a _long_ "time past"--as much as from fifteen to eighteen years.
Besides, Onesimus' escape and return both favor the supposition, that it
was between the two events that Philemon's conversion took place. On the
one hand, he fled to escape from the cruelties of an unconverted master;
on the other, he was encouraged to follow the Apostle's advice, by the
consideration, that on his return to Philemon he should not have to
encounter again the unreasonableness and rage of a heathen, but that he
should meet with the justice and tenderness of a Christian--qualities,
with the existence and value of which, he had now come to an
experimental acquaintance. Again, to show that the letter in question
does not justify slaveholding--in what character was it, that Paul sent
Onesimus to Philemon? Was it in that of a slave? Far from it. It was, in
that of "a brother beloved," as is evident from his injunction to
Philemon to "receive him forever--not now as a _slave_, but above a
_slave_--a brother beloved."

It is worthy of remark, that Paul's message to Philemon, shows, not only
that he himself was not in favor of slaveholding, but, that he believed
the gospel had wrought such an entire change on this subject, in the
heart of Philemon, that Onesimus would find on his return to him, the
tyrant and the slaveholder sunk in the brother and the Christian.

Paul's course in relation to Onesimus was such, as an abolitionist would
deem it proper to adopt, under the like circumstances. If a fugitive
slave, who had become a dear child of God, were near me, and, if I knew
that his once cruel master had also become a "dearly beloved" Christian;
and if, therefore, I had reason to believe, as Paul had, in the case of
Philemon, that he would "receive him forever--not now as a _slave_, but
above a _slave_, a brother beloved," I would advise him to revisit his
old master, provided he could do so, without interference and violence
from others. Such interference and violence did not threaten Onesimus in
his return to Philemon. He was not in danger of being taken up,
imprisoned, and sold for his jail fees, as a returning Onesimus would be
in parts of this nation.

On the 72d page of your book, you utter sentiments, which, I trust, all
your readers will agree, are unworthy of a man, a republican, and a
Christian. You there endeavor again to make it appear, that it is not
the _relation_ of master and slave, but only the abuse of it, which is
to be objected to.--You say: "Independence is a charming idea,
especially to Americans: but what gives it the charm? Is it the thing in
itself? or is it because it is a release from the control of a bad
master? Had Great Britain been a kind master, our ancestors were willing
to remain her slaves." In reply to this I would say, that it must be a
base spirit which does not prize "independence" for its own sake,
whatever privation and suffering may attend it; and much more base must
be that spirit, which can exchange that "independence" for a state of
slavish subjection--even though that state abound in all sensual
gratifications. To talk of "a kind master" is to talk of a blessing for
a dog, but not for a man, who is made to "call no man master." Were the
people of this nation like yourself, they would soon exchange their
blood-bought liberties for subjection to any despot who would promise
them enough to eat, drink, and wear. But, I trust, that we at the North
are "made of sterner stuff." They, who make slaves of others, can more
easily become slaves themselves: for, in their aggressions upon others,
they have despised and trampled under foot those great, eternal
principles of right, which _not only_ constitute the bulwark of the
general freedom; but his respect for which is indispensable to every
man's valuation and protection of his individual liberties. This train
of thought associates with itself in my mind, the following passage in
an admirable speech delivered by the celebrated William Pinckney, in the
Maryland House of Delegates in 1789. Such a speech, made at the present
time in a slave State, would probably cost the life of him who should
make it; nor could it be delivered in a free States at any less
sacrifice, certainly, than that of the reputation of the orator. What a
retrograde movement has liberty made in this country in the last fifty
years!

"Whilst a majority of your citizens are accustomed to rule with the
authority of despots, within particular limits--while your youths are
reared in the habit of thinking that the great rights of human nature
are not so sacred, but they may with innocence be trampled on, can it be
expected, that the public mind should glow with that generous ardor in
the cause of freedom, which can alone save a government, like ours, from
the lurking demon of usurpation? Do you not dread the contamination of
principle? Have you no alarms for the continuance of that spirit, which
once conducted us to victory and independence, when the talons of power
were unclasped for our destruction? Have you no apprehension left, that
when the votaries of freedom sacrifice also at the gloomy altars of
slavery, they will, at length, become apostates from them for ever? For
my own part, I have no hope, that the stream of general liberty will
flow for ever, unpolluted, through the foul mire of partial bondage, or
that they, who have been habituated to lord it over others, will not be
base enough, in time, to let others lord it over them. If they resist,
it will be the struggle of _pride_ and _selfishness_, not of
_principle_."

Had Edmund Burke known slaveholders as well as Mr. Pinckney knew them,
he would not have pronounced his celebrated eulogium on their love of
liberty;--he would not have ascribed to them any love of liberty, but
the spurious kind which the other orator, impliedly, ascribes to
them--that which "pride and selfishness" beget and foster. Genuine love
of liberty, as Mr. Pinckney clearly saw, springs from "principle," and
is found no where but in the hearts of those who respect the liberties
and the rights of others.

I had reason, in a former part of this communication, to charge some of
the sentiments of Professor Hodge with being alike reproachful to the
memory of our fathers, and pernicious to the cause of civil liberty.
There are sentiments on the 72d page of your book, obnoxious to the like
charge. If political "independence"--if a free government--be the poor
thing--the illusive image of an American brain--which you sneeringly
represent it, we owe little thanks to those who purchased it for us,
even though they purchased it with their blood; and little pains need we
take in that case to preserve it. When will the people of the Northern
States see, that the doctrines now put forth so industriously to
maintain slavery, are rapidly undermining liberty?

On the 43d page of your book you also evince your low estimate of man's
rights and dues. You there say, "the fact that the planters of
Mississippi and Louisiana, even while they have to pay from twenty to
twenty-five dollars per barrel for pork the present season, afford to
their slaves from three to four and a half pounds per week, does not
show, that they are neglectful in rendering to their slaves that which
is just and equal." If men had only an animal, and not a spiritual and
immortal nature also, it might do for you to represent them as well
provided for, if but pork enough were flung to them. How preposterous to
tell us, that God approves a system which brings a man, as slavery seems
to have brought you, to regard his fellow man as a mere animal!

I am happy to find that you are not all wrong. You are no "gradualist."
You are not inconsistent, like those who admit that slavery is sinful,
and yet refuse to treat it as sinful. I hope our Northern "gradualists"
will profit by the following passage in your book: "If I were convinced
by that word (the Bible) that slavery is itself a sin, I trust that, let
it cost what it would, I should be an abolitionist, because there is no
truth, more clear to my mind, than that the gospel requires an
_immediate_ abandonment of sin."

You have no doubt of your right to hold your fellow men, as slaves. I
wish you had given your readers more fully your views of the origin of
this right. I judge from what you say, that you trace it back to the
curse pronounced by Noah upon Canaan. But was that curse to know no end?
Were Canaan's posterity to endure the entailment of its disabilities and
woes, until the end of time? Was Divine mercy never to stay the
desolating waves of this curse? Was their harsh and angry roar to reach,
even into the gospel dispensation, and to mingle discordantly with the
songs of "peace on earth and good will to men?" Was the captivity of
Canaan's race to be even stronger than He, who came "to bind up the
broken-hearted, and proclaim liberty to the captives?" But who were
Canaan and his descendants? You speak of them, and with singular
unfairness, I think, as "_the_ posterity of Ham, from whom, it is
supposed, sprang the Africans." They were, it is true, a part of Ham's
posterity; but to call them "_the_ posterity of Ham," is to speak as
though he had no other child than Canaan. The fifteenth to nineteenth
verses of the tenth chapter of Genesis teach us, beyond all question,
that Canaan's descendants inhabited the land of Canaan and adjacent
territory, and that this land is identical with the country afterwards
occupied by the Jews, and known, in modern times, by the name of
Palestine, or the Holy Land. Therefore, however true it may be, that a
portion of Ham's posterity settled in Africa, we not only have no
evidence that it was the portion cursed, but we have conclusive evidence
that it was not.

But, was it a state of slavery to which Canaanites were doomed? I will
suppose, for a moment, that it was: and, then, how does it appear right
to enslave them? The curse in question is prophecy. Now prophecy does
not say what ought to come to pass: nor does it say, that they who have
an agency in the production of the foretold event, will be innocent in
that agency. If the prediction of an event justifies those who are
instrumental in producing it, then was Judas innocent in betraying our
Saviour. "It must needs be that offences come, but wo to that man by
whom the offence cometh." Prophecy simply tells what will come to pass.
The question, whether it was proper to enslave Canaanites, depends for
its solution not on the curse or prophecy in question. If the measure
were in conformity with the general morality of the Bible, then it was
proper. Was it in conformity with it? It was not. The justice, equity
and mercy which were, agreeable to the Divine command, to characterize
the dealings of the Jews with each other, are in such conformity, and
these are all violated by slavery. If those dealings were all based on
the general morality of the Bible, as they certainly were, then slavery,
which, in its moral character, is completely opposite to them, cannot
rest on that morality. If that morality did not permit the Jews to
enslave Canaanites, how came they to enslave them? You will say, that
they had special authority from God to do so, in the words, "Both thy
bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the
heathen that are around about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and
bondmaids." Well, I will admit that God did in one instance, and that He
may have done so in others, give special authority to the Jews to do
that, which, without such authority, would have been palpably and
grossly immoral. He required them to exterminate some of the tribes of
the Canaanites. He may have required them to bring other Heathens under
a form of servitude violative of the general morality of his word.--Of
course, no blame attaches to the execution of such commands. When He
specially deputes us to kill for Him, we are as innocent in the agency,
notwithstanding the general law, "thou shalt not kill," as is the
earthquake or thunderbolt, when commissioned to destroy. Samuel was as
innocent in hewing "Agag in pieces," as is the tree that falls upon the
traveler. It may be remarked, in this connexion, that the fact that God
gave a special statute to destroy some of the tribes of the Canaanites,
argues the contrariety of the thing required to the morality of the
Bible. It argues, that this morality would not have secured the
accomplishment of what was required by the statute. Indeed, it is
probable that it was, sometimes, under the influence of the tenderness
and mercy inculcated by this morality, that the Jews were guilty of
going counter to the special statute in question, and sparing the
devoted Canaanites, as in the instance when they "spared Agag." We might
reason, similarly to show that a special statute, if indeed there were
such a one, authorizing the Jews to compel the Heathen to serve them,
argues that compulsory service is contrary to fundamental morality. We
will suppose that God did; in the special statute referred to, clothe
the Jews with power to enslave Heathens, and now let me ask you, whether
it is by this same statute to enslave, that you justify your neighbors
and yourself for enslaving your fellow men? But this is a special
statute, conferring a power on the Jews only--a power too, not to
enslave whomsoever they could; but only a specified portion of the human
family, and this portion, as we have seen, of a stock, other than that
from which you have obtained your slaves. If the special statutes, by
which God clothed the Jews with peculiar powers, may be construed to
clothe you with similar powers, then, inasmuch as they were authorized
and required to kill Canaanites, you may hunt up for destruction the
straggling descendants of such of the devoted ones, as escaped the sword
of the Jews. Or, to make a different interpretation of your rights,
under this supposition; since the statute in question authorized and
required the Jews to kill the heathen, within the borders of what was
properly the Jews' country, then you are also authorized and required to
kill the heathens within the limits of your country:--and these are not
wanting, if the testimony of your ecclesiastical bodies, before referred
to, can be relied on; and, if it be as they say, that the millions of
the poor colored brethren in the midst of you are made heathens by the
operation of the system, to which, with unparalleled wickedness, they
are subjected.

If then, neither Noah's curse, nor the special statute in question,
authorize you to enslave your fellow men, there is, probably, but one
ground on which you will contend for authority to do so--and this is the
ground of the general morality of the Christian religion--of the general
principles of right and duty, in the word of God. Do you find your
authority on this ground? If you do, then, manifestly, you have a right
to enslave me, and I a right to enslave you, and every man has a right
to enslave whomsoever he can;--a right as perfect, as is the right to do
good to one another. Indeed, the enslavement of each other would, under
this construction of duty, _be_ the doing of good to one another. Think
you, sir, that the universal exercise of this right would promote the
fulfilment of the "new commandment that ye love one another?" Think you,
it would be the harbinger of millenial peace and blessedness? Or, think
you not, rather, that it would fully and frightfully realize the
prophet's declaration: "They all lie in wait for blood: they hunt every
man his neighbor with a net."

If any people have a right to enslave their fellow men, it must be the
Jews, if they once had it. But if they ever had it, it ceased, when all
their peculiar rights ceased. In respect to rights from the Most High,
they are now on the same footing with other races of men. When "the vail
of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom," then that
distinction from the Gentile, in which the Jew had gloried, ceased, and
the partition wall between them was prostrate for ever. The Jew, as well
as the Gentile, was never more to depart from the general morality of
the Bible. He was never again to be under any special statutes, whose
requirements should bring him into collision with that morality: He was
no more to confine his sympathies and friendships within the narrow
range of the twelve tribes: but every son and daughter of Adam were
thenceforth entitled to claim from him the heart and hand of a brother.
"Under the glorious dispensation of the gospel," says the immortal
Granville Sharp, "we are absolutely bound to consider ourselves as
citizens of the world; every man whatever, without any partial
distinction of nation, distance, or complexion, must necessarily be
esteemed our neighbor and our brother; and we are absolutely bound, in
Christian duty, to entertain a disposition towards all mankind, as
charitable and benevolent, at least, as that which was required of the
Jews under the law towards their brethren; and, consequently, it is
absolutely unlawful for those who call themselves Christians, to exact
of their brethren (I mean their brethren of the universe) a more
burthensome service, than that to which the Jews were limited with
respect to their brethren of the house of Israel; and the slavery or
involuntary bondage of a brother Israelite was absolutely forbid."

It occurs to me, that after all which has been said to satisfy you, that
compulsory servitude, if such there were among the Jews, cannot properly
be pleaded in justification of yours; a question may still be floating
in your mind whether, if God directed his chosen people to enslave the
Heathen, slavery should not be regarded as a good system of servitude?
Just as pertinently may you ask, whether that is not a good system of
servitude, which is found in some of our state prisons. Punishment
probably--certainly not labor--is the leading object in the one case as
well as the other: and the labor of the bondman in the one, as well as
of the convict in the other, constitutes but a subordinate
consideration. To suppose that God would, with every consideration out
of view, but that of having the best relation of employer and laborer,
make choice of slavery--to suppose that He believes that this state of
servitude operates most beneficially, both for the master and the
servant--is a high impeachment of the Divine wisdom and goodness. But
thus guilty are you, if you are unwilling to believe, that, if He chose
the severe servitude in question, He chose it for the punishment of his
enemies, or from some consideration, other than its suitableness for the
ordinary purposes of the relation of master and servant.

But it has been for the sake of argument only, that I have admitted that
God authorized the Jews to enslave the heathen. I now totally deny that
He did so. You will, of course, consent that if He did so, it was in a
special statute, as was the case when He authorized them to exterminate
other heathen: and you will as readily consent that He enacted the
statutes, in both instances, with the view of punishing his enemies.
Now, in killing the Canaanites, the Jew was constituted, not the owner
of his devoted fellow man, but simply the executioner of God's
vengeance: and evidently, such and no other was his character when he
was reducing the Canaanite to involuntary servitude--that he did so
reduce him, and was commissioned by God to do so, is the supposition we
make for the sake of argument. Had the Jews been authorized by God to
shut up in dungeons for life those of the heathen, whom they were
directed to have for bondmen and bondmaids, you would not claim, that
they, any more than sheriffs and jailers in our day, are to be
considered in the light of owners of the persons in their charge. Much
less then, can the Jews be considered as the owners of any person whom
they held in servitude: for, however severe the type of that servitude,
the liberty of its subject was not restricted, as was that of the
prisoners in question:--most certainly, the power asserted over him is
not to be compared in extent with that asserted by the Jew over the
Canaanite, whom he slew;--a case in which he was, indisputably, but the
executioner of the Divine wrath. The Canaanite, whether devoted to a
violent death or to an involuntary servitude, still remained the
property of God: and God no more gave him up to be the property of the
executioner of his wrath, than the people of the State of New York give
up the offender against public justice to be the property of the
ministers of that justice. God never suspends the accountability of his
rational creatures to himself: and his rights to them, He never
transfers to others. He could not do so consistently with his
attributes, and his indissoluble relations to man. But slavery claims,
that its subjects are the property of man. It claims to turn them into
mere chattels, and to make them as void of responsibility to God, as
other chattels. Slavery, in a word, claims to push from his throne the
Supreme Being, who declares, "all souls are mine." That it does not
succeed in getting its victim out of God's hand, and in unmanning and
_chattelizing_ him--that God's hold upon him remains unbroken, and that
those upward tendencies of the soul, which distinguish man from the
brute, are not yet entirely crushed in him--is no evidence in favor of
its nature:--it simply proves, that its power is not equal to its
purposes. We see, then, that the Jews--if it be true that they reduced
their fellow men to involuntary servitude, and did so as the
Heaven-appointed ministers of God's justice,--are not to be charged with
slaveholding for it. There may be involuntary servitude where there is
no slavery. The essential and distinguishing feature of slavery is its
reduction of man to property--to a thing. A tenant of one of our state
prisons is under a sentence of "hard labor for life." But he is not a
slave. That is, he is not the _thing_ which slavery would mark its
subject. He is still a man. Offended justice has placed him in his
present circumstances, because he is a man: and, it is because he is a
_man_ and not a _thing_--a responsible, and not an irresponsible being,
that he must continue in his present trials and sufferings.

God's commandments to the Jews, respecting servants and strangers, show
that He not only did not authorize them to set up the claim of property
in their fellow men, but that He most carefully guarded against such
exercises of power, as might lead to the assumption of a claim so
wrongful to Himself. Some of these commandments I will bring to your
notice. They show that whatever was the form of servitude under which
God allowed the Jews to hold the heathen, it was not slavery. Indeed, if
all of the Word of God which bears on this point were cited and duly
explained, it would, perhaps, appear that He allowed no involuntary
servitude whatever amongst the Jews. I give no opinion whether he
allowed it or not. There are strong arguments which go to show, that He
did not allow it; and with these arguments the public will soon be made
more extensively acquainted. It is understood, that the next number of
the Anti-Slavery Examiner will be filled with them.

1st. So galling are the bonds of Southern slavery, that it could not
live a year under the operation of a law forbidding the restoration of
fugitive servants to their masters. How few of the discontented subjects
of this oppressive servitude would agree with Hamlet, that it is better
to

  --"bear those ills we have,
  Than fly to others that we know not of."


What a running there would be from the slave States to the free!--from
one slave State to another!--from one plantation to another! Now, such a
law--a solemn commandment of God--many writers on slavery are of the
opinion, perhaps too confident opinion, was in force in the Jewish
nation (Deut. xxiii, 15); and yet the system of servitude on which it
bore, and which you cite as the pattern and authority for your own,
lived in spite of it. How could it? Manifestly, because its genius was
wholly unlike that of Southern slavery; and because its rigors and
wrongs, if rigors and wrongs there were in it, bear no comparison to
those which characterize Southern slavery; and which would impel
nine-tenths of its adult subjects to fly from their homes, did they but
know that they would not be obliged to return to them. When Southern
slaveholders shall cease to scour the land for fugitive servants, and to
hunt them with guns and dogs, and to imprison, and scourge, and kill
them;--when, in a word, they shall subject to the bearing of such a law
as that referred to their system of servitude, then we shall begin to
think that they are sincere in likening it to the systems which existed
among the Jews. The law, enacted in Virginia in 1705, authorizing any
two justices of the peace "by proclamation to _outlaw_ runaways, who
might thereafter be killed and destroyed by any person whatsoever, by
such ways and means as he might think fit, without accusation or
impeachment of any crime for so doing," besides that it justifies what I
have just said about hunting fugitive servants, shows, 1st. That the
American Anti-Slavery Society is of too recent an origin to be the
occasion, as slaveholders and their apologists would have us believe, of
all the cruel laws enacted at the South. 2d. That Southern slaveholders
would be very unwilling to have their system come under the operation of
such a law as that which allowed the Jewish servant to change his
master. 3d. That they are monsters, indeed, into which men may be turned
by their possession of absolute power.

You, perhaps, suppose, (and I frankly admit to you, that there is some
room for the supposition,) that the servants referred to in the 15th and
16th verses of the 23d chapter of Deuteronomy, were such as had escaped
from foreign countries to the country of the Jews. But, would this view
of the matter help you? By taking it, would you not expose yourself to
be most pertinently and embarrassingly asked, for what purpose these
servants fled to a strange and most odious people?--and would not your
candid reply necessarily be, that it was to escape from the galling
chains of slavery, to a far-famed milder type of servitude?--from
Gentile oppression, to a land in which human rights were protected by
Divine laws? But, as I have previously intimated, I have not the
strongest confidence in the anti-slavery argument, so frequently drawn
from this passage of the Bible. I am not sure that a Jewish servant is
referred to: nor that on the supposition of his being a foreigner, the
servant came under any form of servitude when entering the land of the
Jews. Before leaving the topic, however, let me remark, that the
passage, under any construction of it, makes against Southern slavery.
Admit that the fugitive servant was a foreigner, and that he was not
reduced to servitude on coming among the Jews, let me ask you whether
the law in question, under this view of it, would be tolerated by the
spirit of Southern slavery?--and whether, before obedience would be
rendered to it, you would not need to have a different type of
servitude, in the place of slavery? You would--I know you would--for you
have been put to the trial. When, by a happy providence, a vessel was
driven, the last year, to a West India island, and the chains of the
poor slaves with which it was filled fell from around them, under
freedom's magic power, the exasperated South was ready to go to war with
Great Britain. _Then_, the law against delivering up foreign servants to
their masters was not relished by you. The given case comes most
strikingly within the supposed policy of this law. The Gentile was to be
permitted to remain in the land to which he had fled, and where he would
have advantages for becoming acquainted with the God of the Bible. Such
advantages are they enjoying who escaped from the confessed heathenism
of Southern slavery to the island in question. They are now taught to
read that "Book of life," which before, they were forbidden to read. But
again, suppose a slave were to escape from a West India island into the
Southern States--would you, with your "domestic institutions," of which
you are so jealous, render obedience to this Divine law? No; you would
subject him _for ever_ to a servitude more severe than that, from which
he had escaped. Indeed, if a _freeman_ come within a certain portion of
our Southern country, and be so unhappy as to bear a physical
resemblance to the slave, he will be punished for that resemblance, by
imprisonment, and even by a reduction to slavery.

2d. Southern slaveholders, who, by their laws, own men as absolutely as
they own cattle, would have it believed, that Jewish masters thus owned
their fellow-men. If they did, why was there so wide a difference
between the commandment respecting the stray man, and that respecting
the stray ox or ass? The man was not, but the beasts were, to be
returned; and that too, even though their owner was the enemy of him who
met them. (Ex. 23. 4.) I repeat the question;--why this difference? The
only answer is, because God made the brute to be the _property_ of man;
but He never gave us our noble nature for such degradation. Man's title
deed, in the eighth Psalm, extends his right of property to the
inanimate and brute creation only--not to the flesh and bones and spirit
of his fellow-man.

3d. The very different penalties annexed to the crime of stealing a man,
and to that of stealing a thing, shows the eternal and infinite
difference which God has established between a man and property. The
stealing of a man was _surely_ to be punished with death; whilst mere
property was allowed to atone for the offence of stealing property.

4th. Who, if not the slave, can be said to be vexed and oppressed! But
God's command to his people was, that they should neither "vex a
stranger, nor oppress him."

5th. Such is the nature of American slavery, that not even its warmest
friends would claim that it could recover itself after such a "year of
jubilee" as God appointed. One such general delivery of its victims
would be for ever fatal to it. I am aware that you deny that all the
servants of the Jews shared in the blessings of the "year of jubilee."
But let me ask you, whether if one third or one half of your servants
were discharged from servitude every fiftieth year--and still more,
whether if a considerable proportion of them were thus discharged every
sixth year--the remainder would not be fearfully discontented? Southern
masters believe, that their only safety consists in keeping down the
discontent of their servants. Hence their anxious care to withhold from
them the knowledge of human rights. Hence the abolitionist who is caught
in a slave state, must be whipped or put to death. If there were a class
of servants amongst the Jews, who could bear to see all their fellow
servants go free, whilst they themselves were retained in bondage, then
that bondage was of a kind very different from what you suppose it to
have been. Had its subjects worn the galling chains of American slavery,
they would have struggled with bloody desperation for the deliverance
which they saw accorded to others.

I scarcely need say, that the Hebrew words rendered "bondmen" and
"bondmaids," do not, in themselves considered, and independently of the
connexion in which they are used, any more than the Greek words _doulos_
and _doule_, denote a particular kind of servant. If the servant was a
slave, because he was called by the Hebrew word rendered "bondman," then
was Jacob a slave also:--and even still greater absurdities could be
deduced from the position.

I promised, in a former part of this communication, to give you my
reasons for denying that you are at liberty to plead in behalf of
slavery, the example of any compulsory servitude in which Jews may have
held foreigners. My promise is now fulfilled, and I trust that the
reasons are such as not to admit of an answer.

Driven, as you now are, from every other conceivable defence of
slaveholding it may be (though I must hope better things of you), that
you will fly to the ground taken by the wicked multitude--that there is
authority in the laws of man for being a slaveholder. But, not only is
the sin of your holding slaves undiminished by the consideration, that
they are held under human laws; but, your claiming to hold them under
such laws, makes you guilty of an additional sin, which, if measured by
its pernicious consequences to others, is by no means inconsiderable.
The truth of these two positions is apparent from the following
considerations.

1st. There is no valid excuse to be found, either in man's laws or any
where else, for transgressing God's laws. Whatever may be thought, or
said to the contrary, it still remains, and for ever will remain true,
that under all circumstances, "sin is the transgression of the (Divine)
law."

2d. In every instance in which a commandment of God is transgressed,
under the cover and plea of a human law, purporting to permit what that
commandment forbids, there is, in proportion to the authority and
influence of the transgressor, a fresh sanction imparted to that law;
and consequently, in the same proportion the public habit of setting up
a false standard of right and wrong is promoted. It is this habit--this
habit of graduating our morality by the laws of the land in which we
live--that makes the "mischief framed by a law" so much more pernicious
than that which has no law to countenance it, and to commend it to the
conscience. Who is unaware, that nothing tends so powerfully to keep the
traffic in strong drink from becoming universally odious, as the fact,
that this body and soul destroying business finds a sanction in human
laws? Who has not seen the man, authorized by these laws to distribute
the poison amongst his tippling neighbors, proof against all the shafts
of truth, under the self-pleasing and self-satisfying consideration,
that his is a lawful business.

This habit of setting up man's law, instead of God's law, as the
standard of conduct, is strikingly manifested in the fact, that on the
ground, that the Federal Constitution binds the citizens of the United
States to perpetuate slavery, or at least, not to meddle with it, we
are, both at the North and the South, called on to forbear from all
efforts to abolish it. The exertions made to discover in that
instrument, authority for slavery, and authority against endeavors to
abolish it, are as great, anxious, and unwearied, as if they who made
them, thought that the fortunate discovery would settle for ever the
great question which agitates our country--would nullify all the laws of
God against slavery--and make the oppression of our colored brethren, as
long as time shall last, justifiable and praiseworthy. But this
discovery will never be made; for the Constitution is not on the side of
the slaveholder. If it were, however, it would clothe him with no moral
right to act in opposition to the paramount law of God. It is not at all
necessary to the support of my views, in this communication, to show
that the Constitution was not designed to favor slavery; and yet, a few
words to this end may not be out of place.

A treaty between Great Britain and Turkey, by the terms of which the
latter should be prohibited from allowing slaves to be brought within
her dominions, after twenty years from its date, would, all will admit,
redound greatly to the credit of Great Britain. To be sure, she would
not have done as much for the cause of humanity, as if she had succeeded
in bringing the further indulgence of the sin within the limits of a
briefer period, and incomparably less than if she had succeeded in
reconciling the Sublime Porte to her glorious and emphatically English
doctrines of immediate emancipation. But still she would deserve some
praise--much more than if she had done nothing in this respect. Now, for
my present purpose, and many of our statesmen say, for nearly all
purposes, the Federal Constitution is to be regarded as a treaty between
sovereign States. But how much more does this treaty do for the
abolition of slavery, than that on which we were, a moment since,
bestowing our praise! It imposes a prohibition similar to that in the
supposed treaty between Great Britain and Turkey, so that no slaves have
been allowed to be introduced into the United States since the year
1808. It goes further, and makes ample provision for the abolition and
prevention of slavery in every part of the nation, save these States; so
that the District of Columbia and the national territories can be
cleared forever of slavery, whenever a majority of the parties, bound by
the treaty, shall desire it. And it goes still farther, and clothes this
majority with the power of regulating commerce between the States, and
consequently, of prohibiting their mutual traffic in "the bodies and
souls of men." Had this treaty gone but one step farther, and made an
exception, as it should have done, in behalf of slaves, in the clause
making necessary provision for the return of fugitives held to service
in the States from which they flee, none but those who think it is
fairly held responsible for the twenty years indulgence of the unholy
traffic, would have claimed any thing more from it in relation to
slavery. Now, this instrument, which contains nothing more, bearing on
the subject of slavery, than what I have referred to, and whose pages
are not once polluted with the words "slave" and "slavery," is
abundantly and triumphantly cited, as conclusive authority in favor of
slavery, and against endeavors to abolish it. Whilst we regret, that the
true-hearted sons of freedom in the Convention which formed it, could
obtain no more concessions from the advocates of slavery, let us honor
their sacred memory, and thank God for those they did obtain.

I have supposed it possible, that you might number yourself with those,
who defend slavery on the ground of its alleged conformity with human
laws. It occurs to me, that you may, also, take hope, that slavery is
defensible in the supposed fact, that a considerable share of the
professing Christians, in the free States, are in favor of it. "Let God
be true, but every man a liar." If all professing Christians were for
slavery, yet, if God is against it, that is reason enough why you also
should be against it. It is not true, however, that a considerable share
of our professing Christians are on the side of slavery. Indeed, until I
read Professor Hodge's article, I had not supposed that any of them
denied its sinfulness. It is true, that a large proportion of them
refuse to take a stand against it. Let them justify to their
consciences, and to their God, as they can, the equivocal silence and
still more equivocal action on this subject, by which they have left
their Southern brethren to infer, that Northern piety sanctions slavery.
It is the doctrine of expediency, so prevalent and corrupting in the
American Church, which has deceived you into the belief, that a large
share of the professing Christians in the free States, think slavery to
be sinless. This share, which you have in your eye, is, as well as the
remainder, convinced that slavery is sinful--_only they think it
inexpedient to say so_. In relation to other sins, they are satisfied
with God's way of immediate abandonment. But, in relation to slavery,
they flatter themselves that they have discovered "a more excellent
way"--that of leaving the sin untouched, and simply hoping for its
cessation, at some indefinite period in the distant future. I say
hoping, instead of praying, as prayer for an object is found to be
accompanied by corresponding efforts. But for this vile doctrine of
expediency, which gives to our ecclesiastical bodies, whenever the
subject of such a giant and popular sin as slavery is broached in them,
the complexion of a political caucus steeped in unprincipled policy,
rather than that of a company of the Saviour's disciples, inquiring "in
simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom," the way of the
Lord;--but for this doctrine, I say, you would, long ago, have heard the
testimony of Northern Christians against Southern slavery;--and not only
so, but you would long ago have seen this Dagon fall before the power of
that testimony. I trust, however, that this testimony will not long be
withheld; and that Northern Christians will soon perceive, that, in
relation to slavery, as well as every other sin, it is the safest and
wisest, as well as the holiest course, to drop all carnal policy--to
"trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own
understanding."

Not only are Northern Christians, with very rare exceptions, convinced
of the sin of slavery; but even your slaveholders were formerly
accustomed, with nearly as great unanimity, to admit, that they
themselves thought it to be sinful. It is only recently, and since they
have found that their system must be tested by the Bible, thoroughly and
in earnest--not merely for the purpose, as formerly, of determining
without any practical consequences of the determination, what is the
moral character of slavery--but, for the purpose of settling the point,
whether the institution shall stand or fall,--it is only, I say, since
the civilized world has been fast coming to claim that it shall be
decided by the Bible, and by no lower standard, whether slavery shall or
shall not exist--that your slaveholders have found it expedient to take
the ground, that slavery is not sin.

It probably has not occurred to you, how fairly and fully you might have
been stopped, upon the very threshold of your defence of slavery. The
only witness you have called to the stand to sustain your sinking cause,
is the Bible. But this is a witness, which slavery has itself impeached,
and of which, therefore, it is not entitled to avail itself. It is a
good rule in our civil courts, that a party is not permitted to impeach
his own witness; and it is but an inconsiderable variation of the letter
of this rule, and obviously no violation of its spirit and policy to
say, that no party is permitted to attempt to benefit his cause by a
witness whom he has himself impeached. Now, the slaveholder palpably
violates this rule, when he presumes to offer the Bible as a witness for
his cause:--for he has previously impeached it, by declaring, in his
slave system, that it is not to be believed--that its requirements are
not to be obeyed--that they are not even to be read (though the Bible
expressly directs that they shall be)--that concubinage shall be
substituted for the marriage it enjoins--and that its other provisions
for the happiness, and even the existence, of the social relations,
shall be trampled under foot. The scene, in which a lawyer should ask
the jury to believe what his witness is saying at one moment, and to
reject what he is saying at another, would be ludicrous enough. But what
more absurdity is there in it than that which the pro-slavery party are
guilty of, when they would have us deaf, whilst their witness is
testifying in favor of marriage and searching the Scriptures; and, all
ears, whilst that same witness is testifying, as they construe it, in
favor of slavery! No--before it will be competent for the American
slaveholder to appeal to the Bible for justification of his system, that
system must be so modified, as no longer to make open, shameless war
upon the Bible. I would recommend to slaveholders, that, rather than
make so unhallowed a use of the Bible as to attempt to bolster up their
hard beset cause with it, they should take the ground, which a very
distinguished slaveholding gentleman of the city of Washington took, in
a conversation with myself on the subject of slavery. Feeling himself
uncomfortably plied by quotations from the word of God, he said with
much emphasis, "Stop, Sir, with that, if you please--SLAVERY IS A
SUBJECT, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLE."

This practice of attempting to put the boldest and most flagrant sins
under the wing and sanction of the Bible, is chargeable on others as
well as on the advocates of slavery. Not to speak of other instances of
it--it is sought to justify by this blessed book the most despotic forms
of civil government, and the drinking of intoxicating liquors. There are
two evils so great, which arise from this perversion of the word of God,
that I cannot forbear to notice them. One is, that the consciences of
men are quieted, when they imagine that they have found a justification
in the Bible for the sins of which they are guilty. The other is, that
infidels are multiplied by this perversion. A respectable gentleman, who
edits a newspaper in this neighborhood, and who, unhappily, is not
established in the Christian faith, was asked, a few months since, to
attend a meeting of a Bible Society. "I am not willing," said he, in
reply, "to favor the circulation of a volume, which many of its friends
claim to be on the side of slavery." Rely on it, Sir, that wherever your
book produces the conviction that the Bible justifies slavery, it there
weakens whatever of respect for that blessed volume previously existed.
Whoever is brought to associate slavery with the Bible, may, it is true,
think better of slavery; but he will surely think worse of the Bible. I
hope, therefore, in mercy to yourself and the world, that the success of
your undertaking will be small.

But oftentimes the same providence has a bright, as well as a gloomy,
aspect. It is so in the case before us. The common attempt, in our day,
to intrench great sins in the authority of the Bible, is a consoling and
cheering evidence, that this volume is recognised as the public standard
of right and wrong; and that, whatever may be their private opinions of
it who are guilty of these sins, they cannot hope to justify themselves
before the world, unless their lives are, apparently, at least,
conformed, in some good degree, to this standard. We may add, too, that,
as surely as the Bible is against slavery, every pro-slavery writer, who
like yourself appeals to it as the infallible and only admissible
standard of right and wrong, will contribute to the overthrow of the
iniquitous system. His writings may not, uniformly, tend to this happy
result. In some instances, he may strengthen confidence in the system of
slavery by producing conviction, that the Bible sanctions it;--and then
his success will be, as before remarked, at the expense of the claims
and authority of the Bible:--but these instances of the pernicious
effects of his writings will be very rare, quite too rare we may hope,
to counterbalance the more generally useful tendency of writings on the
subject of slavery, which recognise the paramount authority of God's
law.

Having completed the examination of your book, I wish to hold up to you,
in a single view, the substance of what you have done. You have come
forth, the unblushing advocate of American slavery;--a system which,
whether we study its nature in the deliberate and horrid enactments of
its code, or in the heathenism and pollution and sweat and tears and
blood, which prove, but too well, the agreement of its practical
character with its theory--is, beyond all doubt, more oppressive and
wicked than any other, which the avaricious, sensual, cruel heart of man
ever devised. You have come forth, the unblushing advocate of a system
under which parents are daily selling their children; brothers and
sisters, their brothers and sisters; members of the Church of Christ,
their fellow-members--under which, in a word, immortal man, made "in the
image of God," is more unfeelingly and cruelly dealt with, than the
brute. I know that you intimate that this system would work well, were
it in the hands of none but good men. But with equal propriety might you
say, that the gaming-house or the brothel would work well in such hands.
You have attempted to sustain this system by the testimony of the Bible.
The system, a part only of the crimes of which, most of the nations of
Christendom have declared to be piracy;--against which, the common
sense, the philosophy, the humanity, the conscience of the world, are
arrayed;--this system, so execrable and infamous, you have had the
presumption to attempt to vindicate by that blessed book, whose Author
"is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and (who) cannot look upon
iniquity"--and who "has magnified his word above all his name."

And now, Sir, let me solemnly inquire of you, whether it is right to do
what you have done?--whether it is befitting a man, a Christian, and a
minister of the gospel?--and let me, further, ask you, whether you have
any cheering testimony in your heart that it is God's work you have been
doing? That you and I may, in every future work of our hands, have the
happiness to know, that the approbation of our employer comes from the
upper, and not from the under world, is the sincere desire of



Your friend,

GERRIT SMITH.





No. 4



THE

ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.



THE

BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.



AN INQUIRY

INTO THE

PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS

ON THE SUBJECT OF HUMAN RIGHTS.


NEW-YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,

NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.


1837.

POSTAGE--This periodical contains five and a half sheets. Postage under
100 miles, 8-1/2 cts over 100 miles, 14 cents.

_Please read and circulate._

PIERCY & REED. PRINTERS,

7 Theatre Alley.






CONTENTS.

    Definition of Slavery

    Man-stealing--Examination of Ex. xxi. 16

    Import of "Bought with money," etc.

    Rights and privileges of servants

    No involuntary servitude under the Mosaic system

    Servants were paid wages

    Masters, not owners

    Servants distinguished from property

    Social equality of servants with their masters

    Condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the Hebrew
    Commonwealth

    Egyptian bondage analyzed

    OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

    "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be," etc. Gen.
    ix. 25

    "For he is his money," Examination of, Ex. xxi. 20, 21

    "Bondmen and bondmaids" bought of the heathen. Lev. xxv. 44-46

    "They shall be your bondmen forever." Lev. xxv. 46

    "Ye shall take them as an inheritance," etc. Lev. xxv. 46

    The Israelite to serve as a hired servant. Lev. xxv. 39, 40

    Difference between bought and hired servants

    Bought servants the most privileged class

    Summary of the different classes of servants

    Disabilities of the servants from the heathen

    Examination of Exodus xxi. 2-6

    The Canaanites not sentenced to unconditional extermination






INQUIRY, &c.


       *       *       *       *       *


The spirit of slavery never takes refuge in the Bible _of its own
accord._ The horns of the altar are its last resort. It seizes them, if
at all, only in desperation--rushing from the terror of the avenger's
arm. Like other unclean spirits, it "hateth the light, neither cometh to
the light, lest its deeds should be reproved." Goaded to phrenzy in its
conflicts with conscience and common sense, denied all quarter, and
hunted from every covert, it breaks at last into the sacred enclosure,
and courses up and down the Bible, "seeking rest, and finding none." THE
LAW OF LOVE, streaming from every page, flashes around it an omnipresent
anguish and despair. It shrinks from the hated light, and howls under
the consuming touch, as demons recoiled from the Son of God, and
shrieked, "Torment us not." At last, it slinks away among the shadows of
the Mosaic system, and thinks to burrow out of sight among its types and
shadows. Vain hope! Its asylum is its sepulchre; its city of refuge, the
city of destruction. It rushes from light into the sun; from heat, into
devouring fire; and from the voice of God into the thickest of His
thunders.


DEFINITION OF SLAVERY.

If we would know whether the Bible is the charter of slavery, we must
first determine _just what slavery is_. The thing itself must be
separated from its appendages. A constituent element is one thing; a
relation another; an appendage another. Relations and appendages
presuppose _other_ things, of which there are relations and appendages.
To regard them as _the things_ to which they pertain, or as constituent
parts of them, leads to endless fallacies. A great variety of
conditions, relations, and tenures, indispensable to the social state,
are confounded with slavery; and thus slaveholding is deemed quite
harmless, if not virtuous. We will specify some of the things which are
often confounded with slavery.

1. _Privation of the right of suffrage_. Then _minors_ are slaves.

2. _Ineligibility to office_. Then _females_ are slaves.

3. _Taxation without representation_. Then three-fourths of the people
of Rhode Island are slaves, and _all_ in the District of Columbia.

4. _Privation of one's oath in law_. Then the _free_ colored people of
Ohio are slaves. So are disbelievers in a future retribution, generally.

5. _Privation of trial by jury_. Then all in France and Germany are
slaves.

6. _Being required to support a particular religion_. Then the people of
England are slaves. [To the preceding may be added all other
disabilities, merely political.]

7. _Cruelty and oppression_. Wives are often cruelly treated; hired
domestics are often oppressed; but these forms of oppression are not
slavery.

8. _Apprenticeship_. The rights and duties of master and apprentice are
correlative and reciprocal. The _claim_ of each upon the other results
from the _obligation_ of each to the other. Apprenticeship is based on
the principle of equivalent for value received. The rights of the
apprentice are secured, and his interests are promoted equally with
those of the master. Indeed, while the law of apprenticeship is _just_
to the master, it is _benevolent_ to the apprentice. Its main design is
rather to benefit the apprentice than the master. It _promotes_ the
interests of the former, while it guards from injury those of the latter
in doing it. It secures to the master a mere legal compensation, while
it secures to the apprentice both a legal compensation, and a virtual
gratuity in addition, the apprentice being of the two decidedly the
greatest gainer. The law not only recognizes the _right_ of the
apprentice to a reward for his labor, but appoints the wages, and
enforces the payment. The master's claim covers only the _services_ of
the apprentice. The apprentice's claim covers _equally_ the services of
the master. The master cannot hold the apprentice as property, nor the
apprentice the master; but each holds property in the services of the
other, and BOTH EQUALLY. Is this slavery?

9. _Filial subordination and parental claims_. Both are nature's
dictates, and indispensable to the existence of the social state; their
_design_ the promotion of mutual welfare; and the _means_, those natural
affections created by the relation of parent and child, and blending
them in one by irrepressible affinities; and thus, while exciting each
to discharge those offices incidental to the relation, they constitute a
shield for mutual protection. The parent's legal claim to the services
of his children, while minors, is a slight boon for the care and toil of
their rearing, to say nothing of outlays for support and education. This
provision for the good of the _whole_, is, with the greater part of
mankind, indispensable to the preservation of the family state. The
child, in helping his parents, helps himself--increases a common stock,
in which he has a share; while his most faithful services do but
acknowledge a debt that money cannot cancel.

10. _Bondage for crime, or governmental claims on criminals._ Must
innocence be punished because guilt suffers penalties? True, the
criminal works for the government without pay; and well he may. He owes
the government. A century's work would not pay its drafts on him. He is
a public defaulter, and will die so. Because laws make men pay their
debts, shall those be forced to pay who _owe nothing?_ Besides, the law
makes no criminal, PROPERTY. It restrains his liberty; it makes him pay
something, a mere penny in the pound, of his debt to the government; but
it does not make him a _chattel_. Test it. To own property is to own its
product. Are children born of convicts government property? Besides, can
_property_ be _guilty_? Are _chattels_ punished?

11. _Restrictions upon freedom._ Children are restrained by parents,
wards by guardians, pupils by teachers, patients by physicians and
nurses, corporations by charters, and legislators by constitutions.
Embargoes, tariffs, quarantine, and all other laws, keep men from doing
as they please. Restraints are the web of civilized society, warp and
woof. Are they slavery? then civilized society is a mammoth slave--a
government of LAW, _the climax of slavery_, and its executive a king
among slaveholders.

12. _Involuntary or compulsory service_. A juryman is empannelled
_against his will_, and sit he _must_. A sheriff orders his posse;
bystanders _must_ turn in. Men are _compelled_ to remove nuisances, pay
fines and taxes, support their families, and "turn to the right as the
law directs," however much _against their wills_. Are they therefore
slaves? To confound slavery with involuntary service is absurd. Slavery
is a _condition_. The slave's _feelings_ toward it, are one thing; the
condition itself, the object of these feelings, is _another_ thing; his
feelings cannot alter the nature of that condition. Whether he _desire_
or _detest_ it, the _condition_ remains the same. The slave's
_willingness_ to be a slave is no palliation of his master's guilt in
holding him. Suppose the slave verily thinks himself a chattel, and
consents that others may so regard him, does that _make_ him a chattel,
or make those guiltless who _hold_ him as such? I may be sick of life,
and I tell the assassin so that stabs me; is he any the less a murderer
because I _consent_ to be made a corpse? Does my partnership in his
guilt blot out his part of it? If the slave were willing to be a slave,
his _voluntariness_, so far from _lessening_ the guilt of the "owner,"
_aggravates_ it. If slavery has so palsied his mind and he looks upon
himself as a chattel, and consents to be one, actually _to hold him as
such_, falls in with his delusion, and confirms the impious falsehood.
_These very feelings and convictions of the slave_, (if such were
possible) increase a hundred fold the guilt of the master in holding him
as property, and call upon him in thunder, immediately to recognize him
as a MAN, and thus break the sorcery that binds his soul, cheating it of
its birth-right, and the consciousness of its worth and destiny.

Many of the foregoing conditions and relations are _appendages_ of
slavery, and some of them inseparable from it. But no one, nor all of
them together, constitute its _intrinsic unchanging element_.

We proceed to state affirmatively that,

ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY, making free
agents chattels, converting _persons_ into _things_, sinking
intelligence, accountability, immortality, into _merchandise_. A _slave_
is one held in this condition. He is a mere tool for another's use and
benefit. In law "he owns nothing, and can acquire nothing." _His right
to himself is abrogated._ He is another's property. If he say _my_
hands, _my_ feet, _my_ body, _my_ mind, MY_self_; they are figures of
speech. To _use himself_ for his own good is a CRIME. To keep what he
_earns_ is stealing. To take his body into his own keeping is
_insurrection_. In a word, the> _profit_ of his master is the END of his
being, and he, a _mere means_ to that end, a _mere means_ to an end into
which his interests do not enter, of which they constitute no
portion[A]. MAN sunk to a _thing_! the intrinsic element, the
_principle_ of slavery; MEN sold, bartered, leased, mortgaged,
bequeathed, invoiced, shipped in cargoes, stored as goods, taken on
executions, and knocked off at public outcry! Their _rights_ another's
conveniences, their interests, wares on sale, their happiness, a
household utensil; their personal inalienable ownership, a serviceable
article, or plaything, as best suits the humor of the hour; their
deathless nature, conscience, social affections, sympathies, hopes,
marketable commodities! We repeat it, _the reduction of persons to
things_; not robbing a man of privileges, but of _himself_; not loading
with burdens, but making him a _beast of burden_; not _restraining_
liberty, but subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them;
not inflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating _personality_; not
exacting involuntary labor, but sinking him into an _implement_ of
labor; not abridging his human comforts, but abrogating his _human
nature_; not depriving an animal of immunities, but _despoiling a
rational being of attributes_, uncreating a MAN to make room for a
_thing_!

[Footnote A: Whatever system sinks man from an END to a _means_, or in
other words, whatever transforms him from an object of instrumentality
into a mere instrumentality _to_ an object, just so far makes him a
_slave_. Hence West India apprenticeship retains in _one_ particular the
cardinal principle of slavery. The apprentice, during three-fourths of
his time, is still forced to labor, and robbed of his earnings; just so
far forth he is a _mere means_, a _slave_. True, in all other respects
slavery is abolished in the British West Indies. Its bloodiest features
are blotted out--but the meanest and most despicable of all--forcing the
poor to work for the rich without pay three-fourths of their time, with
a legal officer to flog them if they demur at the outrage, is one of the
provisions of the "Emancipation Act!" For the glories of that luminary,
abolitionists thank God, while they mourn that it rose behind clouds,
and shines through an eclipse.]

That this is American slavery, is shown by the laws of slave states.
Judge Stroud, in his "Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery," says,
"The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked
among sentient beings, but among _things_--is an article of property, a
chattel personal, obtains as undoubted law in all of these states," (the
slave states.) The law of South Carolina thus lays down the principle,
"Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be
_chattels personal_ in the hands of their owners and possessors, and
their executors, administrators, and assigns, to ALL INTENTS,
CONSTRUCTIONS, AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER." Brevard's Digest, 229. In
Louisiana, "a slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he
_belongs_; the master may sell him, dispose of his _person, his
industry, and his labor_; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor
acquire any thing, but what must belong to his master." Civil Code of
Louisiana, Art. 35.

This is American slavery. The eternal distinction between a person and a
thing, trampled under foot--the crowning distinction of all
others--their centre and circumference--the source, the test, and the
measure of their value--the rational, immortal principle, embalmed by
God in everlasting remembrance, consecrated to universal homage in a
baptism of glory and honor, by the gift of His Son, His Spirit, His
Word, His presence, providence, and power; His protecting shield,
upholding staff, and sheltering wing; His opening heavens, and angels
ministering, and chariots of fire, and songs of morning stars, and a
great voice in heaven, proclaiming eternal sanctions, and confirming the
word with signs following.

Having stated the _principle_ of American slavery, we ask, DOES THE
BIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A][A]? To the _law_ and the
_testimony_. First, the moral law, or the ten commandments. Just after
the Israelites were emancipated from their bondage in Egypt, while they
stood before Sinai to receive the law, as the trumpet waxed louder, and
the mount quaked and blazed, God spake the ten commandments from the
midst of clouds and thunderings. _Two_ of those commandments deal death
to slavery. Look at the eighth, "_Thou shall not steal_," or, thou shalt
not take from another what belongs to him. All man's powers of body and
mind are God's gift to _him_. That they are _his own_, and that he has a
right to them, is proved from the fact that God has given them to _him
alone_, that each of them is a part of _himself_, and all of them
together _constitute_ himself. All _else_ that belongs to man is
acquired by the _use_ of these powers. The _interest_ belongs to him,
because the _principal_ does--the product is his, because he is the
_producer_. Ownership of any thing is ownership of its _use_. The right
to use according to will, is _itself_ ownership. The eighth commandment
_presupposes and assumes the right of every man to his powers, and their
product._ Slavery robs of both. A man's right to himself is the only
right absolutely original and intrinsic--his right to whatever else that
belongs to him is merely _relative_ to his right to himself--is derived
from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the _foundation
right_--the _post in the middle_, to which all other rights are
fastened. Slaveholders, the world over, when talking about their RIGHT
to their slaves, always assume _their own right to themselves_. What
slaveholder ever undertook to prove his own right to himself? He knows
it to be a self-evident proposition, that _a man belongs to
himself_--that the right is intrinsic and absolute. The slaveholder, in
making out his own title to himself, makes out the title of every human
being to _himself_. As the fact of being _a man_ is itself the title,
the whole human family have one common title deed. If _one_ man's title
is valid, _all_ are valid. If one is worthless, all are. To deny the
validity of the _slave's_ title is to deny the validity of _his own_;
and yet in the act of making him a slave, the slaveholder _asserts_ the
validity of his own title, while he seizes _him_ as his property who has
the _same_ title. Further, in making him a slave, he does not merely
unhumanize _one_ individual, but UNIVERSAL MAN. He destroys the
foundations. He annihilates _all rights_. He attacks not only the human
race, but _universal being_, and rushes upon JEHOVAH.--For rights are
_rights_; God's are no more--man's are no less.

[Footnote A: The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral
character. It vouches for them as _facts_, not as _virtues_. It records
without rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob
and his mother--not only single acts, but _usages_, such as polygamy and
concubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that _silent
entry_ God's _endorsement_? Because the Bible, in its catalogue of human
actions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write
against it, _this is a crime_--does that wash out its guilt, and bleach
it into a virtue?]

The eighth commandment forbids the taking of _any_ part of that which
belongs to another. Slavery takes the _whole_. Does the same Bible which
forbids the taking of _any_ thing belonging to him, sanction the taking
of _every_ thing? Is it such a medley of absurdities as to thunder wrath
against him who robs his neighbor of a _cent_, while it bids God speed
to him who robs his neighbor of _himself_? Slavery is the highest
possible violation of the eighth commandment. To take from a man his
earnings, is theft. But to take the _earner_, is compound, superlative,
perpetual theft. It is to be a thief by profession. It is a trade, a
life of robbery, that vaults through all the gradations of the climax at
a leap--the dread, terrific, giant robbery, that towers among other
robberies, a solitary horror, monarch of the realm. The eighth
commandment forbids the taking away, and the _tenth_ adds, "_Thou shalt
not COVET any thing that is thy neighbor's_;" thus guarding every man's
right to himself and his property, by making not only the actual taking
away a sin, but even that state of mind which would _tempt_ to it. Who
ever made human beings slaves, or held them as slaves without _coveting_
them? Why do they take from them their time, their labor, their liberty,
their right of self-preservation and improvement, their right to acquire
property, to worship according to conscience, to search the Scriptures,
to live with their families, and their right to their own bodies? Why do
they _take_ them, if they do not _desire_ them? They COVET them for
purposes of gain, convenience, lust of dominion, of sensual
gratification, of pride and ostentation. _They break the tenth
commandment_, and pluck down upon their heads the plagues that are
written in the book. _Ten_ commandments constitute the brief compend of
human duty. _Two_ of these brand slavery as sin.



The giving of the law at Sinai, immediately preceded the promulgation of
that body of laws and institutions, called the "Mosaic system." Over the
gateway of that system, fearful words were written by the finger of
God--"HE THAT STEALETH A MAN AND SELLETH HIM, OR IF HE BE FOUND IN HIS
HAND, HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH." See Exodus, xxi. 16.

The oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, and the wonders wrought for
their deliverance, proclaim the reason for _such_ a law at _such_ a
time--when the body politic became a theocracy, and reverently waited
for the will of God. They had just been emancipated. The tragedies of
their house of bondage were the realities of yesterday, and peopled
their memories with thronging horrors. They had just witnessed God's
testimony against oppression in the plagues of Egypt--the burning blains
on man and beast--the dust quickened into loathsome life, and cleaving
in swarms to every living thing--the streets, the palaces, the temples,
and every house heaped up with the carcasses of things abhorred--even
the kneading troughs and ovens, the secret chambers and the couches,
reeking and dissolving with the putrid death--the pestilence walking in
darkness at noonday, the devouring locusts and hail mingled with fire,
the first-born death-struck, and the waters blood, and, last of all,
that dread high hand and stretched out arm, that whelmed the monarch and
his hosts, and strewed their corpses in the sea. All this their eyes had
looked upon,--earth's proudest city, wasted and thunder-scarred, lying
in desolation, and the doom of oppressors traced on her ruins in the
hand writing of God, glaring in letters of fire mingled with blood--a
blackened monument of wrath to the uttermost against the stealers of
men.

No wonder that God, in a code of laws prepared for such a people at such
a time, should light up on its threshold a blazing beacon to flash
terror on slaveholders. "_He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if
he be found in his hand, he shall be surely put to death_." Ex. xxii.
16. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance to the Mosaic
system! See also Deut. xxiv. 7[A].

[Footnote A: Jarchi, the most eminent of the Jewish writers, (if we
except perhaps the Egyptian Maimonides,) who wrote seven hundred years
ago, in his comment on this stealing and making merchandize of men,
gives the meaning thus:--"Using a man against his will, as a servant
lawfully purchased; yea though he should use his services ever so
little, only to the value of a farthing, or use but his arm to lean on
to support him, _if he be forced so to act as a servant_, the person
compelling him but once to do so shall die as a thief, whether he has
sold him or not."]

The Hebrew word, _Gaunab_, here rendered _stealeth_, means the taking
from another what _belongs_ to him, whether it be by violence or fraud;
the same word is used in the eighth commandment, and prohibits both
_robbery_ and theft.

The crime specified is that of _depriving_ SOMEBODY _of the ownership of
a man_. Is this somebody a master? and is the crime that of depriving a
_master_ of his _servant_? Then it would have been "he that stealeth" a
_servant, not_ "he that stealeth a _man_." If the crime had been the
taking of an individual from _another_, then the _term_ used would have
been _expressive of that relation_, and _most especially_ if it was the
relation of property and _proprietor_!

The crime, as stated in the passage, is three-fold--man _stealing_,
_selling_ and _holding_. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one
penalty--DEATH. This _somebody_ deprived of the ownership of man, is the
_man himself_, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said to the servants
of Pharoah, "Indeed I was _stolen_ away out of the land of the Hebrews."
Gen. xl. 15. How _stolen_? His brethren took him and sold him as an
_article of merchandize_. Contrast this penalty for _man_-stealing with
that for _property_-stealing. Exod. xxii. If a man stole an _ox_ and
killed or sold it, he was to restore five oxen; if he had neither sold
nor killed it, the penalty was two oxen. The selling or the killing
being virtually a deliberate repetition of the crime, the penalty was
more than doubled.

But in the case of stealing a _man_, the first act drew down the utmost
power of punishment; however often repeated, or however aggravated the
crime, human penalty could do no more. The fact that the penalty for
_man_-stealing was death, and the penalty for _property_-stealing, the
mere _restoration of double_, shows that the two cases were adjudicated
on totally different principles. The man stolen might be past labor, and
his support a _burden_, yet death was the penalty, though not a cent's
worth of _property value_ was taken. The penalty for stealing _property_
was a mere _property penalty_. However large the amount stolen, the
payment of _double_ wiped out the score. It might have a greater _money_
value than a _thousand_ men, yet _death_ was never the penalty, nor
maiming, nor branding, nor even _stripes_. Whatever the kind, or the
amount stolen, the unvarying penalty was double of _the same kind_. Why
was not the rule uniform? When a _man_ was stolen why not require the
thief to restore _double of the same kind--two men_, or if he had sold
him, _five_ men? Do you say that the man-thief might not _have_ them? So
the _ox_-thief might not have two _oxen_, or if he had killed it,
_five_. But if God permitted men to hold _men_ as property, equally with
_oxen_, the _man_-thief could get _men_ with whom to pay the penalty, as
well as the _ox_-thief, _oxen_.

Further, when _property_ was stolen, the whole of the legal penalty was
a compensation to the person injured. But when a _man_ was stolen, no
property compensation was offered. To tender _money_ as an equivalent,
would have been to repeat the outrage with the intolerable aggravations
of supreme insult and impiety. Compute the value of a MAN in _money!_
Throw dust into the scale against immortality! The law recoiled from
such outrage and blasphemy. To have permitted the man-thief to expiate
his crime by restoring double, would have been making the repetition of
crime its atonement. But the infliction of death for _man-stealing_
exacted from the guilty wretch the utmost possibility of reparation. It
wrung from him, as he gave up the ghost, a testimony in blood, and death
groans, to the infinite dignity and worth of man,--a proclamation to the
universe, voiced in mortal agony, that MAN IS INVIOLABLE,--a confession
shrieked in phrenzy at the grave's mouth--"I die accursed, and God is
just."

If God permitted man to hold _man_ as property, why did He punish for
stealing _that_ kind of property infinitely more than for stealing any
_other_ kind of property? Why did he punish with _death_ for stealing a
very little, perhaps not a sixpence worth, of _that_ sort of property,
and make a mere _fine_, the penalty for stealing a thousand times as
much, of any other sort of property--especially if God did by his own
act annihilate the difference between man and _property_, by putting him
_on a level with it_?

The atrociousness of a crime, depends greatly upon the nature,
character, and condition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the
thief, or whatever the plunder. To steal bread from a _full_ man, is
theft; to steal it from a _starving_ man, is both theft and murder. If I
steal my neighbor's _property_, the crime consists not in the _nature_
of the article, but in _shifting its external relation_ from _him to
me_. But when I take my neighbor _himself_, and first make him
_property_, and then _my_ property, the latter act, which was the sole
crime in the former case, dwindles to a mere appendage. The sin in
stealing a man does not consist in transferring, from its owner to
another, that which is _already property_, but in turning _personality_
into _property_. True, the _attributes_ of man still remain, but the
rights and immunities which grow out of them are _annihilated_. It is
the first law of reason and revelation to regard things and beings as
they are; and the sum of religion, to feel and act toward them according
to their nature and value. Knowingly to treat them otherwise, is _sin_;
and the degree of violence done to their nature, relations, and value,
measures its guilt. When things are sundered which God has indissolubly
joined, or confounded in one, which he has separated by infinite
extremes; when sacred and eternal distinctions, which he has garnished
with glory, are derided and set at nought, then, if ever, _sin_ reddens
in its "scarlet dye." The sin specified in the passage, is that of doing
violence to the _nature_ of a _man_--his _intrinsic value_ and relations
as a rational being, and blotting out the exalted distinction stamped
upon him by his Maker. In the verse preceding, and in that which
follows, the same principle is laid down. Verse 15, "_He then smiteth
his father or his mother shall surely be put to death._" Verse 17, "_He
that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death._"
If a Jew smote his neighbor, the law merely smote him in return. But if
that same blow were given to a _parent_, the law struck the smiter
_dead_. Why this difference in the punishment of the same act, inflicted
on different persons? Answer--God guards the parental relation with
peculiar care. It is the _centre_ of human relations. To violate that,
is to violate _all_. Whoever trampled on _that_, showed that no relation
had any sacredness in his eyes--that he was unfit to move among human
relations who had violated one so sacred and tender.--Therefore, the
Mosaic law uplifted his bleeding corpse, and brandished the ghastly
terror around the parental relation to guard it from impious inroads.

But why the difference in the penalty since the _act_ was the same? The
sin had divers aggravations.

1. The relation violated was obvious--the distinction between parents
and others, manifest, dictated by natural affection--a law of the
constitution.

2. The act was violence to nature--a suicide on constitutional
susceptibilities.

3. The parental relation then, as now, was the centre of the social
system, and required powerful safe-guards. "_Honor thy father and thy
mother_," stands at the head of those commands which prescribe the
duties of man to man; and, throughout the Bible, the parental relation
is God's favorite illustration, of his own relations to the whole family
of man. In this case, death is inflicted not at all for the act of
_smiting_, nor for smiting a _man_, but a _parent_--for violating a
vital and sacred relation--a _distinction_ cherished by God, and around
which, both in the moral and ceremonial law, He threw up a bulwark of
defence. In the next verse, "He that stealeth a man," &c., the SAME
PRINCIPLE is wrought out in still stronger relief. The crime here
punished with death, is not the mere act of taking property from its
owner, but the disregarding of _fundamental relations_, doing violence
to an _immortal nature_, making war on a _sacred distinction_ of
priceless worth. That distinction which is cast headlong by the
principle of American slavery; which makes MEN "_chattels_."

The incessant pains-taking throughout the old Testament, in the
separation of human beings from brutes and things, shows God's regard
for the sacredness of his own distinction.

"In the beginning" the Lord uttered it in heaven, and proclaimed it to
the universe as it rose into being. He arrayed creation at the instant
of its birth, to do it reverent homage. It paused in adoration while He
ushered forth its crowning work. Why that dread pause, and that creating
arm held back in mid career, and that high conference in the godhead?
"_Let us make man in_ OUR IMAGE, _after_ OUR LIKENESS, AND LET HIM HAVE
DOMINION _over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth_."

_Then_ while every living thing, with land, and sea, and firmament, and
marshalled worlds, waited to catch and swell the shout of morning
stars--THEN "GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE. IN THE IMAGE OF GOD
CREATED HE HIM." This solves the problem, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD CREATED HE
HIM. Well might the sons of God cry all together, "Amen,
alleluia"--"_Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive blessing and
honor"--"For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast
crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over
the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet. O Lord,
our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth_." Psalms viii. 5,
6, 9. The frequent and solemn repetition of this distinction by God
proclaims his infinite regard. The 26th, 27th, and 28th verses of the
1st chapter of Genesis are little else than the repetition of it in
various forms. In the 5th chapter, 1st verse, we find it again--"In the
day that God created man, IN THE LIKENESS of GOD MADE HE MAN." In the
9th chapter, 6th verse, we find it again. After giving license to shed
the blood of "every moving thing that liveth," it is added, "_Whoso
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for_ IN THE IMAGE
OF GOD MADE HE MAN." As though he had said, "All these other creatures
are your property, designed for your use--they have the likeness of
earth, they perish with the using, and their spirits go downward; but
this other being, MAN, has my own _likeness_; IN THE IMAGE OF GOD made I
man; an intelligent, moral, immortal agent, invited to all that I can
give and he can be." So in Levit. xxiv. 17, 18, "_He that killeth any_
MAN _shall surely be put to death; and he, that killeth a beast shall
make it good, beast for beast; and he that killeth a_ MAN _shall be put
to death_." So in the passage quoted above, Ps. viii. 5, 6. What an
enumeration of particulars, each separating infinitely, MEN from brutes
and things!

1. "_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels_." Slavery drags
him down among _brutes_.

2. "_And hast crowned him with glory and honor_." Slavery tears off his
crown, and puts on a _yoke_.

3. "_Thou madest him to have dominion_ OVER _the works of thy hands_."
Slavery breaks his sceptre, and casts him down _among_ those works--yea,
_beneath them_.

4. "_Thou hast put all things under his feet_." Slavery puts HIM _under
the feet of an owner_, with beasts and creeping things. Who, but an
impious scorner, dare thus strive with his Maker, and mutilate HIS
IMAGE, and blaspheme the Holy One, who saith to those that grind his
poor, "_Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did it
unto me_."

But time would fail us to detail the instances in which this distinction
is most impressively marked in the Bible.

In further prosecuting this inquiry, the Patriarchal and Mosaic systems
will be considered together, as each reflects light upon the other, and
as many regulations of the latter are mere _legal_ forms of Divine
institutions previously existing. As a _system_, however, the latter
alone is of Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the
_patriarchs_, God has not made them our examplars[A].

[Footnote A: Those who insist that the patriarchs held slaves, and sit
with such delight under their shadow, hymning the praises of "those good
old patriarchs and slaveholders," might at small cost greatly augment
their numbers. A single stanza celebrating patriarchal _concubinage_,
winding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, would
be a trumpet call, summoning from bush and brake, highway and hedge, and
sheltering fence, a brotherhood of kindred affinities, each claiming
Abraham or Noah as his patron saint, and shouting, "My name is legion."
What a myriad choir, and thunderous song!]

Before entering upon an analysis of the condition of servants under
these two states of society, let us settle the import of certain terms
which describe the mode of procuring them.


IMPORT OF THE WORD "BUY," AND THE PHRASE "BOUGHT WITH MONEY."

From the direction to the Israelites to "buy" their servants, and from
the phrase "bought with money," applied to Abraham's servants, it is
argued that they were articles of _property_. The sole ground for this
belief is the _terms_ "buy" and "bought with money," and such an import
to these terms when applied to servants is assumed, not only in the
absence of all proof, but in the face of evidence to the contrary. How
much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be proved was always
_assumed_. To _beg_ the question in debate, what economy of midnight
oil! what a forestaller of premature wrinkles, and grey hairs! Instead
of protracted investigation into Scripture usage, and painful collating
of passages, and cautiously tracing minute relations, to find the
meaning of Scripture terms, let every man boldly resolve to interpret
the language of the oldest book in the world, by the usages of his own
time and place, and the work is done. And then what a march of mind!
Instead of _one_ revelation, they might be multiplied as the drops of
the morning! Every man might take orders as an inspired interpreter,
with an infallible clue to the mind of the Spirit, if he only understood
the dialect of his own neighborhood! We repeat it, the only ground of
proof that these terms are to be interpreted to mean, when applied to
servants in the Bible, the same that they mean when applied to our
_slaves, is the terms themselves._

What a Babel-jargon it would make of the Bible to take it for granted
that the sense in which words are _now_ used is the _inspired_ sense.

David says, "I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried." What a
miracle-worker, to stop the earth in its revolution! Rather too fast.
Two hundred years ago, _prevent_ was used in the strict Latin sense to
_come before_, or _anticipate_. It is always used in this sense in the
Old and New Testaments. David's expression, in the English of the
nineteenth century, is, "Before the dawning of the morning I cried," or,
I began to cry before day-break. "So my prayer shall _prevent_ thee."
"Let us _prevent_ his face with thanksgiving." "Mine eyes _prevent_ the
night watches." "We shall not _prevent_ them that are asleep," &c. In
almost every chapter of the Bible, words are used in a sense now nearly
or quite obsolete, and sometimes in a sense totally _opposite_ to their
present meaning. A few examples follow: "Oftentimes I purposed to come
to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto." "And the four _beasts_
(living ones) fell down and worshipped God,"--Whosoever shall _offend_
(cause to sin) one of these little ones,"--Go out into the high ways and
_compel_ (urge) them to come in,"--Only let your _conversation_
(habitual conduct or course of life) be as becometh the Gospel,"--They
that seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me,--Give me _by and by_
(now) in a charger, the head of John the Baptist,"--So when tribulation
or persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (immediately) they are offended.
Nothing is more mutable than language. Words, like bodies, are
continually throwing off particles and absorbing others. So long as they
are mere _representatives,_ elected by the whims of universal suffrage,
their meaning will be a perfect volatile, and to cork it up for the next
century is an employment sufficiently silly, (to speak within bounds,)
for a modern Bible dictionary maker. There never was a shallower conceit
than that of establishing the sense attached to a word centuries ago, by
showing what it means _now_. Pity that hyper-fashionable mantuamakers
and milliners were not a little quicker at taking hints from some of our
Doctors of Divinity. How easily they could save their pious customers
all qualms of conscience about the weekly shiftings of fashion, by
demonstrating that the last importation of Parisian indecency, just now
flaunting here on promenade, was the identical style of dress in which
the pious Sarah kneaded cakes for the angels, the modest Rebecca drew
water for the camels of Abraham's servants. Since such fashions are rife
in Chestnut-street and Broadway _now_, they _must_ have been in Canaan
and Pandanaram four thousand years ago!

II. 1. The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring
of servants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the
fallacy--that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or
whoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of
your paying for it _proves_ that it is property. The children of Israel
were required to _purchase_ their first-born out from under the
obligations of the priesthood, Numb. xviii. 15, 16; Exod. xxxiv. 20.
This custom is kept up to this day among the Jews, and the word _buy_ is
still used to describe the transaction. Does this prove that their
first-born were, or are, held as property? They were _bought_ as really
as were _servants_. So the Israelites were required to _pay money_ for
their own souls. This is called sometimes a ransom, sometimes an
atonement. Were their _souls_ therefore marketable commodities?

2. Bible saints _bought_ their wives. Boaz _bought_ Ruth. "So Ruth the
Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ to be my wife." Ruth
iv. 10. Hosea bought his wife. "So I _bought_ her to me for fifteen
pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of
barley." Hosea iii. 2. Jacob _bought_ his wives Rachel and Leah, and not
having money, paid for them in labor--seven years a piece. Gen. xxix.
15-29. Moses probably bought his wife in the same way, and paid for her
by his labor, as the servant of her father. Exod. ii. 21. Shechem, when
negotiating with Jacob and his sons for Dinah, says, "What ye shall say
unto me, I will _give_. Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will
give according as ye shall say unto me." Gen. xxxiv. 11, 12. David
purchased Michal, Saul's daughter, and Othniel, Achsab, the daughter of
Caleb, by performing perilous services for the benefit of their
fathers-in-law. 1 Sam. xviii. 25-27; Judges i. 12, 13. That the purchase
of wives, either with money or by service was the general practice, is
plain from such passages as Exod. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Among
the Jews of the present day this usage exists, though it is now a mere
form, there being no _real_ purchase. Yet among their marriage
ceremonies, is one called "marrying by the penny." The coincidences, not
only in the methods of procuring wives and servants, and in the terms
employed in describing the transactions, but in the prices paid for
each, are worthy of notice. The highest price of wives (virgins) and
servants was the same. Compare Deut. xxii. 28, 29, and Exod. xxii. 17,
with Lev. xxvii. 2-8. The _medium_ price of wives and servants was the
same. Compare Hosea iii. 2, with Exod. xxi. 2. Hosea appears to have
paid one half in money and the other in grain. Further, the Israelitish
female bought-servants were _wives_, their husbands and their masters
being the same persons. Exod. xxi. 8, and Judges xix. 3, 27. If _buying_
servants among the Jews shows that they were property, then buying
_wives_ shows that _they_ were property. The words in the original used
to describe the one, describe the other. Why not contend that the wives
of the ancient fathers of the faithful were their chattels, and used as
ready change at a pinch? And thence deduce the rights of modern
husbands. How far gone is the Church from primitive purity! How slow to
emulate illustrious examples! Alas! Patriarchs and prophets are followed
afar off! When will pious husbands live up to their Bible privileges,
and become partakers with Old Testament worthies in the blessedness of a
husband's rightful immunities! Surely professors of religion now, are
_bound_ to buy and hold their wives as property! Refusing so to do, is
to question the morality of those "good old" wife-trading "patriarchs,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," with the prophets, and a host of whom the
world was not worthy.

The use of the word buy, to describe the procuring of wives, is not
peculiar to the Hebrew. In the Syriac language, the common expression
for "the married," or "the espoused," is "the bought." Even so late as
the 16th century, the common record of _marriages_ in the old German
Chronicles was "A. BOUGHT B."

The Hebrew word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the
nature of the subject to which it is applied. Eve says, "I have _gotten_
(bought) a man of the Lord." She named him Cain, that is, _bought_. "He
that heareth reproof, getteth (buyeth) understanding", Prov. xv. 32. So
in Isa. xi. 11. "The Lord shall set his hand again to recover (to _buy_)
the remnant of his people." So Ps. lxxviii. 54. He brought them to this
mountain which his right hand had _purchased_, i.e. gotten. Jer. xiii.
4. "Take the girdle that thou hast got" (bought.) Neh. v. 8. "We of our
ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren that were sold to the
heathen." Here "_bought_" is not applied to persons who were made
slaves, but to those taken _out_ of slavery. Prov. 8. 22. "The Lord
possessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way before his works of
old." Prov. xix. 8. "He that _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own
soul." Prov. xvi. 16. "How much better is it to _get_ (buy) wisdom than
gold?" Finally, to _buy_ is a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word
_Kana_.

4. Even at this day the word _buy_ is used to describe the procuring of
servants, where slavery is abolished. In the British West Indies, where
slaves became apprentices in 1834, they are still "bought." This is now
the current word in West India newspapers. So a few years since in
New-York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and even now in New-Jersey servants
are "_bought_" as really as in Virginia. And the different senses in
which the same word is used in the two states, puts no man in a
quandary, whose common sense amounts to a modicum.

So under the system of legal _indenture_ in Illinois, servants now are
"_bought_."[A] A short time since, hundreds of foreigners who came to
this country were "bought" annually. By voluntary contract they engaged
to work for their purchasers a given time to pay for their passage. This
class of persons called "redemptioners," consisted at one time of
thousands. Multitudes are _bought out_ of slavery by themselves or
others, and remove into free states. Under the same roof with the writer
is a "servant bought with money." A few weeks since, she was a slave. As
soon as "bought," she was a slave no longer. Alas! for our leading
politicians if "buying" men makes them "chattels." The Whigs say that
Benton and Rives were "bought" by the administration with the surplus
revenue; and the other party, that Clay and Webster were "bought" by the
Bank. The histories of the revolution tell us that Benedict Arnold was
"bought" by British gold. Did that make him an article of property? When
a northern clergyman marries a rich southern widow, country gossip hits
off the indecency with this current phrase, "The cotton bags _bought_
him." When Robert Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever
will pay it can _buy_ him," and when John Randolph said, while the
Missouri question was pending, "The northern delegation is in the
market; give me money enough, and I can _buy_ them," they both meant
_just what they said_. When the temperance publications tell us that
candidates for office _buy_ men with whiskey; and the oracles of street
tattle, that the court, district attorney, and jury, in the late trial
of Robinson were _bought_, we have no floating visions of "chattels
personal," man auctions, or coffles.

[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the state of
Illinois--"No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time _purchase_
any servant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the
persons aforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such
servant shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed, and
taken."]

The transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to the
meaning attached to "buy" and "bought with money." See Gen. xlvii.
18-26. The Egyptians proposed to Joseph to become servants, and that he
should _buy_ them. When the bargain was closed, Joseph said, "Behold I
have _bought you_ this day," and yet it is plain that neither of the
parties dreamed that the persons _bought_ were in any sense articles of
property, but merely that they became thereby obligated to labor for the
government on certain conditions, as a _compensation_ for the entire
support of themselves and families during the famine. And that the idea
attached to "buy us," and "behold I have bought you," was merely the
procuring of services voluntarily offered, and secured by contract, as a
return for _value received_, and not at all that the Egyptians were
bereft of their personal ownership, and made articles of property. And
this buying of _services_ (they were to give one-fifth part of their
crops to Pharaoh) is called in Scripture usage, _buying the persons_.
This case deserves special notice, as it is the only one where the whole
transaction of buying servants is detailed--the preliminaries, the
process, the mutual acquiescence, and the permanent relation resulting
therefrom. In all other instances, the _mere fact_ is stated without
entering into particulars. In this case, the whole process is laid open.

1. The persons "bought," _sold themselves_, and of their own accord.

2. Obtaining permanently the _services_ of persons, or even a portion of
them, is called "buying" those persons. The objector, at the outset,
assumes that servants were bought of _third_ persons; and thence infers
that they were articles of property. This is sheer _assumption_. Not a
single instance is recorded, of a servant being sold by any one but
himself; not a case, either under the patriarchal, or the Mosaic
systems, in which a _master sold his servant_. That the servants who
were "bought" _sold themselves_, is a fair inference from various
passages of Scripture.

In Leviticus xxv. 47, the case of the Israelite, who became the servant
of the stranger, the words are, "If he SELL HIMSELF unto the stranger."
The _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word, which, in the 47th
verse, is rendered _sell himself_, is in the 39th verse of the same
chapter, rendered _be sold_; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is
rendered "_be sold_." Here it is the Hithpael conjugation, which is
reflexive in its force, and, like the middle voice in Greek, represents
what an individual does for himself; or in his own concerns; and should
manifestly have been rendered, ye shall _offer yourselves_ for sale. For
a clue to Scripture usage on this point, see 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25--"Thou
hast _sold thyself_ to work evil." "There was none like to Ahab that
_sold himself_ to work wickedness."--2 Kings xvii. 17. "They used
divination and enchantments, and _sold themselves_ to do evil."--Isa. l.
1. "For your iniquities have ye _sold yourselves_." Isa. lii. 3, "Ye
have _sold yourselves_ FOR NOUGHT, and ye shall be redeemed without
money." See also, Jeremiah xxxiv. 14--Romans vii. 14, and vi. 16--John
viii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the Egyptians, already quoted.

Again, if servants were _bought of third persons_, where are the
instances? In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is
generally stated that they were bought of _third_ persons. Is it not a
fair inference, if servants were bought of third persons, that there
would _sometimes_ have been such an intimation?



II.-THE LEADING DESIGN OF THE MOSAIC LAWS RELATING TO MASTERS AND
SERVANTS, WITH AN ENUMERATION OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO
SERVANTS.

The general object of those statutes, which prescribed the relations of
master and servant, was the good of both parties--but more especially
the good of the _servants_. While the interests of the master were
specially guarded from injury, those of the servants were _promoted_.

These laws were a merciful provision for the poorer classes, both of the
Israelites and Strangers. Not laying on burdens, but lightening
them--they were a grant of _privileges_--a bestowment of _favors_.

1. _No servant from the Strangers, could remain a servant in the family
of an Israelite, without becoming a proselyte_. Compliance with this
condition was the _price of the privilege_.--Genesis xvii. 9-14, 23, 27.

2. _Excommunication from the family was a_ PUNISHMENT.--Genesis xxi.
14-Luke xvi. 2-4.

3. _The fact that every Hebrew servant could_ COMPEL _his master to keep
him after the six years contract had, expired_, shows that the system
was framed to advance the interests and gratify the wishes of the
servant _quite as much_ as those of the master. If the servant
_demanded_ it, the law _obliged_ the master to retain him in his
household, however little he might need his services, or great his
dislike to the individual. Deut. xv. 12-17, and Exodus xxi. 2-6.

4. _The rights and privileges guaranteed by law to all servants._ (1.)
_They were admitted into covenant with God._ Deut. xxix. 10-13.

(2.) _They were invited guests at all the national and family festivals
of the household in which they resided._ Exodus xii. 43-44; Deut. xii.
12, 18, and xvi. 10-16.

(3.) _They were statedly instructed in morality and religion._ Deut.
xxxi. 10-13; Joshua viii. 33-35; 2 Chronicles xvii. 8-9.

(4.) _They were released from their regular labor nearly_ ONE HALF OF
THE WHOLE TIME. During which, the law secured to them their entire
support; and the same public and family instruction that was provided
for the other members of the Hebrew community.

(a.) The Law secured to them the _whole of every seventh year_; Lev.
xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those servants that remained such during the
entire period between the jubilees, _eight whole years_ (including the
Jubilee year) of unbroken rest.

(b.) _Every seventh day_. This in forty-two years, (the eight being
subtracted from the fifty) would amount to just _six years_.

(c.) _The three great annual festivals_. The _Passover_, which commenced
on the 15th of the 1st month, and lasted seven days, Deut. xvi. 3, 8.
The Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which began on the sixth day of the
third month, and lasted seven days. Lev. xxiii. 15-21. And the Feast of
Tabernacles, which commenced on the 15th of the seventh month, and
lasted eight days. Deut. xvi. 13, 15; Lev. xxiii. 34-39. As all met in
one place, much time would be spent on the journey. Their cumbered
caravans moved slowly. After their arrival at the place of sacrifice, a
day or two at least, would be requisite for divers preparations, before
entering upon the celebration of the festival, besides some time at the
close of it, in preparations for their return. If we assign three weeks
to each festival--including the time spent on the journey going and
returning, and the delays before and after the celebration, together
with the _festival week_; it will be a small allowance for the cessation
of their regular labor. As there were three festivals in the year, the
main body of the servants would be absent from their stated employments
at least _nine weeks annually_, which would amount in forty-two years,
subtracting the sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.

(e.) _The new moons_. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus tells us that
the Jews always kept _two_ days for the new moon. See Calmet on the
Jewish Calender, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 Sam. xx, 18, 19, 27.
This would amount in forty-two years, to two years, two hundred and
eighty days, after the necessary subtractions.

(f.) _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and
of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.

(g.) _The day of atonement_. On the tenth of the seventh month. Lev.
xxiii. 27-32.

These two last feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days of
time not otherwise reckoned.

Thus it appears that those persons who continued servants during the
whole period between the jubilees, were by law released from their
labor, TWENTY-THREE YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, and
those who remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In the
foregoing calculation, besides making a generous donation of all the
_fractions_ to the objector, we have left out of the account, those
numerous _local_ festivals to which frequent allusion is made, as in
Judges xxi. 19; 1 Sam. 9th chapter. And the various _family_ festivals,
such as at the weaning of children; at marriages; at sheep shearings; at
the making of covenants, &c., to which reference is often made, as in
1st Sam. xx. 28, 29. Neither have we included those memorable festivals
instituted at a later period of the Jewish history. The feast of Purim,
Esther, ix. 28, 29; and the feast of the Dedication, which lasted eight
days. John x. 22; 1 Mac. iv. 59.

Finally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time,
which, if distributed, would on an average be almost ONE HALF OF THE
DAYS IN EACH YEAR. Meanwhile, they and their families were supported,
and furnished with opportunities of instruction. If this amount of time
were distributed over _every day_, the servants would have _to
themselves_, all but a _fraction of_ ONE HALF OF EACH DAY, and would
labor for their masters the remaining fraction and the other half of the
day.

THIS REGULATION IS A PART OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY
SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE GREAT PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.

5. _The servant was protected by law equally with the other members of
the community_.

Proof--"_Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously
between every man and his neighbor, and_ THE STRANGER THAT IS WITH HIM."
"_Ye shall not_ RESPECT PERSONS _in judgment, but ye shall hear the_
SMALL _as well as the great_." Deut. i. 16, 17. Also in Lev. xxiv. 22.
"_Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the stranger, as for one
of your own country, for I am the Lord your God_." So Numbers xv. 29.
"_Ye shall have_ ONE LAW _for him that sinneth through ignorance, both
for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the_ STRANGER
_that sojourneth among them_." Deut. xxvii. 19. "_Cursed be he that_
PERVERTETH THE JUDGMENT OF THE STRANGER, _the fatherless and the
widow_."

6. _The Mosaic system enjoined upon the Israelites the greatest
affection and kindness toward their servants, foreign as well as
Jewish_.

Lev. xix. 34. "_The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as
one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself_." Also Deut. x.
17, 19. "_For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a
great God, a mighty and a terrible, which_ REGARDETH NOT PERSONS, _nor
taketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow,
and_ LOVETH THE STRANGER, _in giving him food and raiment_, LOVE YE
THEREFORE THE STRANGER." So Exodus xxii. 21. "_Thou shalt neither vex a
stranger nor oppress him_." Exodus xxiii. 9. "_Thou shalt not oppress a
stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger_." Lev. xxv. 35, 36. "_If
thy brother be waxen poor thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a_
STRANGER _or a sojourner, that he may live with thee, take thou no usury
of him or increase, but fear thy God_." [What an absurdity to suppose
that _this same stranger_ could be taken by one that _feared his God_,
held as a _slave_, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights!]

7. _Servants were placed upon a level with their masters in all civil
and religious rights_. See Numbers xv. 15, 16, 29. Numb. ix. 14. Deut,
i. 16, 17. Lev. xxiv. 22.



III.--DID PERSONS BECOME SERVANTS VOLUNTARILY, OR WERE THEY MADE
SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?

We argue that they became servants _of their own accord_,

1. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to
abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with God[A], to be circumcised
in token of it, to be bound to the observance of the Sabbath, of the
Passover, the Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and to receive
instruction in all the particulars of the moral and ceremonial law.

[Footnote A: Maimonides, who wrote in Egypt about seven hundred years
ago, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the head of
Jewish writers, gives the following testimony on this point: "Whether a
servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be purchased
from the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the covenant."
"But he that is in the _house_ is entered on the eighth day, and he that
is bought with money, on the day on which the master receives him,
unless the slave be _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown
slave, and he be _unwilling_, his master is to bear with him, to seek to
win him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year.
After which, should he _refuse_ so long, it is forbidden to keep him,
longer than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangers
from whence he came. For the God of Jacob will not accept any other than
the worship of a _willing_ heart."--Maimon, Hilcoth, Miloth, Chap. 1st,
Sec. 8th.

The ancient Jewish Doctors agree in the testimony, that the servant from
the strangers who at the close of his probationary year still refused to
adopt the religion of the Mosaic system, and was on that account cut off
from the family, and sent back to his own people, received a _full
compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his expenses. But
that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign servant for a
year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of an Israelite)
of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a mere usage_.
We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic system.
Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_. Whether it was
a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes not within the
scope of this inquiry. Nor does it at all affect the argument. ]

Were the servants _forced_ through all these processes? Was the
renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenant
with God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_? Were they
_compelled_ mechanically to chew, and swallow, the flesh of the Paschal
lamb, while they abhorred the institution, despised its ceremonies,
spurned the law which enjoined it, detested its author and executors,
and instead of rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemmorated,
bewailed it as a calamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? Were
they _driven_ from all parts of the land three times in the year up to
the annual festivals? Were they drugged with instruction which they
nauseated? Were they goaded through a round of ceremonies, to them
senseless and disgusting mummeries; and drilled into the tactics of a
creed rank with loathed abominations?

We repeat it, to become a _servant_, was to become a _proselyte_. And
how did God authorize his people to make proselytes? At the point of the
sword? By the terror of pains and penalties? By converting men into
_merchandise_? Were _proselyte_ and _chattel_ synonymes, in the Divine
vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into covenant
with God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and the sole
passport to the communion of the saints?

2. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, 16,
"_Thou shall 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_."

As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the
_right_ of the master to hold him. His _fleeing_ "shows his
_choice_--proclaims his wrongs, his master's oppressive acts, and his
own claim to legal protection." You shall not force him back, and thus
recognize the _right_ of the master to hold him in such a condition as
induces him to flee to others for protection." It may be objected, that
this command had no reference to servants among the _Israelites_, but
only to those of _heathen_ masters in the surrounding nations. We
answer, The regulation has no restriction. Its terms are unlimited. But
the objection, even if valid, merely shifts the pressure of the
difficulty to another point. Does God array his infinite authority to
protect the _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the heathen, and
yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice of
_thousands_ of servants from the heathen! Suppose a case. A _foreign_
servant flees from his master to the Israelites; God speaks, "He shall
dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy
gates where it _liketh_ him best." They were strictly charged not to put
him in a condition which he did not _choose_. Now, suppose this same
servant, instead of coming into Israel of his own accord, had been
_dragged_ in by some kidnapper who _bought_ him of his master, and
_forced_ him into a condition against his will. Would He who forbade
such treatment of the stranger, who _voluntarily_ came into the land,
sanction the _same_ treatment of the _same person_, provided in
_addition_ to this last outrage, the _previous_ one had been committed
of _forcing him into the nation against his will_?

To commit violence on the free choice of a _foreign_ servant is a
horrible enormity, forsooth, PROVIDED you _begin_ the violence _after_
he has come among you. But if you commit the _first act_, on the _other
side of the line_; if you _begin_ the outrage by buying him from a third
person _against his will_, and then tear him from home, and drag him
across the line into the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave--ah!
that alters the case, and you may perpetrate the violence now with
impunity! Would _greater_ favor have been shown to this new comer from
the heathen than to the old residents--those who had been servants in
Jewish families perhaps for a generation? Were the Israelites commanded
to exercise toward _him_, uncircumcised and _out_ of the covenant, a
justice and kindness denied to the multitude, who _were_ circumcised,
and _within_ the covenant?

Again: the objector finds small gain to his argument on the supposition
that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surrounding
nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition
against their wills--the objector finds small gain to his argument. In
that case, the surrounding nations would of course adopt retaliatory
measures, and resolve themselves into so many asylums for fugitive
Israelitish servants. As these nations were on every side of them such a
proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men held in a
condition which was a constant _counteraction of will_. Further, the
objector's assumption destroys itself; for the same command which
protected the foreign servant from the power of his _master_, protected
him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was not merely, "Thou
shalt not deliver him to his _master_," but "he (the servant) shall
dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy
gates where it liketh him best." Every Israelite was commanded to
respect his free choice, and to put him in no condition _against his
will_. What was this but a proclamation, that all who _chose_ to live in
the land and obey the laws, were left to their own free will, to dispose
of their services at such a rate, to such persons, and in such places as
they pleased?

Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of
_foreign_ servants merely, was the any law requiring the return of
servants who had escaped from the _Israelites_? There was a statute
requiring the return of _property_ lost, and _cattle_ escaped, but none
requiring the return of escaped _servants_.

Finally, these verses contain, _first_, a command, "Thou shalt not
deliver," &c. _Secondly_, a declaration of the fugitive's right of _free
choice_, and of God's will that he should exercise it at his own
discretion; and _thirdly_, a command guarding this right, namely, "Thou
shalt not oppress him," as though God had said, If you forbid him to
exercise his _own choice_, as to the place and condition of his
residence, it is _oppression_, and I will not tolerate it.

3. _We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar
opportunities and facilities for escape_. Three times every year, all
the males over twelve years of age, were required to attend the public
festivals. The main body were thus absent from their homes not less than
three weeks each time, making nine weeks annually. As these caravans
moved over the country, were there military scouts lining the way, to
intercept deserters?--a corporal's guard stationed at each pass of the
mountains, sentinels pacing the hill-tops, and light horse scouring the
defiles? What safe contrivance had the Israelites for taking their
_"slaves"_ three times in a year to Jerusalem and back? When a body of
slaves is moved any distance in our free and equal _republic_, they are
handcuffed to keep them from running away, or beating their drivers'
brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ plan, or an improvement left for the
wisdom of Solomon? The usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less
venerable and biblical! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and
transported in bundles, or caged up, and trundled on wheels to and fro,
and while at the Holy City, "lodged in jail for safe keeping," religions
services _extra_ being appointed, and special "ORAL instruction" for
their benefit. But meanwhile, what became of the sturdy _handmaids_ left
at home? What hindered them from marching off in a body? Perhaps the
Israelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, while
the young ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, to pick up
stragglers by day, and patrolled the streets as city guards, keeping a
sharp look-out at night.

4. _Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance
of various rites and ceremonies necessarily_ VOLUNTARY.

Suppose a servant from the heathen should, upon entering a Jewish
family, refuse circumcision; the question whether he shall remain a
servant, is in his own hands. If a _slave_, how simple the process of
emancipation! His _refusal_ did the job. Or, suppose that, at any time,
he should refuse to attend the tri-yearly feasts, or should eat leavened
bread during the Passover, or compound the ingredients of the anointing
oil, he is "cut off from the people;" _excommunicated_.

5. _We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patriarchs from
the impossibility of their being held against their wills._ The servants
of Abraham are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred and
eighteen _young men_ "born in his house," and probably many more _not_
born in his house. The whole number of his servants of all ages, was
probably MANY THOUSANDS. Doubtless, Abraham was a man of a million, and
Sarah too, a right notable housekeeper; still, it is not easy to
conceive how they contrived to hold so many thousand servants against
their wills, unless the patriarch and his wife _took turns_ in
performing the Hibernian exploit of surrounding them! The neighboring
tribes, instead of constituting a picket guard to hem in his servants,
would have been far more likely to sweep them and him into captivity, as
they did Lot and his household. Besides, Abraham had neither
"Constitution," nor "compact," nor statutes, nor judicial officers to
send back his fugitives, nor a truckling police to pounce upon
panic-stricken women, nor gentleman-kidnappers, suing for patronage,
volunteering to howl on the track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and
pledging their "honor" to hunt down and "deliver up," _provided_ they
had a description of the "flesh marks," and were stimulated in their
chivalry by _pieces of silver_. Abraham seems also to have been sadly
deficient in all the auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks,
hand cuffs, foot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution
of these patriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, when we
consider his faithful discharge of responsibilities to his household,
though so deplorably destitute of the needful aids.

6. _We infer that servants were voluntary, from the fact that there is
no instance of an Israelitish master ever_ SELLING _a servant_. Abraham
had thousands of servants, but appears never to have sold one. Isaac
"grew until he became very great," and had "great store of servants."
Jacob's youth was spent in the family of Laban, where he lived a servant
twenty-one years. Afterward he had a large number of servants.

When Joseph sent for Jacob to come into Egypt, the words are, "thou and
thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks and thy herds,
and ALL THAT THOU HAST." Jacob took his flocks and herds but _no
servants_. Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 6; xlvii. 1. His servants doubtless,
served under their _own contracts_, and when Jacob went into Egypt, they
_chose_ to stay in their own country.

The government might sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until
their services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex.
xxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their
_servants_--the reason is obvious. To give the master a _right_ to sell
his servant, would annihilate the servant's right of choice in his own
disposal; but says the objector, To give the master a right to _buy_ a
servant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of choice_. Answer. It
is one thing to have a right to buy a man, and a very different thing to
have a right to buy him of _another_ man.

Though there is no instance of a servant being bought of his, or her
master, yet there are instances of young females being bought of their
_fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ was their betrothal as
WIVES. Exodus xxi. 7, 8. "_If a man sell his daughter to be a
maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please
not her master_ WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF, _he shall let her be
redeemed_[A]."

[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as follows: "A
Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under
obligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fit
to be betrothed."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV. Sec. XI.

Jarchi, on the same passage, says, "He is bound to espouse her and take
her to be his wife for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her
_espousals_." ]

7. _We infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in_ COMMENCING _his
service, because he was pre-eminently so_ IN CONTINUING _it_. If, at the
year of release, it was the servant's _choice_ to remain with his
master, so did the law guard his free will, that it required his ear to
be bored by the judges of the land, thus making it impossible for the
servant to be held in an involuntary condition. Yea, so far was his
_free choice_ protected, that his master was compelled to keep him,
however much he might wish to get rid of him.

8. _The method prescribed for procuring servants, recognized their
choice, and was an appeal to it_. The Israelites were commanded to offer
them a suitable _inducement_, and then leave them to decide. They might
neither seize by _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle
them by false pretenses, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they
were commanded to BUY them[A]; that is, they were to recognize the
_right_ of the individuals to their own services--their right to
_dispose_ of them, and their right to _refuse all offers_. They might,
if they pleased, refuse all applications, and thus oblige those who made
them, _to do their own work_. Suppose all, with one accord, _refused_ to
become servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an
emergency? NONE.

[Footnote A: The case of thieves, whose services were sold until they
had earned enough to make restitution to the person wronged, and to pay
the legal penalty, _stands by itself_, and has no relation to the
condition of servants.]

9. _Various incidental expressions throughout the Bible, corroborate the
idea that servants became such by virtue of their own contract_. Job
xli. 4. is an illustration, "_Will he_ (Leviathan) _make a_ COVENANT
_with thee? wilt thou take him for a_ SERVANT _forever?_"

10. _The transaction which made the Egyptians the_ SERVANTS OF PHAROAH,
_shows entire voluntariness throughout_. It is detailed in Gen. xlvii.
18-26. Of their own accord, they came to Joseph and said, "We have not
aught left but our _bodies_ and our lands; _buy_ us;" then in the 25th
verse, _"Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my
Lord, and we will be servants to Pharaoh._"

11. _We argue that the condition of servants was an_ OPTIONAL _one from
the fact that_ RICH _strangers did not become servants._ Indeed, so far
were they from becoming servants themselves, that _they bought and held
Jewish servants._ Lev. xxv. 47.

12. _The sacrifices and offerings which_ ALL _were required to present,
were to be made_ VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2, 3.

13. _Mention is often made of persons becoming servants where they were
manifestly and pre-eminently_ VOLUNTARY. The case of the Prophet Elisha
is one. 1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. The
original word, translated master, is the same that is so rendered in
almost every instance where masters are spoken of throughout the Mosaic
and patriarchal systems. It is translated _master_ eighty-five times in
our English version. Moses was the servant of Jethro. Exodus iii. 1.
Joshua was the servant of Moses. Numbers xi. 28. Jacob was the servant
of Laban. Genesis xxix, 18-27.



IV. WERE THE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY?

Having already shown that the servants became and continued such _of
their own accord_, it would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work
without pay. Their becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a
motive.

That they _were paid_ for their labor, we argue,

1. _Because, while Israel was under the Mosaic system, God rebuked in
thunder, the sin of using the labor of others without wages. "Wo unto
him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by
wrong; that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him
not for his work._" Jer. xxii. 13. Here God testifies that to use the
service of others without wages is "unrighteousness," and He commissions
his "wo" to burn upon the doer of the "wrong." This "wo" was a permanent
safeguard of the _Mosaic system_. The Hebrew word _Rea_, here translated
_neighbor_, does not mean one man, or class of men, in distinction from
others, but _any one with whom we have to do_--all descriptions of
persons, not merely servants and heathen, but even those who prosecute
us in lawsuits, and enemies while in the act of fighting us--"_As when a
man riseth against his_ NEIGHBOR _and slayeth him._" Deut. xxii. 26.
"_Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the
end thereof, when thy_ NEIGHBOR _hath put thee to shame._" Prov. xxv. 8.
"_Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy_ NEIGHBOR." Exod. xx.
16. "_If any man come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR to slay him with
guile_." Exod. xxi. 14. In these, and in scores of similar cases, _Rea_
is the original word.

2. _We have the testimony of God, that in our duty to our fellow men,_
ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS _hang upon this command, "Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself._" Our Saviour, in giving this command, quoted
_verbatim_ one of the laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the
34th verse of the same chapter, Moses commands obedience to this law in
all the treatment of strangers, "_The stranger that dwelleth with you
shall be unto you as one born among you, and_ THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS
THYSELF." If it be loving others _as_ ourselves, to make them work for
us without pay; to rob them of food and clothing, as well as wages,
would be a stranger illustration still of the law of love!
Super-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing to others as we
would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ good alone,
Paul should be called to order for his hard sayings against human
nature, especially for that libellous matter in Ephes. v. 29, "_No man
ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it_."

3. _As persons became servants_ FROM POVERTY, _we argue that they were
compensated, since they frequently owned property, and sometimes a large
amount_. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David a princely
present, "An hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred bunches of raisins,
and an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine." 2 Sam. xvi. 1.
The extent of his possessions can be inferred from the fact, that though
the father of fifteen sons, he still employed twenty servants, of whom
he was the master.

A case is stated in Leviticus xxv. 47-55, where a servant, reduced to
poverty, sells himself; and it is declared that afterward he may be
_redeemed_, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. As he was forced to
sell himself from sheer poverty he must not only have acquired property
_after_ he became a servant, but a considerable sum.

If it had not been common for servants to possess, and acquire property,
over which they had the exclusive control, Gehazi, the servant of
Elisha, would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly
$3000[A]) from Naaman, (2 Kings v. 22, 23.) As it was procured by
deceit, he was anxious to conceal the means used in getting it; but if
the Israelitish servants, like our slaves, could "own nothing, nor
acquire any thing," to embark in such an enterprise would have been
consummate stupidity. The fact of having in his possession two talents
of silver, would of itself convict him of theft[B]. But since the
possession and use of property by servants, was common under the Mosaic
system, he might have it, and invest or use it, without attracting
special attention. And that consideration alone would have been a strong
motive to the act. His master, while he rebukes him for using such means
to get the money, not only does not take it from him, but seems to
expect that he would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and would
procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. In 1 Sam. ix. 8, we find the
servant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emergency.
Arza, the servant of Elah, was the _owner of a house_. That it was
spacious and somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from the
fact that it was a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. The case of the
Gibeonites, who, after they became servants, still occupied their
cities, and remained, in many respects, a distinct people for centuries;
and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the _servants_ of Solomon, who
worked out their tribute of bond-service in levies, periodically
relieving each other, while preparing the materials for the temple, are
additional illustrations of independence in the acquisition and
ownership of property.

[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide with accuracy
upon the _relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and _now_, yet we have
enough to warrant us in saying that two talents of silver had far more
value _then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]


[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing
a large amount of money? They "_know how to take care of themselves_"
quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on
such a _small_ scale, or in the taking of _such things_ as will make
detection difficult. No doubt they steal now and then a little, and a
gaping marvel would it be if they did not. Why should they not follow in
the footsteps of their masters and mistresses? Dull scholars indeed! if,
after so many lessons from _proficients_ in the art, who drive the
business by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their
betters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at
a practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ business carried
on around them! Ignoble truly! never to feel the stirrings of high
impulse, prompting them to imitate the eminent pattern set before them
in the daily vocation of "Honorables" and "Excellencies," and to emulate
the illustrious examples of Doctor of Divinity and _Right_ and _Very
Reverends_! Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his notes of
Virginia, speaking of slaves, he says, "That disposition to theft with
which they (the slaves) have been branded, must be ascribed to their
_situation_, and not to any special depravity of the moral sense. It is
a problem which I give the master to solve, whether the religious
precepts against the violation of property were not framed for HIM as
well as for his slave--and whether the slave may not as justifiably take
a little from one who has taken ALL from him, as he may _slay_ one who
would slay him" See Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, pp. 207-8]

4. _Heirship_--Servants frequently inherited their master's property;
especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family. This
seems to have been a general usage.

The cases of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; Ziba, the servant of
Mephibosheth, Jarha an Egyptian, the servant of Sheshan, and the husband
of his daughter; 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35, and of the _husbandmen_ who said
of their master's son, "_this is the_ HEIR, let us kill him, _and_ the
INHERITANCE WILL BE OURS." Mark xii. 7, are illustrations. Also the
declaration in Prov. xvii. 2--"_A wise servant shall have rule over a
son that causeth shame, and_ SHALL HAVE PART OF THE INHERITANCE AMONG
THE BRETHREN." This passage seems to give _servants_ precedence as
heirs, even over the _wives_ and _daughters_ of their masters. Did
masters hold by force, and _plunder of earnings_, a class of persons,
from which, in frequent contingencies, they selected both heirs for
their property, and husbands for their daughters?

5. ALL _were required to present offerings and sacrifices_. Deut. xvi.
15, 17. 2 Chron. xv. 9-11. Numb. ix. 13.

Servants must have had permanently, the means of _acquiring_ property to
meet these expenditures.

6. _Those Hebrew servants who went out at the seventh year, were
provided by law with a large stock of provisions and cattle_. Deut. xv.
11-14. "_Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of
thy floor, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith the Lord thy God
hath blessed thee, thou shalt give him_[A]." If it be objected, that no
mention is made of the servants from the strangers, receiving a like
bountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class of the
_Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason, _they
did not go out in the seventh year_, but continued until the jubilee. If
the fact that no mention is made of the Gentile servants receiving such
a _gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_; it proves
that the most valued class of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs
also, a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators,
however unscrupulous.

[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as
follows--"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to say,
'_Loading ye shall load him._' likewise every one of his family, with as
much as he can take with him in abundant benefits. And if it be
avariciously asked, How much must I give him? I say unto _you, not less
than thirty shekels_, which is the valuation of a servant, as declared
in Exodus xxi. 32"--Maimonides, Hilcoth, Obedim, Chapter ii. Section 3.]

7. _The servants were_ BOUGHT. _In other words, they received
compensation for their services in advance_. Having shown, under a
previous head, that servants _sold themselves_, and of course received
the compensation for themselves, (except in cases where parents hired
out the time of their children until they became of age[B],) a mere
reference to the fact in this place is all that is required for the
purposes of this argument.

[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and
boys at thirteen years.]

8. _We infer that servants were paid, because we find masters at one
time having a large number of servants, and afterwards none, without any
intimation that they were sold._ The wages of servants would enable them
to set up in business for themselves. Jacob, after being the servant of
Laban for twenty-one years, became thus an independent herdsman, and was
the master of many servants. Gen. xxx. 43, and xxxii. 15. But all these
servants had left him before he went down into Egypt, having doubtless
acquired enough to commence business for themselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11,
and xlvi. 1-7, 32.

9. _God's testimony to the character of Abraham._ Genesis xviii. 19.
_"For I know him that he will command his children and his household
after him, and they shall keep_ THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO JUSTICE AND
JUDGMENT." We have here God's testimony, that Abraham taught his
servants "the way of the Lord." What was the "way of the Lord"
respecting the payment of wages where service was rendered? "_Wo unto
him that useth his neighbor's service without wages_!" Jer. xxii. 13.
"_Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal_." Col.
iv. 1. _"Render unto all their_ DUES." ROM. xiii. 7. _"The laborer is
worthy of his hire."_ Luke x. 7. How did Abraham teach his servants to
_"do justice"_ to others? By doing _injustice to them?_ Did he exhort
them to "render to all their dues" by keeping back _their own_? Did he
teach them that "the laborer was worthy of his hire" by robbing them of
_theirs_? Did he beget in them a reverence for the eighth commandment by
pilfering all their time and labor? Did he teach them "not to defraud"
others "in any matter" by denying _them_ "what was just and equal?" If
each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not become a very
_Aristides_ in justice, then an illustrious example, patriarchal
dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway against
human perverseness!

10. _Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general principles._
Out of many, we select the following:

(1.) _"Thou shall not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn,"_ or
literally, _while he thresheth._ Deut. xxv. 4. Here is a general
principle applied to a familiar case. The ox representing all domestic
animals. Isaiah xxx. 24. A _particular_ kind of service--_all_ kinds;
and a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal
ministering to man in a _certain_ way,--_a general principle of
treatment covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities of service._
The object of the law was, not merely to enjoin tenderness towards
brutes, but to inculcate the duty of _rewarding those who serve us_,
showing that they who labor for others, are entitled to what is just and
equal in return; and if such care is enjoined, by God, not merely for
the ample sustenance, but for the _present enjoyment of a brute_, what
would be a meet return for the services of _man_? MAN, with his varied
wants, exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul tells us expressly,
that the principle which we have named, lies at the bottom of the
statute. See 1 Corinthians ix. 9, 10--_"For it is written in the law of
Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the
corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for OUR
sakes? that he that ploweth should plow in_ HOPE, _and that he that
thresheth in hope should be_ PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE."

(2.) "_If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, then
thou shalt relieve him._ YEA, THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER OR a SOJOURNER,
_that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase, but
fear thy God. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him
thy victuals for increase._" Lev. xxv. 35-37. Or, in other words,
"relief at your hands is his right, and your duty--you shall not take
advantage of his necessities, but cheerfully supply them." Now, we ask,
by what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this benevolent regulation
can be made to be in _keeping_ with the doctrine of WORK WITHOUT PAY?
Did God declare the poor stranger entitled to RELIEF, and in the same
breath, _authorize_ them to _"use his services without wages_;" force
him to work, and ROB HIM OF ALL HIS EARNINGS? Judge ye.



V.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS THEIR LEGAL PROPERTY?

The discussion of this topic has been already somewhat anticipated under
the preceding heads; but a variety of considerations, not within the
range of our previous inquiries, remain to be noticed.



1. _Servants were not subjected to the uses, nor liable to the
contingencies of property._

(1.) _They were never taken in payment for their masters' debts_, though
children were sometimes taken (without legal authority) for the debts of
a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9; Isaiah l. 1; Matt. xviii. 25.

Cases are recorded to which creditors took from debtors property of all
kinds, to satisfy their demands. In Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; in
Prov. xxii 27, household furniture; in Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions
of the soil; in Lev. xxv. 27-30, houses; in Exodus xxii. 26-29, and
Deut. xxiv. 10-13, and Matt. v. 40, clothing; but _servants_ were taken
in _no instance_.

(2.) _Servants were never given as pledges_. _Property_ of all sorts was
given and held in pledge. We find in the Bible, household furniture,
clothing, cattle, money, signets, and personal ornaments, with divers
other articles of property, used as pledges for value received. But no
_servants_.

(3.) _All lost_ PROPERTY _was to be restored._ "Oxen, asses, sheep,
raiment, and whatsoever lost things," are specified--servant _not_.
Deut. xxii. 13. Besides, the Israelites were expressly forbidden to take
back the runaway servant to his master. Deut. xxiii. 15.

(4.) _The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents_. They
made princely presents of great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds of
animals, merchandize, family utensils, precious metals, and grain,
armor, &c. are among their recorded _gifts_. Giving presents to
superiors and persons of rank when visiting them, and at other times,
was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27; 1 Sam. xvi. 20; 2 Chron. xvii. 5.
Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to the viceroy of Egypt. Gen.
xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. xlv. 22, 23; Benhadad
to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath Pileser, 2 Kings xvi. 8;
Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings, x. 13; Jeroboam to Ahijah, 1
Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv. 18, 19. But no servants were
given as presents--though that was a prevailing fashion in the
surrounding nations. Gen. xii. 16; Gen. xx. 14.

OBJECTION 1. _Laban_ GAVE _handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives_.
Without enlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent, it is
enough to say that the handmaids of wives, at that time, were themselves
regarded as wives, though of inferior dignity and authority. That Jacob
so regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse upon Reuben, (Gen.
xlix. 4, and Chron. v. 1) also by the equality of their children with
those of Rachel and Leah. But had it been otherwise--had Laban given
them _as articles of property_, then, indeed, the example of this "good
old patriarch and slaveholder," Saint Laban, would have been a
fore-closer to all argument.

Ah! We remember his jealousy for _religion_--his holy indignation when
he found that his "GODS" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, and
plunged over the desert in hot pursuit, seven days, by forced marches;
how he ransacked a whole caravan, sifting the contents of every tent,
little heeding such small matters as domestic privacy, or female
seclusion, for lo! the zeal of his "IMAGES" had eaten him up!

No wonder that slavery, in its Bible-navigation, drifting dismantled
before the free gusts, should scud under the lee of such a pious worthy
to haul up and refit; invoking his protection, and the benediction of
his "GODS!"

OBJECTION 2. _Servants were enumerated in inventories of property_. If
that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ property. "_Thou
shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's_ WIFE, _nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his
ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's_" EXODUS xx. 17.
An examination of all the places in which servants are included among
beasts, chattels, &c., will show, that in inventories of _mere
property_, servants are not included, or if included, it is in such a
way, as to show that they are not regarded as _property_. Eccl. ii. 7,
8. But when the design is to show, not merely the wealth but the
_greatness_ of any personage, that he is a man of distinction, a ruler,
a prince, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word, if
_riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if
_greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. _"And Abraham was very
rich in cattle, in silver and in gold."_ No mention of _servants_. So in
the fifth verse; Lot's riches are enumerated, "_And Lot also had flocks,
and herds, and tents_." In the seventh verse servants are mentioned,
"_And there was a strife between the_ HERDMEN _of Abraham's cattle and
the_ HERDMEN _of Lot's cattle_". See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen. xxxiv. 23;
Job. xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; xxxii. 27-29; Job 1. 3-5; Deut. viii.
12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35, and xxvi. 13, and xxx. 43.

Divers facts dropped incidentally, show that when servants are mentioned
in connection with property, it is in such a way as to _distinguish_
them from it. When Jacob was about to leave Laban, his wives say, "All
the _riches_ which thou hast taken from our father, that is ours and our
children's." Then follows an inventory of property. "All his cattle,"
"all his goods," "the cattle of his getting," &c. He had a large number
of servants at the time, _but they are not included with his property_.
Compare Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. 16-18.

When he sent messengers to Esau, in order to secure his respect, and
impress him with an idea of his state and sway, he bade them tell him
not only of _his_ RICHES, but of his GREATNESS; that Jacob had "_oxen,
and asses, and flocks, and men servants, and maid servants_." Gen.
xxxii. 4, 5. Yet in the present which he sent, there were no servants;
though he seems to have aimed to give it as much variety as possible.
Gen. xxxii. 14, 15; see also Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7; Gen. xxxiv. 23. As flocks
and herds were the _staples_ of wealth, a large number of servants
_presupposed_ large possessions of cattle, which would require many
herdsmen. Further. When servants are spoken of in connection with _mere
property_, the terms used to express the latter do not include the
former.

The Hebrew word _Mickna_ is an illustration. It is a derivative of
_Kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, a _possession, wealth,
riches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament--and is
applied always to _mere property_--generally to domestic animals, but
_never_ to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in
_distinction_ from the _Mickna._ See Gen. xii. 5. _"And Abraham took
Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son. And all their_ SUBSTANCE
_that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran,
and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan_." _Substance
gathered_ and _souls gotten_! Many will have it, that these _souls_ were
a part of Abraham's _substance_ (notwithstanding the pains here taken to
separate them from it)--that they were _slaves_--probably captives in
war, and now, by right of conquest, taken with him in his migration as
part of his family effects. Who but slaveholders, either actually, or in
heart, would torture into the principle and practice of slavery, such a
harmless phrase as "_the souls that they had gotten_?" Until the slave
trade breathed its haze upon the vision of the church, and smote her
with palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery in, "The souls that
they had gotten." In the Targum of Onkelos[A] it is thus rendered, "The
souls whom they had brought to obey the law in Haran." In the Targum of
Jonathan, thus: "The souls whom they had made proselytes in Haran." In
the Targum of Jerusalem, "The souls proselyted in Haran." Jarchi, placed
by Jewish Rabbis at the head of their commentators, thus renders it:
"The souls whom they had brought under the Divine wings." Jerome, one of
the most learned of the Christian fathers: "The persons whom they had
proselyted." The Persian version thus gives the whole verse, "And
Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their
wealth which they had accumulated, and the souls which they had _made_."
The Vulgate version thus translates it, "Universam substantiam quam
possederant et animas quas fecerant in Haran." "The entire wealth which
they possessed, and the souls which they had made." The Syriac thus,
"All their possessions which they possessed, and the souls which they
had made in Haran." The Arabic, "All their property which they had
acquired, and the souls whom they had made in Haran." The Samarian, "All
the wealth which they had gathered, and the souls which they had made in
Haran." Menochius, a commentator who wrote before our present
translation of the English Bible, renders it as follows:--"Quas de
idolotraria converterunt[B]." "Those whom they have converted from
idolatry."--Paulus Fagius[C]. "Quas instituerant in religione."--"Those
whom they had instructed in religion."--Luke Franke, a German
commentator who lived two centuries ago. "Quas legi
subjicerant."--"Those whom they had brought to obey the law."

[Footnote A: The Targums are Chaldee paraphrases of parts of the Old
Testament. The Targum of Onkelos is for the most part, a very accurate
and faithful translation of the original, and was probably made at about
the commencement of the Christian era. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel
bears about the same date. The Targum of Jerusalem was probably about
five hundred years later. The Israelites, during their long captivity in
Babylon, lost as a body, their knowledge of their own language. These
translations of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Chaldee, the language
which they acquired in Babylon, were thus called for by the necessity of
the case. ]


[Footnote B: See his "Brevis explicatio sensus literalis totius
Scripture."]


[Footnote C: This eminent Hebrew scholar was invited to England by
Cranmer, then Archbishop of Canterbury, to superintend the translation
of the Bible into English, under the patronage of Henry the Eighth. He
had hardly commenced the work when he died. This was nearly a century
before the date of our present translation.]



2. _The condition of servants in their masters' families, the privileges
which they shared in common with the children, and their recognition as
equals by the highest officers of the government--make the doctrine that
they were mere_ COMMODITIES, _an absurdity._ The testimony of Paul, in
Gal. iv. 1, gives an insight into the condition of servants. _"Now I say
unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child,_ DIFFERETH NOTHING
FROM A SERVANT, _though he be lord of all."_

That Abraham's servants were voluntary,--that their interests were
identified with those of their master's family--that they were regarded
with great affection by the household, and that the utmost confidence
was reposed in them, is shown in the arming of 318 of them for the
recovery of Lot and his family from captivity. See Gen. xiv. 14, 15.

When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the young Princess Rebekah did
not disdain to say to him, "Drink, MY Lord," as "she hasted and let down
her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink," and "she hasted and
emptied her pitcher, and ran again unto the well, and drew for all his
camels." Laban, the brother of Rebekah, prepared the house for his
reception, "_ungirded his camels, and brought him water to wash his
feet, and the men's feet that were with him!"_

In the 9th chapter of 1 Samuel, we have an account of a high festival in
the city of Zuph, at which Samuel, the chief judge and ruler in Israel,
presided. None sat down at the feast but those that were bidden. And
only "about _thirty_ persons" were invited. Quite a select party!--the
elite of the city of Zuph! Saul and his servant arrived at Zuph just as
the party was assembling; and _both_ of them, at Samuel's solicitation,
accompany him as invited guests. _"And Samuel took Saul and his_
SERVANT, _and brought_ THEM _into the_ PARLOR(!) _and made_ THEM _sit in
the_ CHIEFEST SEATS _among those that were bidden."_ A _servant_ invited
by the chief judge, ruler, and prophet in Israel, to dine publicly with
a select party, in company with his master, who was _at the same time
anointed King of Israel_; and this servant introduced by Samuel into the
PARLOR, and assigned, with his master, to the _chiefest seat_ at the
table! This was "_one_ of the servants" of _Kish_, Saul's father; not
the _steward_ or the _chief_ of them--not at all a _picked_ man, but
"_one_ of the servants;" _any_ one that could be most easily spared, as
no endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking
after asses.

Again: we learn from 1 Kings xvi. 8, 9, that Elah, the King of Israel,
was slain by Zimri, one of his chief officers, at a festive
entertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with
whom he seems to have been on terms of familiarity. Without detailing
other cases, we refer the reader to the intercourse between Gideon and
his servant.--Judges vii. 10, 11.--Jonathan and his servant.--1 Samuel
xiv. 1-14.--Elisha and his servant.



3. _The condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the Hebrew
commonwealth, shows that they were neither articles of property, nor
even_ INVOLUNTARY _servants_. The condition of the inhabitants of
Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Israelites, is
quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and truly they are right
welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from it. Milton's devils
made desperate snatches at fruit that turned to ashes on their lips. The
spirit of slavery raves under tormenting gnawings, and casts about in
blind phrenzy for something to ease, or even to _mock_ them. But for
this, it would never have clutched at the Gibeonites, for even the
incantations of the demon cauldron, could not extract from their case
enough to tantalize starvation's self. But to the question. What was the
condition of the Gibeonites under the Israelites?

(1.) _It was voluntary_. It was their own proposition to Joshua to
become servants. Joshua ix. 8, 11. Their proposition was accepted, but
the kind of service which they should perform, was not specified until
their gross imposition came to light; they were then assigned to menial
offices in the tabernacle.

(2.) _They were not domestic servants in the families of the
Israelites_. They still continued to reside in their own cities,
cultivating their own fields, tending their flocks and herds, and
exercising the functions of a _distinct_, though not independent
community. They were _subject_ to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. So
far from being distributed among the Israelites, their family relations
broken up, and their internal organization as a distinct people
abolished, they seem to have remained a separate, and, in some respects,
an independent community for many centuries. When they were attacked by
the Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aid--it
was promptly rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves left
unmolested in the occupation of their cities, while all Israel returned
to Gilgal. Joshua x. 6-18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them, and
God sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. David said to the
Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the
atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord?" At their
demand, he delivered up to them, seven of the royal family, five of them
the sons of Michal, his own former wife. 2 Samuel xxi. 1-9. The whole
transaction was a formal recognition of the Gibeonites as a separate
people. There is no intimation that they served families, or individuals
of the Israelites, but only the "house of God," or the Tabernacle. This
was established first at Gilgal, a day's journey from the cities of the
Gibeonites; and then at Shiloh, nearly two days' journey from them;
where it continued about 350 years. During all this period, the
Gibeonites inhabited their ancient cities and territory. Only a few,
comparatively, could have been absent from their cities at any one time
in attendance on the tabernacle.

(1.) Whenever allusion is made to them in the history, the main body are
spoken of as _at home_.

(2.) It is preposterous to suppose that their tabernacle services could
have furnished employment for all the inhabitants of these four cities.
One of them "was a great city, as one of the royal cities;" so large,
that a confederacy of five kings, apparently the most powerful in the
land, was deemed necessary for its destruction. It is probable that the
men were divided into classes, and thus ministered at the tabernacle in
rotation--each class a few days or weeks at a time. This service was
their _national tribute_ to the Israelites, rendered for the privilege
of residence and protection under their government. No service seems to
have been required of the _females_. As these Gibeonites were
Canaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by
impudent imposition, hypocrisy, and lying, we might assuredly expect
that they would reduce _them_ to the condition of chattels and property,
if there was _any_ case in which God permitted them to do so.

7. _Because, throughout the Mosaic system, God warns them against
holding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by the
Egyptians_. How often are the Israelites pointed back to the grindings
of their prison-house! What motives to the exercise of justice and
kindness towards their servants, are held out to their fears in
threatened judgements; to their hopes in promised good; and to all
within them that could feel, by those oft repeated words of tenderness
and terror! "For ye were bondmen in the land of Egypt"--waking anew the
memory of tears and anguish, and of the wrath that avenged them.

That the argument derived from the condition of the Israelites in Egypt,
and God's condemnation of it, may be appreciated, it is important that
the Egyptian bondage should be analyzed. We shall then be able to
ascertain, of what rights the Israelites were plundered, and what they
retained.



EGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. (1.) _The Israelites were not dispersed among
the families of Egypt, the property of individual owners_[A]. They
formed a _separate_ community. See Gen. xlvi. 35. Ex. viii. 22, 24, and
ix. 26, and x. 23, and xi. 7, and ii. 9, and xvi. 22, and xvii. 5.

[Footnote A: The Egyptians evidently had _domestic_ servants living in
their families; these may have been slaves; allusion is made to them in
Exodus ix. 14, 20, 21. But none of the Israelites were included in this
class.]

(2.) _They had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen_[B], _one
of the richest and most productive parts of Egypt_. Gen. xlv. 18, and
xlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, 23, 27.

[Footnote B: The land of Goshen was a large tract of country, east of
the Pelusian arm of the Nile, and between it and the head of the Red
Sea, and the lower border of Palestine. The probable centre of that
portion, occupied by the Israelites, could hardly, have been less than
60 miles from the city. From the best authorities it would seem that the
extreme western boundary of Goshen must have been many miles distant
from Egypt. See "Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt," an able article
by Professor Robinson, in the Biblical Repository for October, 1832.]

(3.) _They lived in permanent dwellings_. These were _houses_, not
_tents_. In Ex. xii. 6, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_
of the houses are mentioned, and in the 22d, the two side posts and the
lintel. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by itself_--Acts
vii. 20, Ex. xii. 4--and from the regulation about the eating of the
Passover, they could hardly have been small ones--Ex. xii. 4--and
probably contained separate apartments, and places for seclusion. Ex.
ii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well apparelled. Ex.
xii. 11. To have had their own burial grounds. Ex. xiii. 19, and xiv.
11.

(4.) _They owned "a mixed multitude of flocks and herds_," and "_very
much cattle_." Ex. xii. 32, 37, 38.

(5.) They had their own form of government, and preserved their tribe
and family divisions, and their internal organization throughout, though
still a province of Egypt, and _tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1, and xii.
19, 21, and vi. 14, 25, and v. 19, and iii. 16, 18.

(6.) _They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the disposal of
their own time_,--Ex. xxiii. 4, and iii. 16, 18, and xii. 6, and ii. 9,
and iv. 27, 29-31. Also to have practised the fine arts. Ex. xxxii. 4,
and xxxv. 32-35.

(7.) _They were all armed_. Ex. xxxii. 27.

(8.) _All the females seem to have known something of domestic
refinements; they were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled
in the working of fine fabrics_. Ex. xv. 20, and 35, 36.

(9.) _They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians seem
to have regarded them as inviolable_. This we infer from the fact that
there is no intimation that the Egyptians dispossessed them of their
habitations, or took away their flocks, or herds, or crops, or
implements of agriculture, or any article of property.

(10.) _Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males_.
Nothing is said from which the bond service of females could be
inferred; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the
payment of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a
supposition. Ex. ii. 29.

(11.) So far from being fed upon a given allowance, their food was
abundant, and had great variety. "They sat by the flesh-pots," and "did
eat bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3, and xxiv. 1, and xvii. 5, and iv.
29, and vi. 14. Also, "they did eat fish freely, and cucumbers, and
melons, and leeks, and onions, and garlic." Num. xi. 4, 5, and x. 18,
and xx. 5.

(12.) _That the great body of the people were not in the service of the
Egyptians, we infer_ (1) from the fact, that the extent and variety of
their own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their crops
as would provide them with bread, and such care of their immense flocks
and herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must have
furnished constant employment for the main body of the nation.

(2.) During the plague of darkness, God informs us that "ALL the
children of Israel had light in their dwellings." We infer that they
were _there_ to enjoy it.

(3.) It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only service
named during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could have
furnished permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See also Ex.
iv. 29-31.

Besides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, it was, as now, in
the use of the levy, requiring them to furnish a given quota, drafted
off periodically, so that comparatively but a small portion of the
nation would be absent _at any one time_.

Probably there was the same requisition upon the Israelites for
one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor, that was laid upon the
Egyptians. See Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of taking it out of their
_crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_ than crops) they exacted
it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that only the
_poorer_ Israelites were required to work for the Egyptians at all, the
wealthier being able to pay their tribute, in money. See Exod. iv.
27-31.

This was the bondage in Egypt. Contrast it with American slavery. Have
our slaves "very much cattle," and "a mixed multitude of flocks and
herds?" Do they live in commodious houses of their own? Do they "_sit by
the flesh-pots_," "_eat fish freely_," and "_eat bread to the full_?" Do
they live in a separate community, at a distance from their masters, in
their distinct tribes, under their own rulers and officers? Have they
the exclusive occupation of an extensive and fertile tract of country
for the culture of their own crops, and for rearing immense herds of
_their own_ cattle--and all these held independently of their masters,
and regarded by them as inviolable? Are our female slaves free from all
exactions of labor and liabilities of outrage?--and whenever employed,
are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish woman, when employed by the
king's daughter? Exod. ii. 9. Have the females entirely, and the males
to a considerable extent, the disposal of their own time? Have they the
means for cultivating social refinements, for practising the fine arts,
and for intellectual and moral improvement?

THE ISRAELITES, UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES. True, "_their lives were made bitter, and all the service
wherein they made them serve was with rigor_." But what was that, when
compared with the incessant toil of American slaves, the robbery of all
their time and earnings, and even the "power to own any thing, or
acquire any thing"--the "quart of corn a day," the legal allowance of
food[A]!--their _only_ clothing for one half the year, "_one_ shirt and
_one_ pair of pantaloons[B]!"--the _two hours and a half_ only for rest
and refreshment in the twenty-four[C]!--their dwellings, _hovels_, unfit
for human residence, commonly with but one apartment, where both sexes
and all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the field.
Add to this, the mental ignorance, and moral degradation; the daily
separations of kindred, the revelries of lust, the lacerations and
baptisms of blood, sanctioned by the laws of the South, and patronized
by its pubic sentiment. What, we ask, was the bondage of Egypt when
compared with this? And yet for _her_ oppression of the poor, God smote
her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she passed away in
his wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, knew her no more.
Ah! "_I have seen the afflictions of my people, and I have heard their
groanings, and am come down to deliver them_." HE DID COME, and Egypt
sank, a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over her.

[Footnote A: The law of North Carolina. See Haywood's Manual, 524-5]


[Footnote B: The law of Louisiana. See Martin's Digest, 610.]


[Footnote C: The whole amount of time secured by the law of Louisiana.
See Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12]

If such was God's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, of
how much sorer punishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy,
who cloak with religion, a system, in comparison with which the bondage
of Egypt dwindles to nothing?

Let those believe who can, that God gave his people permission to hold
human beings, robbed of _all_ their rights, while he threatened them
with wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_
oppression of Egypt--which robbed its victims of only the _least_ and
_cheapest_ of their rights, and left the _females_ unplundered even of
these. What! _Is God divided against himself_? When he had just turned
Egypt into a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied
dead, and his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of
her torment went upwards because she had "ROBBED THE POOR," did He
license the VICTIMS of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As _Lawgiver_,
did he _create_ a system tenfold more grinding than that, for which he
had just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and cloven down his princes, and
overwhelmed his hosts, and blasted them with His thunder, till "hell was
moved to meet them at their coming?"

Having touched upon the general topics which we design to include in
this inquiry, we proceed to examine various Scripture facts and
passages, which will doubtless be set in array against the foregoing
conclusions.



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

The advocates of slavery are always at their wits end when they try to
press the Bible into their service. Every movement shows that they are
hard-pushed. Their odd conceits and ever varying shifts, their forced
constructions, lacking even plausibility, their bold assumptions, and
blind guesswork, not only proclaim their _cause_ desperate, but
themselves. Some of the Bible defences thrown around slavery by
ministers of the Gospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and
historical fact, that it were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity,
ignorance, or blasphemy, predominates, in compound. Each strives so
lustily for the mastery, it may be set down a drawn battle.

How often has it been set up in type, that the color of the negro is the
_Cain-mark_, propagated downward. Doubtless Cain's posterity started an
opposition to the ark, and rode out the flood with flying streamers! Why
should not a miracle be wrought to point such an argument, and fill out
for slaveholders a Divine title-deed, vindicating the ways of God to
men?



OBJECTION 1. "_Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto
his brethren_." Gen. i. 25.

This prophecy of Noah is the _vade mecum_ of slaveholders, and they
never venture abroad without it. It is a pocket-piece for sudden
occasion--a keepsake to dote over--a charm to spell-bind opposition, and
a magnet to attract "whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie."
But closely as they cling to it, "cursed be Canaan" is a poor drug to
stupify a throbbing conscience--a mocking lullaby, vainly wooing slumber
to unquiet tossings, and crying "Peace, be still," where God wakes war,
and breaks his thunders.

Those who plead the curse on Canaan to justify negro slavery, _assume_
all the points in debate.

1. That the condition prophesied was _slavery_, rather than the mere
_rendering of service_ to others, and that it was the bondage of
_individuals_ rather than the condition of a _nation tributary_ to
another, and in _that_ sense its _servant_.

2. That the _prediction_ of crime _justifies_ it; that it grants
absolution to those whose crimes fulfil it, if it does not transform the
crimes into _virtues_. How piously the Pharaohs might have quoted God's
prophecy to Abraham, "_Thy seed shall be in bondage, and they shall
afflict them for four hundred years_." And then, what _saints_ were
those that crucified the Lord of glory!

3. That the Africans are descended from Canaan. Whereas Africa was
peopled from Egypt and Ethiopia, and Mizraim settled Egypt, and Cush,
Ethiopia. See Gen. x. 15-19, for the location and boundaries of Canaan's
posterity. So on the assumption that African slavery fulfils the
prophecy, a curse pronounced upon one people, is quoted to justify its
infliction upon another. Perhaps it may be argued that Canaan includes
all Ham's posterity. If so, the prophecy has not been fulfilled. The
other sons of Ham settled the Egyptian and Assyrian empires, and
conjointly with Shem the Persian, and afterward, to some extent, the
Grecian and Roman. The history of these nations gives no verification of
the prophecy. Whereas the history of Canaan's descendants, for more than
three thousand years, is a record of its fulfilment. First, they were
made tributaries by the Israelites. Then Canaan was the servant of Shem.
Afterward, by the Medes and Persians. Then Canaan was the servant of
Shem, and in part of the other sons of Ham. Afterward, by the
Macedonians, Grecians, and Romans, successively. Then Canaan was the
servant of Japhet, mainly, and secondarily of the other sons of Ham.
Finally, they were subjected by the Ottoman dynasty, where they yet
remain. Thus Canaan is _now_ the servant of Shem and Japhet and the
other sons of Ham.

But it may still be objected, that though Canaan is the only one _named_
in the curse, yet the 22d and 23d verses show that it was pronounced
upon the posterity of Ham in general. "_And Ham, the father of Canaan,
saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren
without_."--Verse 22. In verse 23, Shem and Japhet cover their father
with a garment. Verse 24, "_And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what
his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said_," &c.

It is argued that this younger son cannot be _Canaan_, as he was not the
_son_, but the _grandson_ of Noah, and therefore it must be _Ham_. We
answer, whoever that "_younger son_" was, or whatever he did, _Canaan_
alone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word _Ben_, signifies
son, grandson, great-grandson, or _any one_ of the posterity of an
individual. Gen. xxix. 5, "_And he said unto them, Know ye Laban, the_
SON _of Nahor_?" Yet Laban was the _grandson_ of Nahor. Gen. xxiv. 15,
29. In 2 Sam. xix. 24, it is said, "_Mephibosheth, the_ SON _of Saul,
came down to meet the king_." But Mephibosheth was the son of Jonathan,
and the _grandson_ of Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. So Ruth iv. 17. "_There is a_
SON _born to Naomi_." This was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of
Naomi. Ruth iv. 13, 15. So 2 Sam. xxi. 6. "_Let seven men of his
(Saul's)_ SONS _be delivered unto us_," &c. Seven of Saul's _grandsons_
were delivered up. 2 Sam. xxi. 8, 9. So Gen. xxi. 28, "_And hast not
suffered me to kiss my_ SONS _and my daughters_;" and in the 55th verse,
"_And early in the morning Laban rose up and kissed his_ SONS," &c.
These were his _grandsons_. So 2 Kings ix. 20, "_The driving of Jehu,
the_ SON _of Nimshi_." So 1 Kings xix. 16. But Jehu was the _grandson_
of Nimshi. 2 Kings ix. 2, 14. Who will forbid the inspired writer to use
the _same_ word when speaking of _Noah's_ grandson?

Further, if Ham were meant what propriety in calling him the _younger_
son? The order in which Noah's sons are always mentioned, makes Ham the
_second_, and not the _younger_ son. If it be said that Bible usage is
variable, and that the order of birth is not always preserved in
enumerations; the reply is, that, enumeration in the order of birth, is
the _rule_, in any other order the _exception_. Besides, if the younger
member of a family, takes precedence of older ones in the family record,
it is a mark of pre-eminence, either in original endowments, or
providential instrumentality. Abraham, though sixty years younger than
his eldest brother, and probably the youngest of Terah's sons, stands
first in the family genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history warrants the
idea of his pre-eminence; besides, the Hebrew word _Hakkaton_, rendered
_younger_, means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isaiah
xl. 22. "A LITTLE ONE _shall become a thousand_." Also in Isaiah xxii.
24. "_All vessels of_ SMALL _quantity_." So Psalms cxv. 13. "_He will
bless them that fear the Lord, both_ SMALL _and great_." Also Exodus
xviii. 22. "_But every_ SMALL _matter they shall judge_." It would be a
perfectly literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus,
"when Noah knew what his little son[A], or grandson (_Beno hakkaton_)
had done unto him, he said, cursed be Canaan," &c.

[Footnote A: The French language in this respect follows the same
analogy. Our word _grandson_ being in French, _petit fils_, (little
son.)]

Even if the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, the assumption that
their enslavement is a fulfilment of this prophecy, lacks even
plausibility, for, only a mere _fraction_ of the inhabitants of Africa
have at any one time been the slaves of other nations. If the objector
say in reply, that a large majority of the Africans have always been
slaves at _home_, we answer, 1st. _It is false in point of fact_, though
zealously bruited often to serve a turn. 2d. _If it were true_, how does
it help the argument? The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of
servants shall he be unto his brethren" not unto _himself_!



OBJECTION II.--"_If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and
he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if
he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his
money_." Exodus xxi. 20, 21.

Arguments drawn from the Mosaic system in support of slavery, originate
in a misconception both of its genius, _as a whole_, and of the design
and scope of its most simple provisions. The verses quoted above, afford
an illustration in point.

What was the design of this regulation? Was it to grant masters an
indulgence to beat servants with impunity? and an assurance, that if
they beat them to death, the offence would not be _capital_? This is
substantially what some modern Doctors tell us. What Deity do such men
worship? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human hecatombs, and
snuffing carnage for incense? Did He who thundered out from Sinai's
flames, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL," offer a bounty on _murder_? Whoever
analyzes the Mosaic system--the condition of the people for whom it was
made--their inexperience in government--ignorance of judicial
proceedings--laws of evidence, &c., will find a moot court in session,
trying law points--setting definitions, or laying down rules of
evidence, in almost every chapter. Numbers xxxv. 10-22; Deuteronomy xi.
11, and xix. 4-6; Leviticus xxiv. 19-22; Exodus, xxi. 18, 19, are a few,
out of many cases stated, with tests furnished by which to detect _the
intent_, in actions brought before them. The detail gone into, in the
verses quoted, is manifestly to enable the judges to get at the _motive_
of the action, and find out whether the master _designed_ to kill.

1. "If a man smite his servant with a _rod_."--The instrument used,
gives a clue to the _intent_. See Numbers xxxv. 16, 18. It was a _rod_,
not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other
death-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_
would be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_
for its weapon. But if the servant dies _under his hand_, then the
unfitness of the instrument, instead of being evidence in his favor, is
point blank against him; for, to strike him with a _rod_ until he
_dies_, argues a _great many_ blows laid on with _great_ violence, and
this kept up to the death-gasp, establishes the point of _intent to
kill_. Hence the sentence, "He shall _surely_ be punished." The case is
plain and strong. But if he continued _a day or two_, the _length of
time that he lived_, together with the _kind_ of instrument used, and
the fact that the master had a pecuniary interest in his _life_, ("he is
his _money_,") all, made out a strong case of circumstantial evidence,
showing that the master did not _design_ to kill; and required a
corresponding decision and sentence. A single remark on the word
"punished:" in Exodus xxi. 20, 21, the Hebrew word here rendered
_punished_, (_Nakum_,) is _not so rendered in another instance_. Yet it
occurs thirty-five times in the Old Testament--in almost every instance,
it is translated _avenge_--in a few, "_to take vengeance_," or "_to
revenge_," and in this instance ALONE, "_punish_." As it stands in our
translation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the _master_--the
_master_ in the 21st verse, is to be _punished_, and in the 22d _not_ to
be punished; whereas the preceding pronoun refers neither to the
_master_ nor to the _servant_, but to the _crime_, and the word rendered
_punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. The meaning is this: If
a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his
hand, IT (the death) shall surely be avenged, or literally, _by avenging
it shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be
_avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the next verse--"If he
continues a day or two," his death shall not be avenged by the _death_
of the _master_, for in that case the crime was to be adjudged
_manslaughter_, and not _murder_, as in the first instance. In the
following verse, another case of personal injury is stated, not
intentional, nor extending to life or limb, a mere accidental hurt, for
which the injurer is to pay _a sum of money_; and yet our translators
employ the same phraseology in both places. One, an instance of
deliberate, wanton, _killing by piecemeal_. The other and _accidental_,
and comparatively slight injury--of the inflicter, in both cases, they
say the same thing! "_He shall surely be punished_." Now, just the
difference which common sense would expect to find in such cases, where
GOD legislates, is strongly marked in the original. In the case of the
servant wilfully murdered, God says, "It (the death) shall surely be
_avenged_," (_Nakum_,) that is, _the life of the wrong doer shall
expiate the crime_. The same word is used in the Old Testament, when the
greatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the perpetrators, whether
individuals or communities, to _destruction_. In the case of the
_unintentional_ injury, in the following verse, God says, "He shall
surely be" _fined_, (_Aunash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges
determine." The simple meaning of the word _Aunash_, is to lay a fine.
It is used in Deut. xxii. 19. They shall _amerce_ him in one hundred
shekels," and in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 3--"He condemned (_mulcted_) the land
in a hundred talents of gold.--This is the general use of the word, and
its primary signification. That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was
neither imprisonment, nor stripes, nor amercing the master in damages,
but that it was _taking the master's life_ we infer.

1. From the _Bible usage_ of the word Nakam. See Genesis iv. 24; Joshua
x. 13; Judges xv. 7-xvi. 28; 1 Samuel xiv. 24-xviii. 25-xxv. 31; 2
Samuel iv. 8; Judges v. 2; 1 Samuel xxv. 26-33, &c. &c.

2. From the express statute in such case provided. Leviticus xxiv. 17.
"_He that killeth_ ANY _man_ shall surely be put to death." Also Numbers
xxxv. 30, 31. "_Whoso killeth_ ANY _person_, the murderer shall be put
to death. _Moreover ye shall take_ NO SATISFACTION _for the life of a
murderer which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to
death_."

3. The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, "Death by the sword
shall assuredly be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem thus, "Vengeance
shall be taken for him to the _uttermost_." Jarchi gives the same
rendering. The Samaritan version thus, "He shall die the death."

Again, the last clause in the 21st verse ("for he is his money") is
often quoted to prove that the servant is his master's _property_, and
_therefore_, if he died, the master was not _to be punished_. _Because_,
1st. A man may dispose of his _property_ as he pleases. 2d. If the
servant died of the injury, the master's _loss_ was a sufficient
punishment. A word about the premises, before we notice the inferences.
The assumption is, that the phrase, "HE IS HIS MONEY," proves not only
that the servant is _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an
_article of property_. If the advocates of slavery will take this
principle of interpretation into the Bible, and turn it loose, let them
either give bonds for its behavior, or else stand and draw in
self-defence, "lest it turn again and rend" them. If they endorse for it
at one point, they must stand sponsors all around the circle. It will be
too late to cry for quarter when they find its stroke clearing the whole
table, and tilting them among the sweepings beneath. The Bible abounds
with such expressions as the following: "This (bread) _is_ my body;"
"this (wine) _is_ my blood;" "all they (the Israelites) _are_ brass, and
tin, and iron, and lead;" "this _is_ life eternal, that they might know
thee;" "this (the water of the well of Bethlehem) _is_ the blood of the
men who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "I _am_ the lily of the
valleys;" "a garden enclosed _is_ my sister;" "my tears _have been_ my
meat;" "the Lord God _is_ a sun and a shield;" "God _is_ love;" "the
Lord _is_ my rock;" "the seven good ears _are_ seven years, and the
seven good kine _are_ seven years;" "the seven thin and ill-favored kine
_are_ seven years, and the seven empty ears blasted by the east wind
_shall be_ seven years of famine;" "he _shall be_ head, and thou _shall_
be tail;" "the Lord _will_ be a wall of fire;" "they _shall_ be one
flesh;" "the tree of the field _is_ man's life;" "God _is_ a consuming
fire;" "he _is_ his money," &c. A passion for the exact _literalities_
of Bible language is so amiable, it were hard not to gratify it in this
case. The words in the original are (_Kaspo-hu_,) "his _silver_ is he."
The objector's principle of interpretation is, a philosopher's stone!
Its miracle touch transmutes five feet eight inches of flesh and bones
into _solid silver_! Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble with
all--reasoning against "_forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and,
Deut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted.

Who in his senses believes that in the expression, "_He is his money_,"
the object was to inculcate the doctrine that the servant was a
_chattel_? The obvious meaning is, he is _worth money_ to his master,
and since, if the master killed him, it would take money out of his
pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the
fact of his living some time after the injury_, (as, if the master
_meant_ to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it,) all
together make out a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the
master of _intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector's
inferences. One is, that as the master might dispose of his _property_
as he pleased, he was not to be punished, if he destroyed it. Answer.
Whether the servant died under the master's hand, or continued a day or
two, he was _equally_ his master's property, and the objector admits
that in the _first_ case the master is to be "surely punished" for
destroying _his own property_! The other inference is, that since the
continuance of a day or two, cleared the master of _intent to kill_, the
loss of the slave would be a sufficient punishment for inflicting the
injury which caused his death. This inference makes the Mosaic law false
to its own principles. A _pecuniary loss_, constituted no part of the
claims of the law, where a person took the _life_ of another. In such
case, the law utterly spurned money, however large the sum. God would
not so cheapen human life, as to balance it with such a weight. "_Ye
shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, but he shall
surely be put to death_." See Numb. xxxv. 31. Even in excusable
homicide, a case of death purely accidental, as where an axe slipped
from the helve and killed a man, no sum of money availed to release from
confinement in the city of refuge, until the death of the High Priest.
Numbers xxxv. 32. The doctrine that the loss of the servant would be a
penalty _adequate_ to the desert of the master, admits the master's
_guilt_--his desert of _some_ punishment, and it prescribes a _kind_ of
punishment, rejected by the law, in all cases where man took the life of
man, whether with or without _intent_ to kill. In short, the objector
annuls an integral part of the system--resolves himself into a
legislature, with power in the premises, makes a _new_ law, and coolly
metes out such penalty as he thinks fit, both in kind and quantity.
Mosaic statutes amended, and Divine legislation revised and improved!

The master who struck out the tooth of a servant, whether intentionally
or not, was required to set him free for his tooth's sake. The
_pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though the servant had
_died_. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so severely,
that after a day or two he dies of his wounds; another master
accidentally strikes out his servant's tooth, and his servant is
free--_the pecuniary loss of both masters is the same._ The objector
contends that the loss of the slave's services in the first case is
punishment sufficient for the crime of killing him; yet God commands the
_same_ punishment for even the _accidental_ knocking out of a _tooth_!
Indeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertently_, the loss of the
servant's services is only a _part_ of the punishment--mere reparation
to the _individual_ for injury done; the _main_ punishment, that
strictly _judicial_, was, reparation to the _community_ for injury to
one of its members. To set the servant _free_, and thus proclaim his
injury, his right to redress, and the measure of it--answered not the
ends of public justice. The law made an example of the offender, "those
that remain might hear and fear." _"If a man cause a blemish in his
neighbour, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for
breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a
man, so shall it be done to him again. You have one manner of law as
well for the_ STRANGER _as for one of your own country_." Lev. xxiv. 19,
20, 22. Finally, if a master smote out the tooth of a servant, the law
smote out _his_ tooth--thus redressing the _public_ wrong; and it
cancelled the servant's obligation to the master, thus giving some
compensation for the injury done, and exempting him from perilous
liabilities in future.



OBJECTION III. _Both the bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have,
shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy
bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do
sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are
with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your
possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children
after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen
forever_. Lev. xxv. 44-46.

The _points_ in these verses, urged as proof, that the Mosaic system
sanctioned slavery, are 1. The word "BONDMEN." 2. "BUY." 3. "INHERITANCE
AND POSSESSION." 4. "FOREVER."

The _second_ point, the _buying_ of servants, has been already
discussed, see page 15. And a part of the _third_ (holding servants as a
"possession." See p. 36.) We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery
is derivable from the terms "bondmen," "inheritance," and "forever."

I. BONDMEN. The fact that servants, from the heathen are called
"_bondmen_," while others are called "servants," is quoted as proof that
the former were slaves. As the _caprices_ of King James' translators
were not divinely inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The
word rendered _bondmen_, in this passage, is the same word uniformly
rendered _servants_ elsewhere. To infer from this that the Gentile
servants were slaves, is absurd. Look at the use of the Hebrew word
"_Ebed_," the plural of which is here translated "_bondmen_." In Isaiah
xlii. 1, the _same word_ is applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_
(bondman, slave?) whom I have chosen, mine elect in whom my soul
delighteth." So Isaiah lii. 13. "Behold my _servant_ (Christ) shall deal
prudently." In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, it is applied to _King Rehoboam_. "And
they (the old men) spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a _servant_
(_Ebed_) unto this people this day, and will serve them and answer them,
and wilt speak good words to them, then they will be thy _servants_
forever." In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, it is applied to the king and
all the nation. In fine, the word is applied to _all_ persons doing
service to others--to magistrates, to all governmental officers, to
tributaries, to all the subjects of governments, to younger
sons--defining their relation to the first born, who is called _Lord_
and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah, and in respectful
addresses not less than _fifty_ times in the Old Testament.

If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, why had
their language _no word_ that _meant slave_? If Abraham had thousands,
and if they _abounded_ under the Mosaic system, why had they no such
_word_ as slave or slavery? That language must be wofully poverty
stricken, which has _no signs_ to represent the most _common_ and
_familiar_ objects and conditions. To represent by the same word, and
without figure, _property_, and the _owner_ of that property, is a
solecism. Ziba was an "_Ebed_," yet he _"owned_" (!) twenty _Ebeds_. In
_English_, we have both the words _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we
have both the _things_, and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a
sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but
our dictionaries give us none. Why? because there is no such _thing_.
But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word _Ebed_
if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. The servants of
individuals among the heathen are scarcely ever alluded to. _National_
servants or _tributaries_, are spoken of frequently, but so rarely are
their _domestic_ servants alluded to, no necessity existed, even if they
were slaves, for coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their being
domestics, under _heathen laws and usages_, proclaimed their
_liabilities_; their locality told their condition; so that in applying
to them the word _Ebed_, there would be no danger of being
misunderstood. But if the Israelites had not only _servants_, but
besides these, a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning slave_, would
have been indispensable for purposes of every day convenience. Further,
the laws of the Mosaic system were so many sentinels on every side, to
warn off foreign practices. The border ground of Canaan, was quarantine
ground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse between the _without_
and the _within_, not of _persons_, but of _usages_. The fact that the
Hebrew language had no words corresponding to _slave_ and _slavery_,
though not a conclusive argument, is no slight corroborative.



II. "FOREVER."--"They shall be your bondmen _forever_." This is quoted
to prove that servants were to serve during their life time, and their
posterity, from generation to generation.

No such idea is contained in the passage. The word _forever_, instead of
defining the length of _individual_ service, proclaims the _permanence_
of the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that
their _permanent domestics_ should be of the _Strangers_, and not of the
Israelites; and it declares the duration of that general provision. As
if God had said, "You shall _always_ get your _permanent_ laborers from
the nations round about you--your _servants_ shall always be of _that_
class of persons." As it stands in the original, it is plain--"_Forever
of them shall ye serve yourselves_." This is the literal rendering of
the Hebrew words, which, in our version, are translated, "_They shall be
your bondmen forever_."

This construction is in keeping with the whole of the passage. "Both thy
bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the
_heathen_ (the nations) that are round about you. OF THEM shall ye buy
bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do
sojourn among you, OF THEM shall ye buy," &c. The design of this passage
is manifest from its structure. It was to point out the _class_ of
persons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the
_way_ in which they were to get them. That "_forever_" refers to the
permanent relations of a _community_, rather than to the services of
_individuals_, is a fair inference from the form of the expression,
"THEY shall be your possession. Ye shall take _them_ as an inheritance
for your children to inherit them for a possession." To say nothing of
the uncertainty of _these individuals_ surviving those _after_ whom they
are to live, the language used, applies more naturally to a _body_ of
people, than to _individual_ servants.

But suppose it otherwise; still _perpetual_ service could not be argued
from the term _forever_. The ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter,
limit it absolutely by the jubilee. "_Then shall thou cause the trumpet
of the jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month: in the
day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout_ ALL _your
land." "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty
throughout all the land unto_ ALL _the inhabitants thereof_."

It may be objected that "inhabitants" here means _Israelitish_
inhabitants alone. The command is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the
land unto ALL _the inhabitants thereof_." Besides, in the sixth verse,
there is an enumeration of the different classes of the inhabitants, in
which servants and strangers are included. "_And the Sabbath of the land
shall be meet for_ YOU--[For whom? For you _Israelites_ only?]--_for
thee, and for thy_ SERVANT, _and for thy maid, and for thy hired
servant, and for thy_ STRANGER _that sojourneth with thee_."

Further, in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the sabbatical year,
the strangers are included in the precepts, prohibitions, and promised
blessings. Again: the year of jubilee was ushered in, by the day of
atonement. What was the design of these institutions? The day of
atonement prefigured the atonement of Christ, and the year of jubilee,
the gospel jubilee. And did they prefigure an atonement and a jubilee to
_Jews_ only? Were they the types of sins remitted, and of salvation,
proclaimed to the nation of _Israel_ alone? Is there no redemption for
us Gentiles in these ends of the earth, and is our hope presumption and
impiety? Did that old partition wall survive the shock, that made earth
quake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and rent the temple
vail? And did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder direr perdition
from its frowning battlements on all without? No! The God of OUR
salvation lives. "Good tidings of great joy shall be to ALL people."
_One_ shout shall swell from _all_ the ransomed, "Thou hast redeemed us
unto God by thy blood out of EVERY kindred, and tongue, and people, and
nation." To deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to the
servants from the _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_. It not only
eclipses the glory of the Gospel, but strikes out the sun. The refusal
to release servants at the sound of the jubilee trumpet, falsified and
disannulled a grand leading type of the atonement, and thus libelled the
doctrine of Christ's redemption.

Finally, even if _forever_ did refer to the length of _individual_
service, we have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee.
The same word is used to define the length of time for which those
_Jewish_ servants were held, who refused to go out in the _seventh_
year. And all admit that their term of service did not go beyond the
jubilee. Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17.

The 23d verse of the same chapter is quoted to prove that "_forever_" in
the 46th verse, extends beyond the jubilee. "_The land shall not be
sold_ FOREVER, _for the land is mine_"--as it would hardly be used in
different senses in the same general connection. In reply, we repeat
that _forever_ respects the duration of the _general arrangement_, and
not that of _individual service_. Consequently, it is not affected by
the jubilee; so the objection does not touch the argument. But it may
not be amiss to show that it is equally harmless against any other
argument drawn from the use of forever in the 46th verse,--for the word
there used, is _Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that
may be. Whereas in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning _cutting
off_, or _to be cut off_.



III. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION."--"_Ye shall take them as an_
INHERITANCE _for your children after you to inherit them for a
possession_." This refers to the _nations_, and not to the _individual_
servants, procured from these nations. We have already shown, that
servants could not be held as a _property_-possession, and inheritance;
that they became servants of their _own accord_, and were paid wages;
that they were released by law from their regular labor nearly _half the
days in each year_, and thoroughly _instructed_; that the servants were
_protected_ in all their personal, social, and religious rights, equally
with their masters, &c. Now, truly, all remaining, after these ample
reservations, would be small temptation, either to the lust of power or
of lucre. What a profitable "possession" and "inheritance!" What if our
American slaves were all placed in _just such a condition_! Alas, for
that soft, melodious circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!"
Truly, emphasis is cadence, and euphony and irony have met together!

What eager snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of
connection, principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of
meaning by other passages--and all to eke out such a sense as accords
with existing usages and sanctifies them, thus making God pander for
their lusts. Little matter whether the meaning of the word be primary or
secondary, literal or figurative, _provided_ it sustains their
practices.

But let us inquire whether the words rendered "inherit" and
"inheritance," when used in the Old Testament, necessarily point out the
things inherited and possessed as _articles of property_. _Nahal_ and
_Nahala_--_inherit_ and _inheritance_. See 2 Chronicles x. 16. "The
people answered the king and said, What portion have we in David, and we
have none _inheritance_ in the son of Jesse." Did they mean gravely to
disclaim the holding of their king as an article of _property?_ Psalms
cxxvii. 3--"Lo, children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord."
Exodus xxxiv. 9--"Pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine
_inheritance_." When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as his
children, does he make them _articles of property?_ Are forgiveness, and
chattel-making, synonymes? Psalms cxix. 111--"Thy testimonies have I
taken as a _heritage_ (inheritance) forever." Ezekiel xliv. 27, 28--"And
in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court to
minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin-offering, saith the
Lord God. And it shall be unto them for an _inheritance_; _I_ am their
_inheritance_." Psalms ii. 8--"Ask of me, and I will give thee the
heathen for thine _inheritance_." Psalms xciv. 14--"For the Lord will
not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his _inheritance_." See
also Deuteronomy iv. 20; Joshua xiii. 33; Chronicles x. 16; Psalms
lxxxii. 8, and lxxviii. 62, 71; Proverbs xiv. 8.

The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY--"_possession_," has
been already discussed--(See p. 36)--we need add in this place but a
word. _Ahusa_ rendered "_possession_." Genesis xlii. 11--"And Joseph
placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a _possession_ in the
land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as
Pharaoh had commanded."

In what sense was the land of Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites?
Answer, In the sense of, _having it to live in_. In what sense were the
Israelites to _possess_ these nations, and _take them_ as an
_inheritance for their children?_ We answer, They possessed them as _a
permanent source of supply for domestic or household servants. And this
relation to these nations was to go down to posterity as a standing
regulation--a national usage respecting them, having the certainty and
regularity of a descent by inheritance_. The sense of the whole
regulation may be given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, both male and
female, which thou shalt have, shall be of the nations that are round
about you, of _them_ shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover
of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of _them_
shall ye get, and of their families that are with you, which they begat
in your land, and _they_ shall be your permanent resource," (for
household servants.) "And ye shall take them as a _perpetual_ provision
for your children after you, to hold as a _constant source of supply_.
ALWAYS _of them_ shall ye serve yourselves."



OBJECTION IV. "_If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and
be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a_
BOND-SERVANT, _but as an_ HIRED-SERVANT, _and as a sojourner shall he be
with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee_." Lev. xxv.
39, 40.

From the fact that only _one_ class of the servants is called _hired_,
it is sagely inferred that servants of the _other_ class were _not paid_
for their labor. That is, that while God thundered anathemas against
those who "used their neighbor's service _without wages_," he granted a
special indulgence to his chosen people to seize persons, force them to
work, and rob them of earnings, provided always, in selecting their
victims, they spared "the gentlemen of property and standing," and
pounced only upon the _strangers_ and the _common_ people. The inference
that "_hired_" is synonimous with _paid_, and that those servants not
_called_ "hired" were _not paid_ for their labor, is a _mere
assumption_.

The meaning of the English verb _to hire_, is, as every one knows, to
procure for a temporary use at a curtain price--to engage a person to
_temporary_ service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew
word "_Saukar_." _Temporary_ service, and generally for a _specific_
object, is inseparable from its meaning. It is never used when the
procurement of _permanent_ service, for a long period, is spoken of.
Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who constituted an
integral and stationary part of the family, have been designated by the
same term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinctions
made on this subject, are as familiar as table-talk. In many families,
the domestics perform only such labor, as every day brings along with
it--the _regular_ work. Whatever is _occasional_ merely, as the washing
of a family, is done by persons _hired expressly for the purpose_. In
such families, the familiar distinction between the two classes, is
"servants," or "domestics," and "hired help," (not _paid_ help.) _Both_
classes are _paid_. One is permanent, the other occasional and
temporary, and therefore in this case called "_hired_." To suppose a
servant robbed of his earnings, because when spoken of, he is not called
a _hired_ servant, is profound induction! If I employ a man at twelve
dollars a month to work my farm, he is my _"hired"_ man, but if, instead
of giving him so much a month, I _give him such a portion of the crop_,
or in other words, if he works my farm _"on shares,"_ he is no longer my
_hired_ man. Every farmer knows that _that_ designation is not applied
to him. Yet he works the same farm, in the same way, at the same times,
and with the same teams and tools; and does the same amount of work in
the year, and perhaps clears twenty dollars a month, instead of the
twelve, paid him while he was my _hired_ laborer. Now, as the technic
_"hired"_ is no longer used to designate him, and as he still labors on
my farm, suppose my neighbors gather in conclave, and from such ample
premises sagely infer, that since he is no longer my _"hired"_ laborer,
I _rob_ him of his earnings, and with all the gravity of owls, they
record their decision, and adjourn to hoot it abroad. My neighbors are
deep divers!--like some theological professors, they not only go to the
bottom, but come up covered with the tokens.



A variety of particulars are recorded in the Bible, distinguishing
_hired_ from _bought_ servants. (1.) Hired servants were paid daily at
the close of their work. Lev. xix 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Job. vii. 2;
Matt. xx. 8. _"Bought"_ servants were paid in advance, (a reason for
their being called, _bought_,) and those that went out at the seventh
year received a _gratuity_ at the close of their period of service.
Deut. xv. 12-13. (2.) The hired servant was paid _in money_, the bought
servant received his _gratuity_, at least, in grain, cattle, and the
product of the vintage. Deut. xiv. 17. (3.) The _hired_ servant _lived
by himself_, in his own family. The _bought_ servant was a part of his
master's family. (4.) The _hired_ servant supported his family out of
his wages; the _bought_ servant and his family, were supported by the
master _besides_ his wages.



A careful investigation of the condition of "_hired_" and of "_bought_"
servants, shows that the latter were, _as a class, superior to the
former_--were more trust-worthy, had greater privileges, and occupied in
every respect (_other_ things being equal) a higher station in society.
(1.) _They were intimately incorporated with the family of the master_.
They were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities, from which
hired servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10; Exod. xii. 43, 45. (2)
_Their interests were far more identified with the general interests of
their masters' family._ Bought servants were often actually, or
prospectively, heirs of their master's estate. Witness the case of
Eliezer, of Ziba, of the sons of Bilhah, and Zilpah, and others. When
there were no sons to inherit the estate, or when, by unworthiness, they
had forfeited their title, bought servants were made heirs. Proverbs
xvii. 2. We find traces of this usage in the New Testament. "But when
the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, this is
the _heir_, come let us kill him, _that the inheritance may be ours_."
Luke xx. 14; also Mark xii. 7. In no instance on Bible record, does a
_hired_ servant inherit his master's estate. (3.) _Marriages took place
between servants and their master's daughters_. "Now Sheshan had no
sons, but daughters: and Sheshan had a _servant_, an Egyptian, whose
name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant to
wife." 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35. There is no instance of a _hired_ servant
forming such an alliance.

(4.) _Bought servants and their descendants seem to have been regarded
with the same affection and respect as the other members of the
family[A]._ The treatment of Eliezer, and the other servants in the
family of Abraham, Gen. chap. 25--the intercourse between Gideon and his
servant Phurah, Judges vii. 10, 11. and Saul and his servant, in their
interview with Samuel, 1 Sam. ix. 5, 22; and Jonathan and his servant, 1
Sam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and his servant Gehazi, are illustrations. No
such tie seems to have existed between _hired_ servants and their
masters. Their untrustworthiness seems to have been proverbial. See John
ix. 12, 13.

None but the _lowest class_ seem to have engaged as hired servants. No
instance occurs in which they are assigned to business demanding much
knowledge or skill. Various passages show the low repute and trifling
character of the class from which they were hired. Judges ix. 4; 1 Sam.
ii. 5.

The superior condition and privileges of bought servants, are manifested
in the high trusts confided to them, and in the dignity and authority
with which they were clothed in their master's household. But in no
instance is a _hired_ servant thus distinguished. In some cases, the
_bought_ servant is manifestly the master's representative in the
family--with plenipotentiary powers over adult children, even
negotiating marriage for them. Abraham besought Eliezer his servant, to
take a solemn oath, that HE would not take a wife for Isaac of the
daughters of the Canaanites, but from Abraham's kindred. The servant
went accordingly, and _himself_ selected the individual. Servants also
exercised discretionary power in the management of their master's
estate, "And the servant took ten camels, of the camels of his master,
_for all the goods of his master were under his hand_." Gen. xxiv. 10.
The reason assigned for taking them, is not that such was Abraham's
direction, but that the servant had discretionary control. Servants had
also discretionary power in the _disposal of property_. See Gen. xxiv.
22, 23, 53. The condition of Ziba in the house of Mephiboseth, is a case
in point. So is Prov. xvii. 2. Distinct traces of this estimation are to
be found in the New Testament, Math. xxiv. 45; Luke xii. 42, 44. So in
the parable of the talents; the master seems to have set up each of his
servants in trade with considerable capital. One of them could not have
had less than eight thousand dollars. The parable of the unjust steward
is another illustration. Luke xvi. 4, 8. He evidently was entrusted with
large _discretionary_ power, was "accused of wasting his master's
goods." and manifestly regulated with his master's debtors, the _terms_
of settlement. Such trusts were never reposed in _hired_ servants.

The inferior condition of _hired_ servants, is illustrated in the
parable of the prodigal son. When the prodigal, perishing with hunger
among the swine and husks, came to himself, his proud heart broke; "I
will arise," he cried, "and go to my father." And then to assure his
father of the depth of his humility, resolved to add imploringly, "Make
me as one of thy _hired_ servants." It need not be remarked, that if
_hired_ servants were the _superior_ class; to apply for the situation,
and press the suit, savored little of that sense of unworthiness that
seeks the dust with hidden face, and cries "unclean." Unhumbled nature
_climbs_; or if it falls, clings fast, where first it may. Humility
sinks of its own weight, and in the lowest deep, digs lower. The design
of the parable was to illustrate on the one hand, the joy of God, as he
beholds afar off, the returning sinner "seeking an injured father's
face" who runs to clasp and bless him with an unchiding welcome; and on
the other, the contrition of the penitent, turning homeward with tears,
from his wanderings, his stricken spirit breaking with its ill-desert,
he sobs aloud, "The lowest place, _the lowest place_, I can abide no
other." Or in those inimitable words, "_Father, I have sinned against
Heaven, and in thy sight, and no more worthy to be called thy son; make
me as one of thy_ HIRED _servants_." The supposition that _hired_
servants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of
winning beauty and pathos. It is manifest to every careful student of
the Bible, that _one_ class of servants, was on terms of equality with
the children and other members of the family. (Hence the force of Paul's
declaration, Gal. iv. 1, _"Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as
he is a child,_ DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, _though he be lord of
all."_) If this were the _hired_ class, the prodigal was a sorry
specimen of humility. Would our Lord have put such language, into the
lips of one held up by himself, as a model of gospel humility, to
illustrate its lowliness, its conscious destitution of all merit, and
deep sense of all ill desert? If this is _humility_, put it on stilts,
and set it a strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in
apeing it.

Here let it be observed, that both Israelites and Strangers, belonged
indiscriminately to _each_ class of the servants, the _bought_ and the
_hired_. That those in the former class, whether Jews or Strangers, were
in higher estimation, and rose to honors and authority in the family
circle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been already
shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges,
merely _political_ and _national_, the hired servants from the
_Israelites_, were more favored than either the hired, or the bought
servants from the _Strangers_. No one from the Strangers, however
wealthy or highly endowed, was eligible to the highest office, nor could
he own the soil. This last disability seems to have been one reason for
the different periods of service required of the two classes of bought
servants--the Israelites and the Strangers. The Israelite was to serve
six years--the Stranger until the jubilee[A].

[Footnote A: Both classes may with propriety be called _permanent_
servants; even the bought Israelite, when his six-years' service is
contrasted with the brief term of the hired servant.]

As the Strangers could not own the soil, nor even houses, except within
walled towns, most of them would choose to attach themselves permanently
to Israelitish families. Those Strangers who were wealthy, or skilled in
manufactures, instead of becoming servants themselves, would need
servants for their own use, and as inducements for the Strangers to
become servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of their
own nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers would
naturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants. See Levit. xxv.
47. In a word, such was the political condition of the Strangers, the
Jewish polity furnished a strong motive to them, to become servants,
thus incorporating themselves with the nation, and procuring those
social and religious privileges already enumerated, and for their
children in the second generation, a permanent inheritance. (This last
was a regulation of later date. Ezekiel xlvii. 21-23.) Indeed, the
structure of the whole Mosaic polity, was a virtual bounty offered to
those who would become permanent servants, and merge in the Jewish
system their distinct nationality. None but the monied aristocracy among
them, would be likely to decline such offers.

For various reasons, this class, (the servants bought from the
Strangers,) would prefer a _long_ service. They would thus more
effectually become absorbed into the national circulation, and identify
their interests with those in whose gift were all things desirable for
themselves, and brighter prospects for their children. On the other
hand, the Israelites, owning all the soil, and an inheritance of land
being a sort of sacred possession, to hold it free of incumbrance, was,
with every Israelite, a delicate point, both of family honor and
personal character. 1 Kings xxi. 3. Hence, to forego the _possession_ of
one's inheritance, _after_ the division of the paternal domain, or to be
restrained from its _control_, after having acceded to it, was a burden
grievous to be borne. To mitigate, as much as possible, such a calamity,
the law, instead of requiring the Israelite to continue a servant until
the jubilee, released him at the end six years[A], as, during that
time--if, of the first class--the partition of the patrimonial land
might have taken place; or, if of the second, enough money might have
been earned to disencumber his estate, and thus he might assume his
station as a lord of the soil. If these contingencies had not occurred,
then, at the end of another six years, the opportunity was again
offered, and in the same manner until the jubilee. So while strong
motives urged the Israelite, to discontinue his service as soon as the
exigency had passed, which induced him to become a servant, every
consideration impelled the _Stranger_ to _prolong_ his term of service;
and the same kindness which dictated the law of six years' service for
the Israelite, assigned as the general rule, a much longer period to the
Gentile servant, who, instead of being tempted to a brief service, had
every inducement to protract the term.

[Footnote A: Another reason for protracting the service until the
seventh year, seems to have been, its coincidence with other
arrangements, and provisions, inseparable from the Jewish economy. That
period was a favorite one in the Mosaic system. Its pecuniary
responsibilities, social relations and general internal structure, if
not _graduated_ upon a septennial scale, were variously modified by the
lapse of the period. Another reason doubtless was, that as those
Israelites who became servants through poverty, would not sell
themselves, except as a last resort when other expedients to recruit
their finances had failed--(See Lev. xxv. 35)--their _becoming servants_
proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as demanded the labor of _a
course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]

It is important to a clear understanding of the whole subject, to keep
in mind that adult Jews ordinarily became servants, only as a temporary
expedient to relieve themselves from embarrassment, and ceased to be
such when that object was effected. The poverty that forced them to it
was a calamity, and their service was either a means of relief, or a
measure of prevention. It was not pursued as a _permanent business_, but
resorted to on emergencies--a sort of episode in the main scope of their
lives. Whereas with the Strangers, it was a _permanent employment_,
pursued not merely as a _means_ of bettering their own condition, and
prospectively that of their posterity, but also, as an _end_ for its own
sake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not
otherwise attainable.

We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are
called by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_, as our
translators have it.) (1.) They followed it as a _permanent business_.
(2.) Their term of service was _much longer_ than that of the other
class. (3.) As a class, they doubtless greatly outnumbered the
Israelitish servants. (4.) All the Strangers that dwelt in the land,
were _tributaries_ to the Israelites--required to pay an annual tribute
to the government, either in money, or in public service, which was
called a "_tribute of bond-service_;" in other words, all the Strangers
were _national servants_, to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew word
which is used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates
_national_ servants or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, 14. 2 Chron.
viii. 7-9. Deut. xx. 11. 2 Sam. x. 19. 1 Kings ix. 21, 22. 1 Kings iv.
21. Gen. xxvii. 29. The same word is applied to the Israelites, when
they paid tribute to other nations. See 2 Kings xvii. 3. Judges iii. 8,
14. Gen. xlix. 15. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile
bought servants, claims notice. It was in the _kinds_ of service
assigned to each class. The servants from the Strangers, were properly
the _domestics_, or household servants, employed in all family work, in
offices of personal attendance, and in such mechanical labor, as was
constantly required in every family, by increasing wants, and needed
repairs. On the other hand, the Jewish bought servants seem to have been
almost exclusively _agricultural_. Besides being better fitted for this
by previous habits--agriculture, and the tending of cattle, were
regarded by the Israelites as the most honorable of all occupations;
kings engaged in them. After Saul was elected king, and escorted to
Gibeah, the next report of him is, "_And behold Saul came after the herd
out of the field_."--1 Sam. xi. 7.

Elisha "was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen" when Elijah threw his
mantle upon him. 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah "loved husbandry." 2
Chron. xxvi. 10. Gideon, the deliverer of Israel, _was "threshing wheat_
by the wine press" when called to lead the host against the Midianites.
Judges vi. 11. The superior honorableness of agriculture, is shown by
the fact, that it was _protected and supported by the fundamental law_
of the theocracy--God thus indicating it as the chief prop of the
government, and putting upon it peculiar honor. An inheritance of land
seems to have filled out an Israelite's idea of worldly furnishment.
They were like permanent fixtures on their soil, so did they cling to
it. To be agriculturalists on their own inheritances, was, in their
notions, the basis of family consequence, and the grand claim to
honorable estimation. Agriculture being pre-eminently a _Jewish_
employment, to assign a native Israelite to _other_ employments as a
_business_, was to break up his habits, do violence to cherished
predilections, and put him to a kind of labor in which he had no skill,
and which he deemed degrading. In short, it was, in the earlier ages of
the Mosaic system, practically to _unjew_ him, a hardship and rigor
grievous to be borne, as it annihilated a visible distinction between
the descendants of Abraham and the Strangers--a distinction vital to the
system, and gloried in by every Jew.

_To guard this and another fundamental distinction_, God instituted the
regulation contained in Leviticus xxv. 39, which stands at the head of
this branch of our inquiry, "_If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be
waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as
a bond-servant._" In other words, thou shalt not put him to _servants'
work_--to the _business_, and into the _condition_ of _domestics_.

In the Persian version it is translated thus, "Thou shalt not assign to
him the work of _servitude_," (or _menial_ labor.) In the Septuagint
thus, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a _domestic or
household servant_." In the Syriac thus, "Thou shalt not employ him
after the manner of servants." In the Samaritan thus, "Thou shalt not
require him to serve in the service of a servant." In the Targum of
Onkelos thus, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a household
servant." In the Targum of Jonathan thus, "Thou shalt not cause him to
serve according to the usages of the servitude of servants[A]." In fine,
"thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant," means, _thou
shalt not assign him to the same grade, nor put him to the same
services, with permanent domestics._

[Footnote A: Jarchi's comment on "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as
a bond-servant" is, "the Hebrew servant is not to be required to do any
thing which is accounted degrading--such as all offices of personal
attendance, as loosing his master's shoe latchet, bringing him water to
wash his feet and hands, waiting on him at table, dressing him, carrying
things to and from the bath. The Hebrew servant is to work with his
master as a son or brother, in the business of his farm, or other labor,
until his legal release."]

We pass to the remainder of the regulation in the 40th verse:--

"_But as an hired servant and as a sojourner shall he be with thee_."
Hired servants were not incorporated into the families of their masters;
they still retained their own family organization, without the surrender
of any domestic privilege, honor, or authority; and this, even though
they resided under the same roof with their master. While
bought-servants were associated with their master's families at meals,
at the Passover, and at other family festivals, hired servants and
sojourners were not. Exodus xii. 44, 45; Lev. xxii. 10, 11. Not being
merged in the family of his master, the hired servant was not subject to
his authority, (except in directions about his labor) in any such sense
as the master's wife, children, and bought servants. Hence the only form
of oppressing hired servants spoken of in the Scriptures as practicable
to masters, is that of _keeping back their wages_.

To have taken away these privileges in the case stated in the passage
under consideration, would have been preeminent _rigor_; for the case
described, is not that of a servant born in the house of a master, nor
that of a minor, whose unexpired minority had been sold by the father,
neither was it the case of an Israelite, who though of age, had not yet
acceded to his inheritance; nor, finally, was it that of one who had
received the _assignment_ of his inheritance, but was, as a servant,
working off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its possession
and control[A]. But it was that of _the head of a family_, who had lived
independently on his own inheritance, and long known better days, now
reduced to poverty, forced to relinquish the loved inheritance of his
fathers, with the competence and respectful consideration its possession
secured to him, and to be indebted to a neighbor for shelter,
sustenance, and employment, both for himself and his family. Surely so
sad a reverse, might well claim sympathy; but there remaineth to him one
consolation, and it cheers him in the house of his pilgrimage. He is an
_Israelite--Abraham is his father_, and now in his calamity he clings
closer than ever, to the distinction conferred by the immunities of his
birthright. To rob him of this, were "the unkindest cut of all." To have
assigned him to a _grade_ of service filled only by those whose
permanent business was _serving_, would have been to _rule over him with
peculiar rigor_.

[Footnote A: These two latter classes are evidently referred to in Exod.
xxi. 1-6, and Deut. xv. 12]

Finally, the former part of the regulation, "Thou shalt not compel him
to serve as a bond-servant," or more literally, _thou shall not serve
thyself with him, with the service of a servant_, guaranties his
political privileges, and secures to him a kind and grade of service,
comporting with his character and relations as a son of Israel. And the
remainder of the verse, "But as a _hired_ servant, and as a sojourner
shall he be with thee," continues and secures to him his separate family
organization, the respect and authority due to his head, and the general
consideration in society resulting from such a station. Though this
individual was a Jewish _bought_ servant, the case is peculiar, and
forms an exception to the general class of Jewish bought servants. Being
already in possession of his inheritance, and the head of a household,
the law so arranged his relations, as a servant, as to _alleviate_ as
much as possible the calamity which had reduced him from independence
and authority, to penury and subjection.

Having gone so much into detail on this point, comment on the command
which concludes this topic in the forty-third verse, would be
superfluous. "_Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear
thy God_." As if it had been said, "In your administration you shall not
disregard those differences in previous habits, station, authority, and
national and political privileges, upon which this regulation is based;
for to exercise authority over this class of servants, _irrespective_ of
these distinctions, and annihilating them, is _to__rule with rigor_."
The same command is repeated in the forty-sixth verse, and applied to
the distinction between the servants of Jewish, and those of Gentile
extraction, and forbids the overlooking of distinctive Jewish
peculiarities, so vital to an Israelite as to make the violation of
them, _rigorous_ in the extreme; while to the servants from the
Strangers, whose previous habits and associations differed so widely
from those of the Israelite, these same things would be deemed slight
disabilities.

It may be remarked here, that the political and other disabilities of
the Strangers, which were the distinctions growing out of a different
national descent, and important to the preservation of national
characteristics, and to the purity of national worship, do not seem to
have effected at all the _social_ estimation, in which this class of
servants was held. They were regarded according to their character and
worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin, employments,
and political condition.

The common construction put upon the expression, "_rule with rigor_,"
and an inference drawn from it, have an air so oracular, as quite to
overcharge risibles of ordinary calibre, if such an effect were not
forestalled by its impiety. It is interpreted to mean, "you shall not
make him an article of property, you shall not force him to work, and
rob him of his earnings, you shall not make him a chattel, and strip him
of legal protection." So much for the interpretation. The inference is
like unto it, viz. Since the command forbade such outrages upon the
_Israelites, it permitted and commissioned_ the infliction of them upon
the _Strangers_. Such impious and shallow smattering, captivates two
classes of minds, the one by its flippancy, the other by its blasphemy,
and both, by the strong scent of its unbridled license. What boots it to
reason against such rampant affinities!

In Exodus, chap. i. 13, 14, it is said that the Egyptians "made the
children of Israel to _serve_ with rigor," "and all their _service_
wherein they made them _serve_, was with rigor." The rigor here spoken
of, is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted from them, and the
_mode_ of the exaction. This form of expression, "_serve with rigor_,"
is never applied to the service of servants either under the
Patriarchal, or the Mosaic systems. Nor is any other form of expression
ever used, either equivalent to it, or at all similar. The phrase, "thou
shalt not RULE over him with rigor," used in Leviticus xxv. 43, 46, does
not prohibit unreasonable exactions of labor, nor inflictions of
personal cruelty. _Such were provided against otherwise_. But it
forbids, confounding the distinctions between a Jew and a Stranger, by
assigning the former to the same grade of service, for the same term of
time, and under the same national and political disabilities as the
latter.



We are now prepared to survey at a glance, the general condition of the
different classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each
class. I. In the possession of _all fundamental rights, all classes of
servants were on an absolute equality_, all were _equally protected_ by
law in their persons, character, property and social relations. All were
_voluntary_, all were _compensated_ for their labor. All were released
from their regular labor nearly _one half of the days in each year_, all
were furnished with stated _instruction_; none in either class were in
any sense articles of _property_, all were regarded as _men_, with the
rights, interests, hopes, and destinies of _men_. In these respects the
circumstances of _all_ classes of servants among the Israelites, were
not only similar but _identical_, and so far forth, they formed but ONE
CLASS.

II. DIFFERENT CLASSES OF SERVANTS.

1. _Hired Servants_.--This class consisted both of Israelites and
Strangers. Their employments were different. The _Israelite_, was an
agricultural servant. The Stranger was a _domestic_ and _personal_
servant, and in some instances _mechanical_; both were _occasional_,
procured _temporally_ to serve an emergency. Both lived in their own
families, their wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work
was done. As a _class of servants_, the hired were less loved, trusted,
honored and promoted than any other.

2. _Bought Servants, (including those "born in the house.")_--This class
also, was composed both of Israelites and Strangers, the same general
difference obtaining in their kinds of employment as was noticed before.
Both were paid in advance[A], and neither was temporary.

[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, doubtless lessened considerably
the price of the purchase; the servant thus having the use of the money
from the beginning, and the master assuming all the risks of life, and
health for labor; at the expiration of the six years' contract, the
master having experienced no loss from the risk incurred at the making
of it, was obliged by law to release the servant with a liberal
gratuity. The reason assigned for this is, "he hath been worth a double
hired servant unto thee in serving thee six years," as if it had been
said, he has now served out his time, and as you have experienced no
loss from the risks of life, and ability to labor which you incurred in
the purchase, and which lessened the price, and as, by being your
permanent servant for six years, he has saved you all the time and
trouble of looking up and hiring laborers on emergencies, therefore,
"thou shalt furnish him liberally," &c.]

The Israelitish servant, in most instances, was released after six
years. (The _freeholder_ continued until the jubilee.) The Stranger, was
a _permanent_ servant, continuing until the jubilee. Besides these
distinctions between Jewish and Gentile bought servants, a marked
distinction obtained between different classes of Jewish bought
servants. Ordinarily, during their term of service, they were merged in
their master's family, and, like the wife and children of the master,
subject to his authority; (and of course, like them, protected by law
from its abuse.) But _one_ class of the Jewish bought servants was a
marked exception. The _freeholder_, obliged by poverty to leave his
possession, and sell himself as a servant, did not thereby affect his
family relations, or authority, nor subject himself as an inferior to
the control of his master, though dependent upon him for employment. In
this respect, his condition differed from that of the main body of
Jewish bought servants, which seems to have consisted of those, who had
not yet come into possession of their inheritance, or of those who were
dislodging from it an incumbrance.

Having dwelt so much at length on this part of the subject, the reader's
patience may well be spared further details. We close it with a
suggestion or two, which may serve as a solvent of some minor
difficulties, if such remain.

I. It should be kept in mind, that _both_ classes of servants, the
Israelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal natural and
religious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed
by those of their own people, who were _not_ servants. If Israelites,
all rights belonging to Israelites were theirs. If from the Strangers,
the same political privileges enjoyed by those wealthy Strangers, who
bought and held _Israelitish_ servants, _were theirs_. They also shared
_in common with them_, the political disabilities which appertained to
_all_ Strangers, whether the servants of Jewish masters, or the masters
of Jewish servants.



II. The disabilities of the servants from the Strangers, were
exclusively _political_ and _national_.

1. They, in common with all Strangers, _could not own the soil_.

2. They were _ineligible to civil offices_.

3. They were assigned to _employments_ less honorable than those in
which Israelitish servants engaged; agriculture being regarded as
fundamental to the prosperity and even to the existence of the state,
other employments were in far less repute, and deemed _unjewish_.

Finally, the condition of the Strangers, whether servants or masters,
was, as it respected political privileges, much like that of
unnaturalized foreigners in the United States; no matter how great their
wealth or intelligence, or moral principle, or love for our
institutions, they can neither go to the ballot-box, nor own the soil,
nor be eligible to office. Let a native American, who has always enjoyed
these privileges, be suddenly bereft of them, and loaded with the
disabilities of an alien, and what to the foreigner would be a light
matter, to _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_.

The recent condition of the Jews and Catholics in England, is a still
better illustration of the political condition of the Strangers in
Israel. Rothschild, the late English banker, though the richest private
citizen in the world, and perhaps master of scores of English servants,
who sued for the smallest crumbs of his favor, was, as a subject of the
government, inferior to the veriest scavenger among them. Suppose an
Englishman, of the Established Church, were by law deprived of power to
own the soil, made ineligible to office, and deprived unconditionally of
the electoral franchise, would Englishmen think it a misapplication of
language, if it were said, "The government rules over that man with
rigor?" And yet his life, limbs, property, reputation, conscience, all
his social relations, the disposal of his time, the right of locomotion
at pleasure, and of natural liberty in all respects, are just as much
protected by law as the Lord Chancellor's. The same was true of all "the
strangers within the gates" among the Israelites: Whether these
Strangers were the servants of Israelitish masters, or the masters of
Israelitish servants, whether sojourners, or bought servants, or born in
the house, or hired, or neither--_all were protected equally with the
descendants of Abraham._



Finally--As the Mosaic system was a great compound type, made up of
innumerable fractional ones, each rife with meaning in doctrine and
duty; the practical power of the whole, depended upon the exact
observance of those distinctions and relations which constituted its
significancy. Hence, the care everywhere shown to preserve inviolate the
distinction between a _descendant of Abraham_ and a _Stranger_, even
when the Stranger was a proselyte, had gone through the initiatory
ordinances, entered the congregation, and become incorporated with the
Israelites by family alliance. The regulation laid down in Exodus xxi.
2-6, is an illustration, _"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years
shall he serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If
he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married,
then, his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a
wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters; the wife and her
children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if
the servant should plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my
children, I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto
the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door-post;
and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall
serve him forever."_ In this case, the Israelitish servant, whose term
expired in six years, married one of his master's _permanent female
domestics_; but the fact of her marriage, did not release her master
from _his_ part of the contract for her whole term of service, nor
absolve him from his legal obligation to support and educate her
children. Nor could it do away that distinction, which marked her
national descent by a specific _grade_ and _term_ of service. Her
marriage did not impair her obligation to fulfil _her_ part of the
contract. Her relations as a permanent domestic grew out of a
distinction guarded with great care throughout the Mosaic system. To
permit this to be rendered void, would have been to divide the system
against itself. This God would not tolerate. Nor, on the other hand,
would he permit the master, to throw off the responsibility of
instructing her children, nor the care and expense of their helpless
infancy and rearing. He was bound to support and educate them, and all
her children born afterwards during her term of service. The whole
arrangement beautifully illustrates that wise and tender regard for the
interests of all the parties concerned, which arrays the Mosaic system
in robes of glory, and causes it to shine as the sun in the kingdom of
our Father. By this law, the children had secured to them a mother's
tender care. If the husband loved his wife and children, he could compel
his master to keep him, whether he had any occasion for his services or
not, and with such remuneration as was provided by the statute. If he
did not love them, to be rid of him was a blessing; and in that case,
the regulation would prove an act for the relief of an afflicted family.
It is not by any means to be inferred, that the release of the servant
from his service in the seventh year, either absolved him from the
obligations of marriage, or shut him out from the society of his family.
He could doubtless procure a service at no great distance from them, and
might often do it, to get higher wages, or a kind of employment better
suited to his taste and skill, or because his master might not have
sufficient work to occupy him. Whether he lived near his family, or at a
considerable distance, the great number of days on which the law
released servants from regular labor, would enable him to spend much
more time with them than can be spent by most of the agents of our
benevolent societies with _their_ families, or by many merchants,
editors, artists, &c., whose daily business is in New York, while their
families reside from ten to one hundred miles in the country.



We conclude this Inquiry by touching briefly upon an objection, which,
though not formally stated, has been already set aside by the whole
tenor of the foregoing argument. It is this,--

_"The slavery of the Canaanites by the Israelites, was appointed by God
as a commutation of the punishment of death denounced against them for
their sins."_--If the absurdity of a sentence consigning persons to
_death_, and at the same time to perpetual _slavery_, did not
sufficiently laugh in its own face, it would be small self-denial, in a
case so tempting, to make up the deficiency by a general contribution.
For, _be it remembered_, the Mosaic law was given, while Israel was _in
the wilderness_, and only _one_ statute was ever given respecting _the
disposition to be made of the inhabitants of the land._ If the sentence
of death was first pronounced against them, and afterwards _commuted_,
when? where? by whom? and in what terms was the commutation? And where
is it recorded? Grant, for argument's sake, that all the Canaanites were
sentenced to unconditional extermination; as there was no reversal of
the sentence, how can a right to _enslave_ them, be drawn from such
premises? The punishment of death is one of the highest recognitions of
man's moral nature possible. It proclaims him _man_--intelligent
accountable, guilty _man,_ deserving death for having done his utmost to
cheapen human life, and make it worthless, when the proof of its
priceless value, lives in his own nature. But to make him a _slave,_
cheapens to nothing _universal human nature,_ and instead of healing a
wound, gives a death stab. What! repair an injury done to rational being
in the robbery of _one_ of its rights, not merely by robbing it of
_all,_ but by annihilating the very _foundation_ of them--that
everlasting distinction between men and things? To make a man a chattel,
is not the _punishment,_ but the _annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and,
so far as it goes, of _all_ human beings. This commutation of the
punishment of death, into perpetual slavery, what a fortunate discovery!
Alas! for the honor of Deity, if commentators had not manned the forlorn
hope, and rushed to the rescue of the Divine character at the very
crisis of its fate, and, by a timely movement, covered its retreat from
the perilous position in which inspiration had carelessly left it! Here
a question arises of sufficient importance for a separate dissertation;
but must for the present be disposed of in a few paragraphs. WERE THE
CANAANITES SENTENCED BY GOD TO INDIVIDUAL AND UNCONDITIONAL
EXTERMINATION? That the views generally prevalent on this subject, are
wrong, we have no doubt; but as the limits of this Inquiry forbid our
going into the merits of the question, so as to give all the grounds of
dissent from the commonly received opinions, the suggestions made, will
be thrown out merely as QUERIES, and not as a formal laying down of
_doctrines_.

The leading directions as to the disposal of the Canaanites, are mainly
in the following passages, Exod. xxiii. 23-33, and 33-51, and 34,
11--Deut. vii. 16-25, and ix. 3, and xxxi. 3, 1, 2. In these verses, the
Israelites are commanded to "destroy the Canaanites"--to "drive
out,"--"consume,"--"utterly overthrow,"--"put out,"--"dispossess them,"
&c. Quest. Did these commands enjoin the unconditional and universal
destruction of the _individuals,_ or merely of the _body politic?_ Ans.
The Hebrew word _Haram,_ to destroy, signifies _national,_ as well as
individual destruction; _political_ existence, equally with _personal;_
the destruction of governmental organization, equally with the lives of
the subjects. Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume,
overthrow, &c., to mean _personal_ destruction, what meaning shall we
give to the expressions, "drive out before thee;" "cast out before
thee;" "expel," "put out," "dispossess," &c., which are used in the same
passages?

For a clue to the sense in which the word _"destroy"_ is used, see
Exodus xxiii. 27. "I will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt
come, and I will make all thine enemies _turn their backs unto thee_."
Here "_all their enemies_" were to _turn their backs_, and "_all the
people_" to be "_destroyed_". Does this mean that God would let all
their _enemies_ escape, but kill all their _friends_, or that he would
_first_ kill "all the people" and THEN make them turn their backs in
flight, an army of runaway corpses?

The word rendered _backs_, is in the original, _necks_, and the passage
_may_ mean, I will make all your enemies turn their necks unto you; that
is, be _subject to you as tributaries_, become _denationalized_, their
civil polity, state organization, political existence,
_destroyed_--their idolatrous temples, altars, images, groves, and all
heathen rites _destroyed_; in a word, their whole system, national,
political, civil, and religious, subverted, and the whole people _put
under tribute_. Again; if these commands required the unconditional
destruction of all the _individuals_ of the Canaanites, the Mosaic law
was at war with itself, for the directions relative to the treatment of
native residents and sojourners, form a large part of it. "The stranger
that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou
shalt love him as thyself." "If thy brother be waxen poor, thou shalt
relieve him, yea, though he be a _stranger or a sojourner_, that he may
live with thee." "Thou shalt not oppress a _stranger_." "Thou shalt not
vex a _stranger_." "Judge righteously between every, man and his
brother, and the _stranger_ that is with him." "Ye shall not respect
persons in judgement." "Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the
_stranger_, as for him of your own country." We find, also, that
provision was made for them in the cities of refuge. Num. xxxv. 15--the
gleanings of the harvest and vintage were assigned to them, Lev. xix. 9,
10, and xxiii. 22, and 25, 6;--the blessings of the Sabbath, theirs, Ex.
xx. 10;--the privilege of offering sacrifices secured, Lev. 22. 18; and
stated religious instruction provided for them. Deut. xxxi. 9, 12. Now,
does this _same law_ authorize and appoint the _individual
extermination_ of those very persons, whose lives and general interests
it so solicitously protects? These laws were given to the Israelites,
long _before_ they entered Canaan; and they must of necessity have
inferred from them, that a multitude of the inhabitants of the land
would _continue in it_, under their government.

3. _We argue that these commands did not require the_ INDIVIDUAL
_destruction of the Canaanites unconditionally, from the fact that the
most pious Israelites never seem to have so regarded them._ Joshua was
selected as the leader of Israel to execute God's threatenings upon
Canaan. He had no _discretionary_ power. God's commands were his
_official instructions._ Going _beyond_ them would have been usurpation;
refusing _to carry them out,_ rebellion and treason. For not obeying, in
_every particular,_ and in a _single_ instance, God's command respecting
the Amalekites, Saul was rejected from being king.

Now, if God commanded the individual destruction of all the Canaanitish
nations, Joshua _disobeyed him in every instance._ For at his death, the
Israelites still _"dwelt among them,"_ and each nation is mentioned by
name. See Judges i. 5, and yet we are told that "Joshua was full of the
spirit of the Lord and of WISDOM," Deut. xxxiv. 9. (of course, he could
not have been ignorant of the meaning of those commands,)--that "the
Lord was with him," Josh. vi. 27; and that he "left nothing undone of
all that the Lord commanded Moses;" and further, that he "took all that
land." Joshua xi, 15-23. Also, that "the Lord gave unto Israel all the
land which he swore to give unto their fathers, and they possessed it
and dwelt therein, and there _stood not a man_ of _all_ their enemies
before them." "The Lord delivered _all their_ enemies into their hand,"
&c.

How can this testimony be reconciled with itself, if we suppose that the
command to _destroy_ enjoined _individual_ extermination, and the
command to _drive out_, enjoined the unconditional expulsion of
individuals from the country, rather than their expulsion from the
_possession_ or _ownership_ of it, as the lords of the soil? It is true,
multitudes of the Canaanites were slain, but in every case it was in
consequence of their refusing to surrender their land to the possession
of the Israelites. Not a solitary case can be found in which a Canaanite
was either killed or driven out of the country, who acquiesced in the
transfer of the territory of Canaan, and its sovereignty, from the
inhabitants of the land to the Israelites. Witness the case of Rahab and
all her kindred, and the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and
Kirjathjearim[A]. The Canaanites knew of the miracles in Egypt, at the
Red Sea, in the wilderness, and at the passage of Jordan. They knew that
their land had been transferred to the Israelites, as a judgment upon
them for their sins.--See Joshua ii. 9-11, and ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of
them were awed by these wonders, and made no resistance to the
confiscation of their territory. Others fiercely resisted, defied the
God of the armies of Israel, and came out to battle. These occupied the
_fortified cities_, were the most _inveterate_ heathen--the
_aristocracy_ of idolatry, the _kings_, the _nobility_ and _gentry_, the
_priests_, with their crowds of satellites, and retainers that aided in
the performance of idolatrous rites, the _military forces_, with the
chief profligates and lust-panders of both sexes. Every Bible student
will recall many facts corroborating this supposition. Such as the
multitudes of _tributaries_ in the midst of Israel, and that too, when
the Israelites had "waxed strong," and the uttermost nations quaked at
the terror of their name. The large numbers of the Canaanites, as well
as the Philistines and others, who became proselytes, and joined
themselves to the Hebrews--as the Nethenims, Uriah the Hittite, one of
David's memorable "thirty seven"--Rahab, who married one of the princes
of Judah--Ittai--The six hundred Gitites--David's bodyguard, "faithful
among the faithless."--2 Sam. xv. 18, 21. Obededom the Gittite, who was
adopted into the tribe of Levi.--Compare 2 Sam. vi. 10, 11, with 1
Chron. xv. 18, and 1 Chron xxvi. 45. The cases of Jaziz, and Obil,--1
Chron. xxvi. 30, 31, 33. Jephunneh, the father of Caleb--the Kenite,
registered in the genealogies of the tribe of Judah, and the one hundred
and fifty thousand Canaanites, employed by Solomon in the building of
the Temple[B]. Add to these, the fact that the most memorable miracle on
record, was wrought for the salvation of a portion of those very
Canaanites, and for the destruction of those who would exterminate
them.--Joshua x. 12-14. Further--the terms used in the directions of God
to the Israelites, regulating their disposal of the Canaanites, such as,
"drive out," "put out," "cast out," "expel," "dispossess," &c. seem used
interchangeably with "consume," "destroy," "overthrow," &c., and thus
indicate the sense in which the latter words are used. As an
illustration of the meaning generally attached to these and similar
terms, when applied to the Canaanites in Scripture, we refer the reader
to the history of the Amalekites. In Ex. xxvii. 14, God says, "I will
utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven,"--In Deut.
xxv. 19, "Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under
heaven; thou shalt not forget it."--In 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. "Smite Amalek
and _utterly destroy_ all that they have, and spare them not, but slay
both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep." In the seventh
and eighth verses of the same chapter, we are told, "Saul smote the
Amalekites, and took Agag the king of the Amalekites, alive, and UTTERLY
DESTROYED ALL THE PEOPLE with the edge of the sword." In verse 20, Saul
says, "I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have brought Agag, the
king of Amalek, and have _utterly destroyed_ the Amalekites."

[Footnote A: Perhaps it will be objected, that the preservation of the
Gibeonites, and of Rahab and her kindred, was a violation of the command
of God. We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such intimation.
If God had straitly commanded them to _exterminate all the Canaanites,_
their pledge to save them alive, was neither a repeal of the statute,
nor absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ was
the import of the command, would God have permitted such an act to pass
without severe rebuke? Would he have established such a precedent when
Israel had hardly passed the threshhold of Canaan, and was then striking
the first blow of a half century war? What if they _had_ passed their
word to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding upon them than
God's command? So Saul seems to have passed _his_ word to Agag; yet
Samuel hewed him in pieces, because in saving his life, Saul had
violated God's command. This same Saul appears to have put the same
construction on the command to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, that
is generally put upon it now. We are told that he sought to slay the
Gibeonites "in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah." God sent
upon Israel a three years' famine for it. In assigning the reason, he
says, "It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he slew the
Gibeonites." When David inquired of them what atonement he should make,
they say, "The man that consumed us, and that devised against us, that
we should the destroyed from _remaining in any of the coasts of Israel_
let seven of his sons be delivered," &c. 2 Samuel xxii. 1-6.]


[Footnote B: If the Canaanites were devoted by God to individual and
unconditional extermination, to have employed them in the erection of
the temple,--what was it but the climax of impiety? As well might they
pollute its altars with swine's flesh, or make their sons pass through
the fire to Moloch.]

In 1 Sam. 30th chapter, we find the Amalekites at war again, marching an
army into Israel, and sweeping every thing before them--and all this in
hardly more than twenty years after they had _all been_ UTTERLY
DESTROYED!

Deut. xx. 16, 17, will probably be quoted against the preceding view.
"_But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give
thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the
Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perrizites, the Hivites, and the
Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee_." We argue that this
command to exterminate, did not include all the individuals of the
Canaanitish nations, but only the inhabitants of the _cities_, (and even
those conditionally,) for the following reasons.

I. Only the inhabitants of _cities_ are specified,--"of the _cities_ of
these people thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." The reasons
for this wise discrimination were, no doubt, (1.) Cities then, as now,
were pest-houses of vice--they reeked with abominations little practiced
in the country. On this account, their influence would be far more
perilous to the Israelites than that of the country. (2.) These cities
were the centres of idolatry--the residences of the priests, with their
retinues of the baser sort. There were their temples and altars, and
idols, without number. Even their buildings, streets, and public walks
were so many visibilities of idolatry. The reason assigned in the 18th
verse for exterminating them, strengthens the idea,--"_that they teach
you not to do after all the abominations which they have done unto their
gods_." This would be a reason for exterminating _all_ the nations and
individuals _around_ them, as all were idolaters; but God permitted, and
even commanded them, in certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact
with _any_ of them would be perilous--with the inhabitants of the
_cities_ peculiarly, and of the _Canaanitish_ cities preeminently so.

It will be seen from the 10th and 11th verses, that those cities which
accepted the offer of peace were to be spared. "_When thou comest nigh
unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it
shall be, if it make thee answer of peace and open unto thee, then it
shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be_
TRIBUTARIES _unto thee, and they shall_ SERVE thee."--Deuteronomy xx.
10, 11. These verses contain the general rule prescribing the method in
which cities were to be summoned to surrender.

1. The offer of peace--if it was accepted, the inhabitants became
_tributaries_--if it was rejected, and they came out against Israel in
battle, the _men_ were to be killed, and the women and little ones saved
alive. See Deuteronomy xx. 12, 13, 14. The 15th verse restricts their
lenient treatment in saving the wives and little ones of those who
fought them, to the inhabitants of the cities _afar off_. The 16th verse
gives directions for the disposal of the inhabitants of Canaanitish
cities, after they had taken them. Instead of sparing the women and
children, they were to save alive nothing that breathed. The common
mistake has been, in taking it for granted, that the command in the 15th
verse, "Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities," &c. refers to the
_whole system of directions preceding_, commencing with the 10th verse,
whereas it manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_ specified in the
verses immediately preceding, viz. the 12th, 13th, and 14th, and thus
make a distinction between those _Canaanitish_ cities that _fought_, and
the cities _afar off_ that fought--in one case destroying the males and
females, and in the other, the _males_ only. The offer of peace, and the
_conditional preservation_, were as really guarantied to _Canaanitish_
cities as to others. Their inhabitants were not to be exterminated
_unless they came out against Israel in battle_. But let us settle this
question by the "_law and the testimony_." Joshua xix. 19, 20.--"_There
was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel save, the
Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all others they took in battle. For
it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should_ COME OUT
AGAINST ISRAEL IN BATTLE, _that he might destroy them utterly, and that
they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord
commanded Moses_." That is, if they had _not_ come out against Israel in
battle, they would have had "favor" shown them, and would not have been
"_destroyed utterly_"

The great design of God seems to have been to _transfer the territory_
of the Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute
sovereignty in every respect_; to annihilate their political
organizations, civil polity, jurisprudence, and their system of
religion, with all its rights and appendages; and to substitute
therefor, a pure theocracy, administered by Jehovah, with the Israelites
as His representatives and agents. Those who resisted the execution of
Jehovah's purpose were to be killed, while those who quietly submitted
to it were to be spared. All had the choice of these alternatives,
either free egress out of the land[A]; or acquiescence in the decree,
with life and residence as tributaries, under the protection of the
government; or resistance to the execution of the decree, with death.
"_And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of
my people, to swear by my name, the Lord liveth, as they taught my
people to swear by Baal;_ THEN SHALL THEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY
PEOPLE."

[Footnote A: Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had abandoned their
territory at the tidings of Israel's approach, did God's command require
the Israelites to chase them to the ends of the earth, and hunt them
down, until every Canaanite was destroyed? It is too preposterous for
belief, and yet it follows legitimately from that construction, which
interprets the terms "consume," "destroy," "destroy utterly," &c. to
mean unconditional individual extermination.]


       *       *       *       *       *


[The preceding Inquiry is merely an _outline_. Whoever _reads_ it, needs
no such information. Its original design embraced a much wider range of
general topics, and subordinate heads, besides an Inquiry into the
teachings of the New Testament on the same subject. To have filled up
the outline, in conformity with the plan upon which it was sketched,
would have swelled it to a volume. Much of the foregoing has therefore
been thrown into the form of a mere skeleton of heads, or rather a
series of _indices_, to trains of thought and classes of proof, which,
however limited or imperfect, may perhaps, afford some facilities to
those who have little leisure for minute and protracted investigation.]






No. 4.



THE


ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.


THE


BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.



AN INQUIRY INTO THE



PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS


ON THE SUBJECT OF

HUMAN RIGHTS.

Third Edition--Revised.


NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.

1838.

This periodical contains 5 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 7 1-2 cts;
over 100 miles, 12 1-2 cts.

_Please read and circulate._






CONTENTS

    DEFINITION OF SLAVERY,


        Negative,

        Affirmative,

        Legal,


    THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY


        "Thou shalt not steal,"

        "Thou shalt not covet,"


    MAN-STEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 16,


        Separation of man from brutes and things,


    IMPORT OF "BUY" AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY,"


        Servants sold themselves,


    RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED BY LAW TO SERVANTS,

    SERVANTS WERE VOLUNTARY,


        Runaway Servants not to be delivered to their Masters,


    SERVANTS WERE PAID WAGES,

    MASTERS NOT "OWNERS,"


        Servants not subjected to the uses of property,

        Servants expressly distinguished from property,

        Examination of Gen. xii. 5.--"The souls that they had
        gotten," &c.

        Social equality of Servants and Masters,

        Condition of the Gibeonites as subjects of the Hebrew
        Commonwealth,

        Egyptian Bondage analyzed,


    OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

    "CURSED BE CANAAN," &c.--EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25,

    "FOR HE IS HIS MONEY," &c.--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 20, 21,

    EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 44-46,


        "Both thy BONDMEN, &c., shall be of the heathen,"

        "They shall be your bondmen FOREVER,"

        "Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE," &c.


    EXAMINATION OF LEV. XXV. 39, 40.--THE FREEHOLDER NOT TO "SERVE
    AS A BOND SERVANT,"


        Difference between Hired and Bought Servants,

        Bought Servants the most favored and honored class,

        Israelites and Strangers belonged to both classes,

        Israelites servants to the Strangers,

        Reasons for the release of the Israelitish Servants in
        the seventh year,

        Reasons for assigning the Strangers to a longer service,

        Reasons for calling them _the_ Servants,

        Different kinds of service assigned to the Israelites
        and Strangers,


    REVIEW OF ALL THE CLASSES OF SERVANTS WITH THE MODIFICATIONS OF
    EACH,


        Political disabilities of the Strangers,


    EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 2-6.--"IF THOU BUY AN HEBREW SERVANT,"

    THE CANAANITES NOT SENTENCED TO UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION,





THE BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.



The spirit of slavery never seeks shelter in the Bible, of its own
accord. It grasps the horns of the altar only in desperation--rushing
from the terror of the avenger's arm. Like other unclean spirits, it
"hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest its deeds should be
reproved." Goaded to phrenzy in its conflicts with conscience and common
sense, denied all quarter, and hunted from every covert, it vaults over
the sacred inclosure and courses up and down the Bible, "seeking rest,
and finding none." THE LAW OF LOVE, glowing on every page, flashes
around it an omnipresent anguish and despair. It shrinks from the hated
light, and howls under the consuming touch, as demons quailed before the
Son of God, and shrieked, "Torment us not." At last, it slinks away
under the types of the Mosaic system, and seeks to burrow out of sight
among their shadows. Vain hope! Its asylum is its sepulchre; its city of
refuge, the city of destruction. It flies from light into the sun; from
heat, into devouring fire; and from the voice of God into the thickest
of His thunders.



DEFINITION OF SLAVERY.

If we would know whether the Bible sanctions slavery, we must determine
_what slavery is_. A constituent element, is one thing; a relation,
another; an appendage, another. Relations and appendages presuppose
_other_ things to which they belong. To regard them as _the things
themselves_, or as constituent parts of them, leads to endless
fallacies. A great variety of conditions, relations, and tenures,
indispensable to the social state, are confounded with slavery; and thus
slaveholding becomes quite harmless, if not virtuous. We will specify
some of these.

1. _Privation of suffrage._ Then minors are slaves.

2. _Ineligibility to office._ Then females are slaves.

3. _Taxation without representation._ Then slaveholders in the District
of Columbia are slaves.

4. _Privation of one's oath in law._ Then disbelievers in a future
retribution are slaves.

5. _Privation of trial by jury._ Then all in France and Germany are
slaves.

6. _Being required to support a particular religion._ Then the people of
England are slaves. [To the preceding may be added all other
disabilities, merely _political_.]

7. _Cruelty and oppression._ Wives, children, and hired domestics are
often oppressed; but these forms of cruelty are not slavery.

8. _Apprenticeship._ The rights and duties of master and apprentice are
correlative and reciprocal. The claim of each upon the other results
from his _obligation_ to the other. Apprenticeship is based on the
principle of equivalent for value received. The rights of the apprentice
are secured, equally with those of the master. Indeed, while the law is
_just_ to the master, it is _benevolent_ to the apprentice. Its main
design is rather to benefit the apprentice than the master. It promotes
the interests of the former, while in doing it, it guards from injury
those of the latter. To the master it secures a mere legal
compensation--to the apprentice, both a legal compensation and a virtual
gratuity in addition, he being of the two the greatest gainer. The law
not only recognizes the _right_ of the apprentice to a reward for his
labor, but appoints the wages, and enforces the payment. The master's
claim covers only the services of the apprentice. The apprentice's claim
covers _equally_ the services of the master. Neither can hold the other
as property; but each holds property in the services of the other, and
BOTH EQUALLY. Is this slavery?

9. _Filial subordination and parental claims._ Both are nature's
dictates and intrinsic elements of the social state; the natural
affections which blend parent and child in one, excite each to discharge
those offices incidental to the relation, and constitute a shield for
mutual protection. The parent's legal claim to the child's services,
while a minor, is a slight return for the care and toil of his rearing,
to say nothing of outlays for support and education. This provision is,
with the mass of mankind, indispensable to the preservation of the
family state. The child, in helping his parents, helps
himself--increases a common stock, in which he has a share; while his
most faithful services do but acknowledge a debt that money cannot
cancel.

10. _Bondage for crime._ Must innocence be punished because guilt
suffers penalties? True, the criminal works for the government without
pay; and well he may. He owes the government. A century's work would not
pay its drafts on him. He is a public defaulter, and will die so.
Because laws make men pay their debts, shall those be forced to pay who
owe nothing? The law makes no criminal, PROPERTY. It restrains his
liberty, and makes him pay something, a mere penny in the pound, of his
debt to the government; but it does not make him a chattel. Test it. To
own property, is to own its product. Are children born of convicts,
government property? Besides, can _property_ be guilty? Are chattels
punished?

11. _Restraints upon freedom._ Children are restrained by
parents--pupils, by teachers--patients, by physicians--corporations, by
charters--and legislatures, by constitutions. Embargoes, tariffs,
quarantine, and all other laws, keep men from doing as they please.
Restraints are the web of society, warp and woof. Are they slavery? then
civilized society is a giant slave--a government of LAW, _the climax of
slavery,_ and its executive, a king among slaveholders.

12. _Compulsory service._ A juryman is empannelled against his will, and
sit he must. A sheriff orders his posse; bystanders _must_ turn in. Men
are _compelled_ to remove nuisances, pay fines and taxes, support their
families, and "turn to the right as the law directs," however much
against their wills. Are they therefore slaves? To confound slavery with
involuntary service is absurd. Slavery is a _condition_. The slave's
_feelings_ toward it, are one thing; the condition itself, is another
thing; his feelings cannot alter the nature of that condition. Whether
he desires or detests it, the condition remains the same. The slave's
willingness to be a slave is no palliation of the slaveholder's guilt.
Suppose the slave should think himself a chattel, and consent to be so
regarded by others, does that _make_ him a chattel, or make those
guiltless who _hold_ him as such? I may be sick of life, and I tell the
assassin so that stabs me; is he any the less a murderer? Does my
_consent_ to his crime, atone for it? my partnership in his guilt, blot
out his part of it? The slave's willingness to be a slave, so far from
lessening the guilt of the "owner," aggravates it. If slavery has so
palsied his mind that he looks upon himself as a chattel, and consents
to be one, actually to hold him as such, falls in with his delusion, and
confirms the impious falsehood. These very feelings and convictions of
the slave, (if such were possible) increase a hundred fold the guilt of
the master, and call upon him in thunder, immediately to recognize him
as a man and thus break the sorcery that cheats him out of his
birthright--the consciousness of his worth and destiny.

Many of the foregoing conditions are _appendages_ of slavery. But no
one, nor all of them together, constitute its intrinsic unchanging
element.

We proceed to state affirmatively that, ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM
TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY--making free agents, chattels--converting
_persons_ into _things_--sinking immortality, into _merchandize_. A
_slave_ is one held in this condition. In law, "he owns nothing, and can
acquire nothing." His right to himself is abrogated. If he say _my_
hands, _my_ feet, _my_ body, _my_ mind, MY _self_, they are figures of
speech. To use _himself_ for his own good, is a CRIME. To keep what he
_earns_, is stealing. To take his body into his own keeping, is
_insurrection_. In a word, the _profit_ of his master is made the END of
his being, and he, a _mere means_ to that end--a _mere means_ to an end
into which his interests do not enter, of which they constitute no
portion[A]. MAN, sunk to a _thing!_ the intrinsic element, the
_principle_ of slavery; MEN, bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed,
invoiced, shipped in cargoes, stored as goods, taken on executions, and
knocked off at public outcry! Their _rights_, another's conveniences;
their interests, wares on sale; their happiness, a household utensil;
their personal inalienable ownership, a serviceable article, or a
plaything, as best suits the humor of the hour; their deathless nature,
conscience, social affections, sympathies, hopes--marketable
commodities! We repeat it, _the reduction of persons to things;_ not
robbing a man of privileges, but of _himself_; not loading with burdens,
but making him a _beast of burden_; not _restraining_ liberty, but
subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them; not
inflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating _personality_; not
exacting involuntary labor, but sinking him into an _implement_ of
labor; not abridging human comforts, but abrogating human nature; not
depriving an animal of immunities, but despoiling a rational being of
attributes--uncreating a MAN, to make room for a _thing_!

[Footnote A: Whatever system sinks men from an END to a mere _means_,
just so far makes him a _slave_. Hence West India apprenticeship retains
the cardinal principle of slavery. The apprentice, during three fourths
of his time, is still forced to labor, and robbed of his earnings; just
so far forth he is a _mere means_, a _slave_. True, in other respects
slavery is abolished in the British West Indies. Its bloodiest features
are blotted out--but the meanest and most despicable of all--forcing the
poor to work for the rich without pay three fourths of their time, with
a legal officer to flog them if they demur at the outrage, is one of the
provisions of the "Emancipation Act!" For the glories of that luminary,
abolitionists thank God, while they mourn that it rose behind clouds,
and shines through an eclipse.]

That this is American slavery, is shown by the laws of slave states.
Judge Stroud, in his "Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery," says,
"The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked
among sentient beings, but among _things_--obtains as undoubted law in
all of these [the slave] states." The law of South Carolina thus lays
down the principle, "Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and
adjudged in law to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and
possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to ALL
INTENTS, CONSTRUCTIONS, AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER."--Brevard's Digest,
229. In Louisiana, "A slave is one who is in the power of a master to
whom he belongs; the master may sell him, dispose of his person, his
industry, and his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire
any thing, but what must belong to his master."--Civ. Code of Louisiana,
Art. 35.

This is American slavery. The eternal distinction between a person and a
thing, trampled under foot--the crowning distinction of all
others--alike the source, the test, and the measure of their value--the
rational, immortal principle, consecrated by God to universal homage, in
a baptism of glory and honor by the gift of His Son, His Spirit, His
word, His presence, providence, and power; His shield, and staff, and
sheltering wing; His opening heavens, and angels ministering, and
chariots of fire, and songs of morning stars, and a great voice in
heaven, proclaiming eternal sanctions, and confirming the word with
signs following.



Having stated the _principle_ of American slavery, we ask, DOES THE
BIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A] "To the _law_ and the _testimony_?"
First, the moral law. Just after the Israelites were emancipated from
their bondage in Egypt, while they stood before Sinai to receive the
law, as the trumpet waxed louder, and the mount quaked and blazed, God
spake the ten commandments from the midst of clouds and thunderings.
_Two_ of those commandments deal death to slavery. "THOU SHALT NOT
STEAL," or, "thou shalt not take from another what belongs to him." All
man's powers are God's gift to _him_. That they are _his own_, is proved
from the fact that God has given them to _him alone_,--that each of them
is a part of himself, and all of them together constitute himself. All
else that belongs to man, is acquired by the _use_ of these powers. The
interest belongs to him, because the principal does; the product is his,
because he is the producer. Ownership of any thing, is ownership of its
_use_. The right to use according to will, is _itself_ ownership. The
eighth commandment presupposes and assumes the right of every man to his
powers, and their product. Slavery robs of both. A man's right to
himself, is the only right absolutely original and intrinsic--his right
to whatever else that belongs to him is merely _relative_ to this, is
derived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the
_foundation right_--the _post is the middle_, to which all other rights
are fastened. Slaveholders, when talking about their RIGHT to their
slaves, always assume their own right to themselves. What slaveholder
ever undertook to prove his right to himself? He knows it to be a
self-evident proposition, that _a man belongs to himself_--that the
right is intrinsic and absolute. In making out his own title, he makes
out the title of every human being. As the fact of being a _man_ is
itself the title, the whole human family have one common title deed. If
one man's title is valid, all are valid. If one is worthless, all are.
To deny the validity of the _slave's_ title is to deny the validity of
_his own_; and yet in the act of making a man a slave, the slaveholder
_asserts_ the validity of his own title, while he seizes him as his
property who has the _same_ title. Further, in making him a slave, he
does not merely disfranchise the humanity of _one_ individual, but of
UNIVERSAL MAN. He destroys the foundations. He annihilates _all rights_.
He attacks not only the human race, but _universal being_, and rushes
upon JEHOVAH. For rights are _rights_; God's are no more--man's are no
less.

[Footnote A: The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral
character. It vouches for them as _facts_, not as _virtues_. It records
without rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob
and his mother--not only single acts, but _usages_, such as polygamy and
concubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that _silent
entry_ God's _endorsement_? Because the Bible in its catalogue of human
actions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write
against it, _this is a crime_--does that wash out its guilt, and bleach
into a virtue?]

The eighth commandment forbids the taking of _any part_ of that which
belongs to another. Slavery takes the _whole_. Does the same Bible which
prohibits the taking of _any_ thing from him, sanction the taking of
_every_ thing? Does it thunder wrath against him who robs his neighbor
of a _cent_, yet bid God speed to him who robs his neighbor of
_himself_? Slaveholding is the highest possible violation of the eighth
commandment. To take from a man his earnings, is theft. But to take the
_earner_, is a compound, life-long theft--supreme robbery, that vaults
up the climax at a leap--the dread, terrific, giant robbery, that towers
among other robberies a solitary horror, monarch of the realm. The
eighth commandment forbids the taking away, and the _tenth_ adds, "THOU
SHALT NOT COVET ANY THING THAT IS THY NEIGHBOR'S;" thus guarding every
man's right to himself and his property, by making not only the actual
taking away a sin, but even that state of mind which would _tempt_ to
it. Who ever made human beings slaves, without _coveting_ them? Why take
from them their time, labor, liberty, right of self-preservation and
improvement, their right to acquire property, to worship according to
conscience; to search the Scriptures, to live with their families, and
their right to their own bodies, if they do not _desire_ them? They
covet them for purposes of gain, convenience, lust of dominion, of
sensual gratification of pride and ostentation. THEY BREAK THE TENTH
COMMANDMENT, and pluck down upon their heads the plagues that are
written in the book.--_Ten_ commandments constitute the brief compend of
human duty.--_Two_ of these brand slavery as sin.



The giving of the law at Sinai, immediately preceded the promulgation of
that body of laws called the "Mosaic system." Over the gateway of that
system, fearful words were written by the finger of God--"HE THAT
STEALETH A MAN AND SELLETH HIM, OR IF HE BE FOUND IN HIS HAND, HE SHALL
SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH." Ex. xxi. 16.

The oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, and the wonders wrought for
their deliverance, proclaim the reason for _such_ a law at _such_ a
time--when the body politic became a theocracy, and reverently waited
for the will of God. They had just been emancipated. The tragedies of
their house of bondage were the realities of yesterday, and peopled
their memories with thronging horrors. They had just witnessed God's
testimony against oppression in the plagues of Egypt--the burning blains
on man and beast--the dust quickened into loathsome life, and swarming
upon every living thing--the streets, the palaces, the temples, and
every house heaped up with the carcases of things abhorred--the kneading
troughs and ovens, the secret chambers and the couches; reeking and
dissolving with the putrid death--the pestilence walking in darkness at
noonday, the devouring locusts, and hail mingled with fire, the
first-born death-struck, and the waters blood, and last of all, that
dread high hand and stretched-out arm, that whelmed the monarch and his
hosts, and strewed their corpses on the sea. All this their eyes had
looked upon,--earth's proudest city, wasted and thunder-scarred, lying
in desolation, and the doom of oppressors traced on her ruins in the
hand writing of God, glaring in letters of fire mingled with blood--a
blackened monument of wrath to the uttermost against the stealers of
men. No wonder that God, in a code of laws prepared for such a people at
such a time, should light up on its threshold a blazing beacon to flash
terror on slaveholders. _"He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if
he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."_ Ex. xxi. 16.
Deut. xxiv. 7[A]. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance
to the Mosaic system!

[Footnote A:  Jarchi, the most eminent of the Jewish Commentators, who
wrote seven hundred years ago, in his commentary on this stealing and
making merchandize of men, gives the meaning thus:--"Using a man against
his will, as a servant lawfully purchased; yea, though he should use his
services ever so little, only to the value of a farthing, or use but his
arm to lean on to support him, _if he be forced so to act as a servant_,
the person compelling him but once to do so shall die as a thief,
whether he has sold him or not."]

The word _Ganabh_ here rendered _stealeth_, means the taking what
_belongs_ to another, whether by violence or fraud; the same word is
used in the eighth commandment, and prohibits both _robbery_ and theft.

The crime specified is that of depriving SOMEBODY of the ownership of a
man. Is this somebody a master? and is the crime that of depriving a
master of his servant? Then it would have been "he that stealeth" a
_servant, not_ "he that stealeth a _man_." If the crime had been the
taking an individual from _another_, then the _term_ used would have
been expressive of that relation, and most especially if it was the
relation of property and _proprietor_!

The crime is stated in a three-fold form--man _stealing_, _selling_, and
_holding_. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one penalty--DEATH.
This _somebody_ deprived of the ownership of a man, is the _man
himself_, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said, "Indeed I was
_stolen_ away out of the land of the Hebrews." Gen. xl. 15. How
_stolen?_ His brethren sold him as an article of merchandize. Contrast
this penalty for _man_-stealing with that for _property_-stealing, Ex.
xxii. If a man had stolen an _ox_ and killed or sold it, he was to
restore five oxen; if he had neither sold nor killed it, two oxen. But
in the case of stealing a _man_, the _first_ act drew down the utmost
power of punishment; however often repeated, or aggravated the crime,
human penalty could do no more. The fact that the penalty for
_man_-stealing was death, and the penalty for _property_-stealing, the
mere restoration of double, shows that the two cases were adjudicated on
totally different principles. The man stolen might be past labor, and
his support a burden, yet death was the penalty, though not a cent's
worth of _property value_ was taken. The penalty for stealing property
was a mere property penalty. However large the theft, the payment of
double wiped out the score. It might have a greater _money_ value than a
thousand men, yet death was not the penalty, nor maiming, nor branding,
nor even _stripes_, but double of _the same kind._ Why was not the rule
uniform? When a _man_ was stolen why was not the thief required to
restore double of the same kind--two men, or if he had sold him, five
men? Do you say that the man-thief might not _have_ them? So the
ox-thief might not have two oxen, or if he had killed it, five. But if
God permitted men to hold _men_ as property, equally with _oxen_, the
man-thief could get men with whom to pay the penalty, as well as the
ox-thief, oxen. Further, when _property_ was stolen, the legal penalty
was a compensation to the person injured. But when a _man_ was stolen,
no property compensation was offered. To tender money as an equivalent,
would have been to repeat the outrage with intolerable aggravations.
Compute the value of a MAN in _money!_ Throw dust into the scale against
immortality! The law recoiled from such supreme insult and impiety. To
have permitted the man-thief to expiate his crime by restoring double,
would have been making the repetition of crime its atonement. But the
infliction of death for _man-stealing_ exacted the utmost possibility of
reparation. It wrung from the guilty wretch as he gave up the ghost, a
testimony in blood, and death-groans, to the infinite dignity and worth
of man,--a proclamation to the universe, voiced in mortal agony, "MAN IS
INVIOLABLE"--a confession shrieked in phrenzy at the grave's mouth--"I
die accursed, and God is just."

If God permitted man to hold man as property, why did he punish for
stealing that kind of property infinitely more than for stealing any
other kind of property? Why did he punish with death for stealing a very
little of _that_ sort of property, and make a mere fine, the penalty for
stealing a thousand times as much, of any other sort of
property--especially if God did by his own act annihilate the difference
between man and _property,_ by putting him on a level with it?

The atrociousness of a crime, depends much upon the nature, character,
and condition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the thief, or
whatever the plunder. To steal bread from a full man, is theft; to steal
from a starving man, is both theft and murder. If I steal my neighbor's
property, the crime consists not in altering the _nature_ of the article
but in shifting its relation from him to me. But when I take my neighbor
himself, and first make him _property_, and then _my_ property, the
latter act, which was the sole crime in the former case, dwindles to
nothing. The sin in stealing a man, is not the transfer from its owner
to another of that which is _already property,_ but the turning of
_personality_ into _property_. True, the attributes of man remain, but
the rights and immunities which grow out of them are attributed. It is
the first law both of reason and revelation to regard things and beings
as they are; and the sum of religion, to feel and act towards them
according to their value. Knowingly to treat them otherwise is sin; and
the degree of violence done to their nature, religions, and value,
measures its guilt. When things are sundered which God has indissolubly
joined, or confounded in one, which he has separated by infinite
extremes; when sacred and eternal distinctions, which he has garnished
with glory, are derided and set at nought, then, if ever, sin reddens to
its "scarlet dye." The sin specified in the passage, is that of doing
violence to the _nature_ of a man--to his intrinsic value as a rational
being, and blotting out the exalted distinction stamped upon him by his
Maker. In the verse preceding, and in that which follows, the same
principle is laid down. Verse 15, "He that smiteth his father or his
mother shall surely be put to death." V. 17, "He that curseth his father
or his mother, shall surely be put to death." If a Jew smote his
neighbor, the law merely smote him in return; but if the blow was given
to a _parent,_ it struck the smiter dead. The parental relation is the
_centre_ of human society. God guards it with peculiar care. To violate
that, is to violate all. Whoever trampled on that, showed that _no_
relation had any sacredness in his eyes--that he was unfit to move among
human relations who had violated one so sacred and tender. Therefore,
the Mosaic law uplifted his bleeding corpse, and brandished the ghastly
terror around the parental relation to guard it from impious inroads.

Why such a difference in penalties, for the same act? Answer. (1.) The
relation violated was obvious--the distinction between parents and
others manifest, dictated by natural affection--a law of the
constitution. (2.) The act was violence to nature--a suicide on
constitutional susceptibilities. (3.) The parental relation then, as
now, was the focal point of the social system, and required powerful
safeguards. "_Honor thy father and thy mother_," stands at the head of
those commands which prescribe the duties of man to man; and, throughout
the Bible, the parental state is God's favorite illustration of his own
relations to the whole human family. In this case death was to be
inflicted not for smiting a _man_, but a _parent_--a _distinction_
cherished by God, and around which, He threw up a bulwark of defence. In
the next verse, "He that stealeth a man," &c., the SAME PRINCIPLE is
wrought out in still stronger relief. The crime to be punished with
death was not the taking of property from its owner, but the doing
violence to an _immortal nature,_ blotting out a sacred _distinction_,
making MEN "chattels." The incessant pains taken in the Old Testament to
separate human beings from brutes and things, shows God's regard for his
own distinction.

"In the beginning" it was uttered in heaven, and proclaimed to the
universe as it rose into being. Creation was arrayed at the instant of
its birth, to do it homage. It paused in adoration while God ushered
forth its crowning work. Why that dread pause and that creating arm held
back in mid career and that high conference in the godhead? "Let us make
man in OUR IMAGE after OUR LIKENESS, AND LET HIM HAVE DOMINION over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all the earth." Then while every living thing, with land, and sea,
and firmament, and marshalled worlds, waited to swell the shout of
morning stars--then "GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE; IN THE IMAGE OF
GOD CREATED HE HIM." This solves the problem, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD,
CREATED HE HIM. Well might the sons of God shout, "Amen, alleluia"--For
thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him
with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of
thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet." Ps. viii. 5, 6. The
repetition of this distinction is frequent and solemn. In Gen. i. 26-28,
it is repeated in various forms. In Gen. v. 1, we find it again, "IN THE
LIKENESS OF GOD MADE HE MAN." In Gen. ix. 6, again. After giving license
to shed the blood of "every moving thing that liveth," it is added,
"_Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for_ IN
THE IMAGE OF GOD MADE HE MAN." As though it had been said, "All these
creatures are your property, designed for your use--they have the
likeness of earth, they perish with the using, and their spirits go
downward; but this other being, MAN, has my own likeness: "IN THE IMAGE
OF GOD made I man;" "an intelligent, moral, immortal agent, invited to
all that I can give and he can be." So in Lev. xxiv. 17, 18, 21, "He
that killeth any MAN shall surely be put to death; and he that killeth a
beast shall make it good, beast for beast; and he that killeth a man
shall be put to death." So in Ps. viii. 5, 6, what an enumeration of
particulars, each separating infinitely MEN from brutes and things! (1.)
"_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels._" Slavery drags him
down among _brutes_. (2.) "_And hast crowned him with glory and honor._"
Slavery tears off his crown, and puts on a _yoke_. (3.) "_Thou madest
him to have dominion_ OVER _the works of thy hands._" Slavery breaks the
sceptre, and casts him down _among_ those works--yea _beneath them_.
(4.) "_Thou hast put all things under his feet._" Slavery puts HIM under
the feet of an "owner." Who, but an impious scorner, dares thus strive
with his Maker, and mutilate HIS IMAGE, and blaspheme the Holy One, who
saith, "_Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did it
unto_ ME."

In further presenting this inquiry, the Patriarchal and Mosaic systems
will be considered together, as each reflects light upon the other, and
as many regulations of the latter are mere _legal_ forms of Divine
institutions previously existing. As a _system_, the latter alone is of
Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs, God has
not made them our exemplars[A].

[Footnote A: Those who insist that the patriarchs held slaves, and sit
with such delight under their shadow, hymning the praises of "those good
old patriarchs and slaveholders," might at small cost greatly augment
their numbers. A single stanza celebrating patriarchal _concubinage_,
winding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, would
be a trumpet call, summoning from bush and brake, highway and hedge, and
sheltering fence, a brotherhood of kindred affinities, each claiming
Abraham or Noah as his patron saint, and shouting, "My name is legion."
What a myriad choir and thunderous song.]

Before entering upon an analysis of the condition of servants under
these two states of society, we will consider the import of certain
terms which describe the mode of procuring them.



IMPORT OF "BUY," AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY."

As the Israelites were commanded to "buy" their servants, and as Abraham
had servants "bought with money," it is argued that servants were
articles of _property_. The sole ground for this belief is the terms
themselves. How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be
proved were always _assumed_. To beg the question in debate, would be
vast economy of midnight oil! and a great forestaller of wrinkles and
grey hairs! Instead of protracted investigation into Scripture usage,
with painful collating of passages, to find the meaning of terms, let
every man interpret the oldest book in the world by the usages of his
own time and place, and the work is done. And then instead of one
revelation, they might be multiplied as the drops of the morning, and
every man have an infallible clue to the mind of the Spirit, if he only
understood the dialect of his own neighborhood! What a Babel-jargon it
would make of the Bible to take it for granted that the sense in which
words are _now_ used is the _inspired_ sense, David says, "I prevented
the dawning of the morning, and cried." What, stop the earth in its
revolution! Two hundred years ago, _prevent_ was used in its strict
Latin sense to _come before_, or _anticipate_. It is always used in this
sense in the Old and New Testaments. David's expression, in the English
of the nineteenth century, would be "Before the dawning of the morning I
cried." In almost every chapter of the Bible, words are used in a sense
now nearly or quite obsolete, and sometimes in a sense totally
_opposite_ to their present meaning. A few examples follow: "I purposed
to come to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto." "And the four
_beasts_ (living ones) fell down and worshipped God,"--"Whosoever shall
_offend_ (cause to sin) one of these little ones,"--"Go out into the
highways and _compel_ (urge) them to come in,"--"Only let your
_conversation_ (habitual conduct) be as becometh the Gospel,"--"They
that seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me,"--"So when tribulation
or persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (immediately) they are offended."
Nothing is more mutable than language. Words, like bodies, are always
throwing off some particles and absorbing others. So long as they are
mere _representatives_, elected by the whims of universal suffrage,
their meaning will be a perfect volatile, and to cork it up for the next
century is an employment sufficiently silly (to speak within bounds) for
a modern Bible Dictionary maker. There never was a shallower conceit
than that of establishing the sense attached to a word centuries ago, by
showing what it means _now_. Pity that fashionable mantuamakers were not
a little quicker at taking hints from some Doctors of Divinity. How
easily they might save their pious customers all qualms of conscience
about the weekly shiftings of fashion, by proving that the last
importation of Parisian indecency now flaunting on promenade, was the
very style of dress in which the pious Sarah kneaded cakes for the
angels, and the modest Rebecca drew water for the camels of Abraham's
servants. Since such fashions are rife in Broadway _now_, they _must_
have been in Canaan and Padanaram four thousand years ago!

The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of
servants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the
fallacy, that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or
whoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of
your paying for it _proves_ it property. The children of Israel were
required to purchase their first-born from under the obligations of the
priesthood, Num. xviii. 15, 16; Ex. xiii. 13; xxxiv. 20. This custom
still exists among the Jews, and the word _buy_ is still used to
describe the transaction. Does this prove that their first-born were, or
are, held as property? They were _bought_ as really as were _servants_.
(2.) The Israelites were required to pay money for their own souls. This
is called sometimes a ransom, sometimes an atonement. Were their souls
therefore marketable commodities? (3.) Bible saints _bought_ their
wives. Boaz bought Ruth. "So Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon,
have I _purchased_ to be my wife." Ruth iv. 10. Hosea bought his wife.
"So I _bought_ her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer
of barley, and an half homer of barley." Hosea iii. 2. Jacob bought his
wives Rachael and Leah, and not having money, paid for them in
labor--seven years a piece. Gen. xxix. 15-29. Moses probably bought his
wife in the same way, and paid for her by his labor, as the servant of
her father. Exod. ii. 21. Shechem, when negotiating with Jacob and his
sons for Dinah, says, "Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will
give according as ye shall say unto me." Gen. xxxiv. 11, 12. David
purchased Michal, and Othniel, Achsah, by performing perilous services
for their fathers. 1 Sam. xviii. 25-27; Judg. i. 12, 13. That the
purchase of wives, either with money or by service, was the general
practice, is plain from such passages as Ex. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. xviii.
25. Among the modern Jews this usage exists, though now a mere form,
there being no _real_ purchase. Yet among their marriage ceremonies, is
one called "marrying by the penny." The coincidences in the methods of
procuring wives and servants, in the terms employed in describing the
transactions, and in the prices paid for each, are worthy of notice. The
highest price of wives (virgins) and servants was the same. Comp. Deut.
xxii. 28, 29, and Ex. xxii. 17, with Lev. xxvii. 2-8. The _medium_ price
of wives and servants was the same. Comp. Hos. iii. 2, with Ex. xxi. 32.
Hosea seems to have paid one half in money and the other half in grain.
Further, the Israelitish female bought servants were _wives_, their
husbands and masters being the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, Judg. xix. 3,
27. If _buying_ servants proves them property, buying wives proves them
property. Why not contend that the _wives_ of the ancient fathers of the
faithful were their "chattels," and used as ready change at a pinch; and
thence deduce the rights of modern husbands? Alas! Patriarchs and
prophets are followed afar off! When will pious husbands live up to
their Bible privileges, and become partakers with Old Testament worthies
in the blessedness of a husband's rightful immunities! Refusing so to
do, is questioning the morality of those "good old patriarchs and
slaveholders, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

This use of the word buy, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. In the Syriac,
the common expression for "the espoused," is "the bought." Even so late
as the 16th century, the common record of _marriages_ in the old German
Chronicles was, "A BOUGHT B."

The word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the nature
of the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, "I have _gotten_
(bought) a man of the Lord." She named him Cain, that is _bought_. "He
that heareth reproof, getteth (buyeth) understanding," Prov. xv. 32. So
in Isa. xi. 11. "The Lord shall set his hand again to recover (to _buy_)
the remnant of his people." So Ps. lxxviii. 54. "He brought them to this
mountain which his right hand had _purchased_," (gotten.) Jer. xiii. 4.
"Take the girdle that thou hast got" (bought.) Neh. v. 8. "We of our
ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren that were sold to the
heathen." Here "_bought_" is not applied to persons reduced to
servitude, but to those taken _out_ of it. Prov. 8. 22. "The Lord
possessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way." Prov. xix. 8. "He
that _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul." Finally, to _buy_
is a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word _Kana_.

Even at this day the word _buy_ is used to describe the procuring of
servants, where slavery is abolished. In the British West Indies, where
slaves became apprentices in 1834, they are still "bought." This is the
current word in West India newspapers. Ten years since servants were
"_bought_" in New-York, as really as in Virginia, yet the different
senses in which the word was used in the two states, put no man in a
quandary. Under the system of legal _indenture_ in Illinois, servants
now are "_bought._"[A] Until recently immigrants to this country were
"bought" in great numbers. By voluntary contract they engaged to work a
given time to pay for their passage. This class of persons called
"redemptioners," consisted at one time of thousands. Multitudes are
"bought" _out_ of slavery by themselves or others. Under the same roof
with the writer is a "servant bought with money." A few weeks since, she
was a slave; when "bought" she was a slave no longer. Alas! for our
leading politicians if "buying" men makes them "chattels." The Whigs say
that Benton and Rives are "bought" by the administration; and the other
party, that Clay and Webster are "bought" by the Bank. The histories of
the revolution tell us that Benedict Arnold was "bought" by British
gold. When a northern clergyman marries a rich southern widow, country
gossip thus hits off the indecency, "The cotton bags _bought_ him." Sir
Robert Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it,
can _buy_ him," and John Randolph said, "The northern delegation is in
the market, give me money enough, and I can _buy_ them;" both meant just
what they said. The temperance publications tell us that candidates for
office _buy_ men with whiskey; and the oracles of street tattle that the
court, district attorney, and jury, in the late trial of Robinson were
_bought_, yet we have no floating visions of "chattels personal," man
auctions, or coffles.

[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the free state of
Illinois--No negro, mulatto, or Indian shall at any time _purchase_ any
servant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the persons
aforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such servant
shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed and taken.]

The transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to the use
of "buy" and "bought with money." Gen, xlvii. 18-26. The Egyptians
proposed to Joseph to become servants. When the bargain was closed,
Joseph said, "Behold I have _bought you_ this day," and yet it is plain
that neither party regarded the persons _bought_ as articles of
property, but merely as bound to labor on certain conditions, to pay for
their support during the famine. The idea attached by both parties to
"buy us," and "behold I have bought you," was merely that of service
voluntarily offered, and secured by contract, in return for _value
received_, and not at all that the Egyptians were bereft of their
personal ownership, and made articles of property. And this buying of
_services_ (in this case it was but one-fifth part) is called in
Scripture usage, _buying the persons_. This case claims special notice,
as it is the only one where the whole transaction of buying servants is
detailed--the preliminaries, the process, the mutual acquiescence, and
the permanent relation resulting therefrom. In all other instances, the
_mere fact_ is stated without particulars. In this case, the whole
process is laid open. (1.) The persons "bought," _sold themselves_, and
of their own accord. (2.) Obtaining permanently the _services_ of
persons, or even a portion of them, is called "buying" those persons.
The objector, at the outset, takes it for granted, that servants were
bought of _third_ persons; and thence infers that they were articles of
property. Both the alleged fact and the inference are sheer
_assumptions_. No instance is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in
which a _master sold his servant_. That servants who were "bought" _sold
themselves_ is a fair inference from various passages of Scripture.

In Leviticus xxv. 47, the case of the Israelite, who became the servant
of the stranger, the words are, "If he SELL HIMSELF unto the stranger."
The _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word, which, in verse 47, is
rendered _sell himself_, is in verse 39 of the same chapter, rendered
_be sold_; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is rendered "be sold."
"And there ye shall BE SOLD unto your enemies for bond-men and
bond-women and NO MAN SHALL BUY YOU." How could they "_be sold_" without
_being bought_? Our translation makes it nonsense. The word _Makar_
rendered "be sold" is used here in the Hithpael conjugation, which is
generally reflexive in its force, and, like the middle voice in Greek,
represents what an individual does for himself, and should manifestly
have been rendered, "ye shall _offer yourselves_ for sale, and there
shall be no purchaser." For a clue to Scripture usage on this point, see
1 Kings xxi. 20, 25--"Thou hast _sold thyself_ to work evil." "There was
none like to Ahab that _sold himself_ to work wickedness."--2 Kings
xvii. 17. "They used divination and enchantments, and _sold themselves_
to do evil."--Isa. l. 1. "For your iniquities have ye _sold
yourselves_." Isa. lii. 3, "Ye have _sold yourselves_ FOR NOUGHT, and ye
shall be redeemed without money." See also, Jer. xxxiv. 14--Romans vii.
14, vi. 16--John viii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the Egyptians,
already quoted. In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is
generally stated that they were bought of _third_ persons. If _servants_
were bought of third persons, it is strange that no _instance_ of it is
on record.



II.--THE LEADING DESIGN OF THE LAWS RELATING TO SERVANTS, WITH THE
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO THEM.

The general object of the laws defining the relations of master and
servant, was the good of both parties--more especially the good of the
_servants_. While the master's interests were guarded from injury, those
of the servants were _promoted_. These laws made a merciful provision
for the poorer classes, both of the Israelites and Strangers, not laying
on burdens, but lightening them--they were a grant of _privileges_ and
_favors_.

I. No servant from the Strangers, could remain in the family of an
Israelite without becoming a proselyte. Compliance with this condition
was the _price of the privilege_.--Gen. xvii. 9-14, 23, 27.

II. Excommunication from the family was a PUNISHMENT.--Gen. xxi. 14.
Luke xvi. 2-4.

III. Every Hebrew servant could COMPEL his master to keep him after the
six years contract had expired. This shows that the system was framed to
advance the interests and gratify the wishes of the servant quite as
much as those of the master. If the servant _demanded_ it, the law
_obliged_ the master to retain him, however little he might need his
services. Deut. xv. 12-17. Ex. xxi. 2-6.

IV. The rights and privileges guarantied by law to all servants.

1. _They were admitted into covenant with God._ Deut. xxix. 10-13.

2. _They were invited guests at all the national and family festivals._
Ex. xii. 43-44; Deut. xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10-16.

3. _They were statedly instructed in morality and religion._ Deut. xxxi.
10-13; Josh. viii. 33-35; 2 Chron. xvii. 8-9.

4. _They were released from their regular labor nearly_ ONE HALF OF THE
WHOLE TIME. During which they had their entire support, and the same
instruction that was provided for the other members of the Hebrew
community.

(a.) The Law secured to them the _whole of every seventh year;_ Lev.
xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those who were servants during the entire
period between the jubilees, _eight whole years,_ including the jubilee
year, of unbroken rest.

(b.) _Every seventh day._ This in forty-two years, the eight being
subtracted from the fifty, would amount to just _six years._

(c.) _The three annual festivals._ The _Passover_, which commenced on
the 15th of the 1st month, and lasted seven days, Deut. xvi. 3, 8. The
Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which began on the 6th day of the 3d
month, and lasted seven days. Lev. xvi. 10, 11. The Feast of
Tabernacles, which commenced on the 15th of the 7th month, and lasted
eight days. Deut. xvi. 13, 15; Lev. xxiii. 34-39. As all met in one
place, much time would be spent on the journey. Cumbered caravans move
slowly. After their arrival, a day or two would be requisite for divers
preparations before the celebration, besides some time at the close of
it, in preparations for return. If we assign three weeks to each
festival--including the time spent on the journeys, and the delays
before and after the celebration, together with the _festival week_, it
will be a small allowance for the cessation of their regular labor. As
there were three festivals in the year, the main body of the servants
would be absent from their stated employments at least _nine weeks
annually_, which would amount in forty-two years, subtracting the
Sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.

(d.) _The new moons._ The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus says that the
Jews always kept _two_ days for the new moon. See Calmet on the Jewish
Calendar, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 Sam. xx. 18, 19, 27. This in
forty-two years, would be two years 280 days.

(e.) _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and
of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.

(f.) _The atonement day_. On the tenth of the seventh month. Lev. xxiii.
27.

These two feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days not
reckoned above.

Thus it appears that those who continued servants during the period
between the jubilees, were by law released from their labor,
TWENTY-THREE YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, and those
who remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In this
calculation, besides making a donation of all the _fractions_ to the
objector, we have left out those numerous _local_ festivals to which
frequent allusion is made, Judg. xxi. 19; I Sam. ix. etc., and the
various _family_ festivals, such as at the weaning of children; at
marriages; at sheep shearings; at circumcisions; at the making of
covenants, &c., to which reference is often made, as in 1 Sam. xx. 28,
29. Neither have we included the festivals instituted at a later period
of the Jewish history. The feast of Purim, Esth. ix. 28, 29; and of the
Dedication, which lasted eight days. John x. 22; 1 Mac. iv. 59.

Finally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time which,
if distributed, would be almost ONE HALF OF THE DAYS IN EACH YEAR.
Meanwhile, they were supported, and furnished with opportunities of
instruction. If this time were distributed over _every day_, the
servants would have to themselves nearly _one half of each day_.

THIS IS A REGULATION OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY
SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.

V. The servant was protected by law equally with the other members of
the community.

Proof.--"Judge righteously between every man and his neighbor, and THE
STRANGER THAT IS WITH HIM." "Ye shall not RESPECT PERSONS in judgement,
but ye shall hear the SMALL as well as the great." Deut. i. 16, 17. Also
Lev. xxiv. 22. "Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the
STRANGER, as for one of your own country." So Numb. xv. 29. "Ye shall
have ONE LAW for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that
is born among the children of Israel and for the STRANGER that
sojourneth among them." Deut. xxvii. 19. "Cursed be he that PERVERTETH
THE JUDGMENT OF THE STRANGER."

VI. The Mosaic system enjoined the greatest affection and kindness
toward servants, foreign as well as Jewish.

Lev. xix. 34. "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as
one born among you, and thou shall love him as thyself." Also Deut. x.
17, 19. "For the Lord your God * * REGARDETH NOT PERSONS. He doth
execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and LOVETH THE
STRANGER, in giving him food and raiment, LOVE YE THEREFORE THE
STRANGER." So Ex. xxii. 21. "Thou shalt neither vex a STRANGER nor
oppress him." Ex. xxiii. 9. "Thou shalt not oppress a STRANGER, for ye
know the heart of a stranger." Lev. xxv. 35, 36. "If thy brother be
waxen poor thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a STRANGER or a
sojourner, that he may live with thee, take thou no usury of him or
increase, but fear thy God." Could this same stranger be taken by one
that feared his God, and held as a slave, and robbed of time, earnings,
and all his rights?

VII. Servants were placed upon a level with their masters in all civil
and religious rights. Num. xv. 15, 16, 29; ix. 14. Deut. i. 16, 17. Lev.
xxiv. 22.



III.--DID PERSONS BECOME SERVANTS VOLUNTARILY, OR WERE THEY MADE
SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?

We argue that they became servants _of their own accord_.

I. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to
abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with God[A], be circumcised in
token of it, bound to keep the Sabbath, the Passover, the Pentecost, and
the Feast of Tabernacles, and to receive instruction in the moral and
ceremonial law. Were the servants _forced_ through all these processes?
Was the renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into
covenant with God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_?
Were they _compelled_ mechanically to chew, and swallow the flesh of the
Paschal lamb, while they abhorred the institution, spurned the laws that
enjoined it, detested its author and its executors, and instead of
rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemorated, bewailed it as a
calamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? Were they _driven_
from all parts of the land three times in the year to the annual
festivals? Were they drugged with instruction which they nauseated?
Goaded through a round of ceremonies, to them senseless and disgusting
mummeries; and drilled into the tactics of a creed rank with loathed
abominations? We repeat it, to became a _servant_, was to become a
_proselyte_. And did God authorize his people to make proselytes, at the
point of the sword? by the terror of pains and penalties? by converting
men into _merchandise_? Were _proselyte and chattel_ synonymes, in the
Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into
covenant with God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and
the sole passport to the communion of the saints?

[Footnote A: Maimonides, who wrote in Egypt about seven hundred years
ago, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the head of
Jewish writers, gives the following testimony on this point: "Whether a
servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be purchased
from the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the covenant."

"But he that is in the _house_ is entered on the eighth day, and he that
is bought with money, on the day on which his master receives him,
unless the slave be _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown
slave, and he be _unwilling_, his master is to bear with him, to seek to
win him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year.
After which, should he _refuse_ so long, it is forbidden to keep him
longer than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangers
from whence he came. For the God of Jacob will not accept any other than
the worship of a willing heart"--Mamon, Hilcoth Mileth, Chap. 1st, Sec.
8th.

The ancient Jewish Doctors assert that the servant from the Strangers
who at the close of his probationary year, refused to adopt the Jewish
religion and was on that account sent back to his own people, received a
_full compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his
expenses. But that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign
servant for a year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of
an Israelite), of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a
mere usage_. We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic
system. Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_.
Whether it was a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes
not within the scope of this inquiry. ]

II. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, 16,
"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."

As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the
_right_ of the master to hold him; his _fleeing_ shows his
_choice_--proclaims his wrongs and his title to protection; you shall
not force him back and thus recognize the _right_ of the master to hold
him in such a condition as induces him to flee to others for
protection." It may be said that this command referred only to the
servants of _heathen_ masters in the surrounding nations. We answer, the
terms of the command are unlimited. But the objection, if valid, would
merely shift the pressure of the difficulty to another point. Did God
require them to protect the _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the
heathen, and yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice
of _thousands_ of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A _foreign_
servant flees to the Israelites; God says, "He shall dwell with thee, in
that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy gates where it _liketh
him_ best." Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming into
Israel of his own accord, had been _dragged_ in by some kidnapper who
_bought_ him of his master, and _forced_ him into a condition against
his will; would He who forbade such treatment of the stranger, who
_voluntarily_ came into the land, sanction the _same_ treatment of the
_same person_, provided in _addition_ to this last outrage, the
_previous_ one had been committed of forcing him into the nation against
his will? To commit violence on the free choice of a _foreign_ servant
is forsooth a horrible enormity, PROVIDED you _begin_ the violence
_after_ he has come among you. But if you commit the _first act_ on the
_other side of the line_; if you begin the outrage by buying him from a
third person against his will, and then tear him from home, drag him
across the line into the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave--ah!
that alters the case, and you may perpetrate the violence now with
impunity! Would _greater_ favor have been shown to this new comer than
to the old residents--those who had been servants in Jewish families
perhaps for a generation? Were the Israelites commanded to exercise
toward _him_, uncircumcised and out of the covenant, a justice and
kindness denied to the multitudes who _were_ circumcised, and _within_
the covenant? But, the objector finds small gain to his argument on the
supposition that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the
surrounding nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a
condition against their wills. In that case, the surrounding nations
would adopt retaliatory measures, and become so many asylums for Jewish
fugitives. As these nations were not only on every side of them, but in
their midst, such a proclamation would have been an effectual lure to
men whose condition was a constant counteraction of will. Besides the
same command which protected the servant from the power of his foreign
_master_, protected him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was
not, "Thou shalt not deliver him unto his _master_," but "he shall dwell
with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_ in one of thy gates
where it liketh _him_ best." Every Israelite was forbidden to put him in
any condition _against his will_. What was this but a proclamation, that
all who _chose_ to live in the land and obey the laws, were left to
their own free will, to dispose of their services at such a rate, to
such persons and in such places as they pleased? Besides, grant that
this command prohibited the sending back of _foreign_ servants merely,
there was no law requiring the return of servants who had escaped from
the _Israelites_. _Property_ lost, and _cattle_ escaped, they were
required to return, but not escaped servants. These verses contain 1st,
a command, "Thou shall not deliver," &c., 2d, a declaration of the
fugitive's right of _free choice_, and of God's will that he should
exercise it at his own discretion; and 3d, a command guarding this
right, namely, "Thou shalt not oppress him," as though God had said, "If
you restrain him from exercising his _own choice_, as to the place and
condition of his residence, it is _oppression_."

III. We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar
opportunities and facilities for escape. Three times every year, all the
males over twelve years, were required to attend the national feasts.
They were thus absent from their homes not less than three weeks at each
time, making nine weeks annually. As these caravans moved over the
country, were there military scouts lining the way, to intercept
deserters?--a corporal's guard at each pass of the mountains, sentinels
pacing the hill-tops, and light horse scouring the defiles? The
Israelites must have had some safe contrivance for taking their
"_slaves_" three times in a year to Jerusalem and back. When a body of
slaves is moved any distance in our _republic_, they are hand-cuffed and
chained together, to keep them from running away, or beating their
drivers' brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ plan, or an improvement
introduced by Samuel, or was it left for the wisdom of Solomon? The
usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less venerable and biblical!
Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and transported in bundles, or
caged up, and trundled on wheels to and fro, and while at the Holy City,
"lodged in jail for safe keeping," the Sanhedrim appointing special
religious services for their benefit, and their "drivers" officiating at
"ORAL instruction." Mean while, what became of the sturdy _handmaids_
left at home? What hindered them from marching off in a body? Perhaps
the Israelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens,
while the young ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, picking
up stragglers by day, and patrolled the streets, keeping a sharp
look-out at night.

IV. Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance
of various rites necessarily VOLUNTARY.

Suppose the servants from the heathen had upon entering Jewish families,
refused circumcision; if _slaves_, how simple the process of
emancipation! Their _refusal_ did the job. Or, suppose they had refused
to attend the annual feasts, or had eaten unleavened bread during the
Passover, or compounded the ingredients of the anointing oil, they would
have been "cut off from the people;" _excommunicated_.

V. We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patriarchs from the
impossibility of their having been held against their wills. Abraham's
servants are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred and
eighteen _young men_ "born in his house," and many more _not_ born in
his house. His servants of all ages, were probably MANY THOUSANDS. How
Abraham and Sarah contrived to hold fast so many thousand servants
against their wills, we are left quite in the dark. The most natural
supposition is that the Patriarch and his wife _took turns_ in
surrounding them! The neighboring tribes, instead of constituting a
picket guard to hem in his servants, would have been far more likely to
sweep them and him into captivity, as they did Lot and his household.
Besides, there was neither "Constitution" nor "compact," to send back
Abraham's fugitives, nor a truckling police to pounce upon them, nor
gentleman-kidnappers, suing for his patronage, volunteering to howl on
their track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and pledging their
"honor" to hunt down and "deliver up," _provided_ they had a description
of the "flesh-marks," and were suitably stimulated by _pieces of
silver_. Abraham seems also to have been sadly deficient in all the
auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks, hand-cuffs,
foot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution of these
patriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, since he faithfully
trained "his household to do justice and judgment," though so deplorably
destitute of the needful aids.

VI. We infer that servants were voluntary, as there is no instance of an
Israelitish master SELLING a servant. Abraham had thousands of servants,
but seems never to have sold one. Isaac "grew until he became very
great," and had "great store of servants." Jacob's youth was spent in
the family of Laban, where he lived a servant twenty-one years.
Afterward he had a large number of servants. Joseph sent for Jacob to
come into Egypt, "thou and thy children, and thy children's children,
and thy flocks and thy herds, and ALL THAT THOU HAST." Jacob took his
flocks and herds but _no servants_. Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 16. They
doubtless, served under their _own contracts_, and when Jacob went into
Egypt, they _chose_ to stay in their own country. The government might
sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until their services had made
good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex. xxii. 3. But _masters_
seem to have had no power to sell their _servants_. To give the master a
_right_ to sell his servant, would annihilate the servant's right of
choice in his own disposal; but says the objector, "to give the master a
right to _buy_ a servant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of
choice_." Answer. It is one thing to have a right to buy a man, and a
different thing to have a right to buy him of _another_ man[A].

[Footnote A: There is no evidence that masters had the power to dispose
even the _services_ of their servants, as men hire out their laborers
whom they employ by the year; but whether they had or not, affects not
the argument.]

Though servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females were
bought of their _fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ was their
betrothal as wives. Ex. xxi. 7, 8. "If a man sell his daughter to be a
maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please
not her master WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF, he shall let her be
redeemed."[B]

[Footnote B: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as follows: "A
Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under
obligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fit
to be betrothed."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV. Sec. XI.
Jarchi, on the same passage, says, "He is bound to espouse her and take
her to be his wife, for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her
espousal."]

VII. We infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in COMMENCING his
service, because he was pre-eminently so IN CONTINUING it. If, at the
year of release, it was the servant's _choice_ to remain with his
master, law required his ear to be bored by the judges of the land, thus
making it impossible for him to be held against his will. Yea more, his
master was _compelled_ to keep him, however much he might wish to get
rid of him.

VIII. The method prescribed for procuring servants, was an appeal to
their choice. The Israelites were commanded to offer them a suitable
inducement, and then leave them to decide. They might neither seize them
by _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle them by false
pretences, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they were commanded to
buy them[A]; that is, they were to recognize the _right_ of the
individuals to _dispose_ of their own services, and their right to
_refuse all offers_, and thus oblige those who made them, _to do their
own work_. Suppose all, with one accord, had _refused_ to become
servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency?
NONE.

[Footnote A: The case of thieves, whose services were sold until they
had earned enough to make restitution to the person wronged, and to pay
the legal penalty, _stands by itself,_ and has nothing to do with the
condition of servants.]

IX. Various incidental expressions corroborate the idea that servants
became such by their own contract. Job xli. 4, is an illustration, "Will
he (Leviathan) make a COVENANT with thee? wilt thou take him for a
SERVANT forever?"

X. The transaction which made the Egyptians the SERVANTS OF PHARAOH was
voluntary throughout. See Gen. xlvii. 18-26. Of their own accord they
came to Joseph and said, "We have not aught left but our _bodies_ and
our lands; _buy us_;" then in the 25th verse, "we will be servants to
Pharaoh."

XI. We infer the voluntariness of servants, from the fact that RICH
Strangers did not become servants. Indeed, so far were they from
becoming servants themselves, that they bought and held Jewish servants.
Lev. xxv. 47.

XII. The sacrifices and offerings which ALL were required to present,
were to be made VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2, 3.

XIII. Mention is often made of persons becoming servants where they were
manifestly and pre-eminently VOLUNTARY. As the Prophet Elisha. 1 Kings
xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. The word, translated
master, is the same that is so rendered in almost every instance where
masters are spoken of under the Mosaic and patriarchal systems. Moses
was the servant of Jethro. Ex. iii. 1. Joshua was the servant of Moses.
Num. xi. 28. Jacob was the servant of Laban. Gen. xxix. 18-27.



IV.--WERE THE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY?

As the servants became and continued such of _their own accord_, it
would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work without pay. Their
becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a motive. That they
_were paid_ for their labor, we argue,

I. Because God rebuked in thunder, the sin of using the labor of others
without wages. "Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness,
and his chambers by wrong; THAT USETH HIS NEIGHBOR'S SERVICE WITHOUT
WAGES, and giveth him not for his work." Jer. xxii. 13. God here
testifies that to use the service of others without wages is
"unrighteousness" and pronounces his "wo" against the doer of the
"wrong." The Hebrew word _Rea_, translated _neighbor_, does not mean one
man, or class of men, in distinction from others, but any one with whom
we have to do--all descriptions of persons, even those who prosecute us
in lawsuits and enemies while in the act of fighting us--"As when a man
riseth against his NEIGHBOR and slayeth him." Deut. xxii. 26. "Go not
forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end
thereof, when thy NEIGHBOR hath put thee to shame." Prov. xxv. 8. "Thou
shalt not bear false witness against thy NEIGHBOR." Ex. xx. 16. "If any
man come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR to slay him with guile." Ex.
xxi. 14, &c.

II. God testifies that in our duty to our fellow men, ALL THE LAW AND
THE PROPHETS hang upon this command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself." Our Savior, in giving this command, quoted _verbatim_ one of
the laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the
same chapter, Moses applies this law to the treatment of Strangers, "The
stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you,
and THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF." If it be loving others _as_
ourselves, to make them work for us without pay; to rob them of food and
clothing also, would be a stronger illustration still of the law of
love! _Super_-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others
as we would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ good
alone, Paul should be called to order for his hard saying against human
nature, especially for that libellous matter in Eph. v. 29, "No man ever
yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it."

III. As persons became servants FROM POVERTY, we argue that they were
compensated, since they frequently owned property, and sometimes a large
amount. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David a princely
present, "An hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred bunches of raisins,
and an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine." 2 Sam. xvi. 1.
The extent of his possessions can be inferred from the fact, that though
the father of fifteen sons, he had twenty servants. In Lev. xxv. 57-59,
where a servant, reduced to poverty, sold himself, it is declared that
he may be _redeemed_, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been
forced to sell himself from poverty, he must have acquired considerable
property _after_ he became a servant. If it had not been common for
servants to acquire property over which they had the control, the
servant of Elisha would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of
money, (nearly $3000[A]) from Naaman, 2 Kings v. 22, 23. As it was
procured by deceit, he wished to conceal the means used in getting it;
but if servants, could "own nothing, nor acquire any thing," to embark
in such an enterprise would have been consummate stupidity. The fact of
having in his possession two talents of silver, would of itself convict
him of theft[B]. But since it was common for servants to own property he
might have it, and invest or use it, without attracting special
attention, and that consideration alone would have been a strong motive
to the act. His master, while rebuking him for using such means to get
the money, not only does not take it from him; but seems to expect that
he would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and would procure
servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. We find the servant of Saul having
money, and relieving his master in an emergency. 1 Sam. ix. 8. Arza, the
servant of Elah, was the _owner of a house_. That it was somewhat
magnificent, would be a natural inference from it's being a resort of
the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. The case of the Gibeonites, who after becoming
servants, still occupied their cities, and remained in many respects, a
distinct people for centuries; and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the
_servants_ of Solomon, who worked out their "tribute of bond-service" in
levies, periodically relieving each other, are additional illustrations
of independence in the acquisition and ownership of property.

[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide upon the
_relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and _now_, yet we have enough to
warrant us in saying that two talents of silver, had far more value
_then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]


[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing
a large amount of money? They "_know how to take care of themselves_"
quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on
such a _small_ scale, or in the taking of _such things_ as will make
detection difficult. No doubt they steal now and then a little, and a
gaping marvel would it be if they did not. Why should they not follow in
the footsteps of their masters and mistresses? Dull scholars indeed! if,
after so many lessons from _proficients_ in the art, who drive the
business by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their
betters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at
a practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ business carried
on around them! Ignoble truly! never to feel the stirrings of high
impulse, prompting to imitate the eminent pattern set before them in the
daily vocation of "Honorables" and "Excellences," and to emulate the
illustrious examples of Doctors of Divinity, and _Right_ and _Very
Reverends_! Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his Notes on
Virginia, pp. 207-8, speaking of slaves, he says, "That disposition to
theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their
_situation_, and not to any special depravity of the moral sense. It is
a problem which I give the master to solve, whether the religious
precepts against the violation of property were not framed for HIM as
well as for his slave--and whether the slave may not as justifiably take
a _little_ from one who has taken ALL from him, as he may _slay_ one who
would slay him?"]

IV. Heirship.--Servants frequently inherited their master's property;
especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family.
Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth,
Jarha the servant of Sheshan, and the _husbandmen_ who said of their
master's son, "this is the HEIR, let us kill him, and the INHERITANCE
WILL BE OURS," are illustrations; also Prov. xvii. 2--"A wise servant
shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and SHALL HAVE PART OF
THE INHERITANCE AMONG THE BRETHREN." This passage gives servants
precedence as heirs, even over the wives and daughters of their masters.
Did masters hold by force, and plunder of earnings, a class of persons,
from which, in frequent contingencies, they selected both heirs for
their property, and husbands for their daughters?

V. ALL were required to present offerings and sacrifices. Deut. xvi. 15,
17, 2 Chron. xv. 9-11. Numb. ix. 13. Servants must have had permanently,
the means of _acquiring_ property to meet these expenditures.

VI. Those Hebrew servants who went out at the seventh year, were
provided by law with a large stock of provisions and cattle. Deut. xv.
11-14. "Thou shall furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of
thy flour, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith the Lord thy God
hath blessed thee, thou shall give him[A]." If it be said that the
servants from the Strangers did not receive a like bountiful supply, we
answer, neither did the most honorable class of _Israelitish_ servants,
the free-holders; and for the same reason, _they did not go out in the
seventh year_, but continued until the jubilee. If the fact that the
Gentile servants did not receive such a _gratuity_ proves that they were
robbed of their _earnings_, it proves that the most valued class of
_Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs also; a conclusion too stubborn
for even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous.

[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as
follows--"Thou shalt furnish him liberally," &c. "That is to say,
'_Loading, ye shall load him_,' likewise every one of his family, with
as much as he can take with him--abundant benefits. And if it be
avariciously asked, "How much must I give him?" I say unto _you, not
less than thirty shekels_, which is the valuation of a servant, as
declared in Ex. xxi. 32."--Maimonides, Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec. 3]

VII. The servants were BOUGHT. In other words, they received
compensation in advance. Having shown, under a previous head, that
servants _sold themselves_, and of course received the compensation for
themselves, except in cases where parents hired out the time of their
children till they became of age[B], a mere reference to the fact is all
that is required for the purposes of this argument.

[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and
boys at thirteen years.]

VIII. We find masters at one time having a large number of servants, and
afterwards none, without any intimation that they were sold. The wages
of servants would enable them to set up in business for themselves.
Jacob, after being Laban's servant for twenty-one years, became thus an
independent herdsman, and was the master of many servants. Gen. xxx. 43,
xxxii. 15. But all these servants had left him before he went down into
Egypt, having doubtless acquired enough to commence business for
themselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11; xlvi. 1-7, 32.

IX. God's testimony to the character of Abraham. Gen. xviii. 19. "For I
know him that he will command his children and his household after him,
and they shall keep, THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO JUSTICE AND JUDGEMENT."
God here testifies that Abraham taught his servants "the way of the
Lord." What was the "way of the Lord" respecting the payment of wages
where service was rendered? "Wo unto him that useth his neighbor's
service WITHOUT WAGES!" Jer. xxii. 13. "Masters, give unto your servants
that which is JUST AND EQUAL." Col. iv. 1. "Render unto all their DUES."
Rom. xiii. 7. "The laborer is WORTHY OF HIS HIRE." Luke x. 7. How did
Abraham teach his servants to "_do justice_" to others? By doing
injustice to them? Did he exhort them to "render to all their dues" by
keeping back _their own_? Did he teach them that "the laborer was worthy
of his hire" by robbing them of _theirs_? Did he beget in them a
reverence for honesty by pilfering all their time and labor? Did he
teach them "not to defraud" others "in any matter" by denying them "what
was just and equal?" If each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism
did not become a very _Aristides_ in justice, then illustrious examples,
patriarchal dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway
against human perverseness!

X. _Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general principles_.
Out of many, we select the following: (1.) "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox
that treadeth out the corn," or literally, while he thresheth. Deut.
xxv. 4. Here is a general principle applied to a familiar case. The ox
representing all domestic animals. Isa. xxx. 24. A _particular_ kind of
service, _all_ kinds; and a law requiring an abundant provision for the
wants of an animal ministering to man in a _certain_ way,--a general
principle of treatment covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities
of service. The object of the law was; not merely to enjoin tenderness
towards brutes, but to inculcate the duty of rewarding those who serve
us; and if such care be enjoined, by God, both for the ample sustenance
and present enjoyment _of a brute_, what would be a meet return for the
services of _man_?--MAN with his varied wants, exalted nature and
immortal destiny! Paul says expressly, that this principle lies at the
bottom of the statute. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, "For it is written in the law
of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out
the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for OUR
SAKES? that he that ploweth should plow in HOPE, and that he that
thresheth in hope should be PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE," (2.) "If thy brother
be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve
him, YEA, THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER or a SOJOURNER that he may live with
thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase, but fear thy God. Thou
shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for
increase." Lev. xxv. 35-37. Now, we ask, by what process of pro-slavery
legerdemain, this regulation can be made to harmonize with the doctrine
of WORK WITHOUT PAY? Did God declare the poor stranger entitled to
RELIEF, and in the same breath, authorize them to "use his services
without wages;" force him to work and ROB HIM OF HIS EARNINGS?


V.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS LEGAL PROPERTY?

The discussion of this topic has already been somewhat anticipated, but
a variety of additional considerations remain to be noticed.

1. Servants were not subjected to the uses nor liable to the
contingencies of property. (1.) They were never taken in payment for
their masters' debts, though children were sometimes taken (without
legal authority) for the debts of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9;
Isa. l., 1; Matt. xviii. 25. Creditors took from debtors property of all
kinds, to satisfy their demands. Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; Prov.
xxii. 27, household furniture; Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions of the
soil; Lev. xxv. 27-30, houses; Ex. xxii. 26-29, Deut. xxiv. 10-13, Matt,
v. 40, clothing; but _servants_ were taken in _no instance_. (2.)
Servants were never given as pledges. Property of all sorts was given in
pledge. We find household furniture, clothing, cattle, money, signets,
and personal ornaments, with divers other articles of property, used as
pledges for value received; but no servants. (3.) All lost PROPERTY was
to be restored. Oxen, asses, sheep, raiment, and "whatsoever lost
things," are specified--servants _not_. Deut. xxii. 13. Besides, the
Israelites were forbidden to return the runaway servant. Deut. xxiii.
15. (4.) The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents. They
made costly presents, of great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds of
animals, merchandise, family utensils, precious metals, grain, armor,
&c. are among their recorded _gifts_. Giving presents to superiors and
persons of rank, was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27; 1 Sam. xvi. 20; 2
Chron. xvii. 5. Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to the viceroy
of Egypt, Gen. xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. xlv.
22, 23; Benhadad to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath Pilezer,
2 Kings vi. 8; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings x. 13; Jeroboam to
Ahijah, 1 Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv. 18, 19. But no
servants were given as presents--though it was a prevailing fashion in
the surrounding nations. Gen. xii. 16; Gen. xx. 14. It may be objected
that Laban GAVE handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives. Without
enlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent suffice it to say
that the handmaids of wives were regarded as wives, though of inferior
dignity and authority. That Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is proved
by his curse upon Reuben, Gen. xlix. 4, and Chron. v. 1; also by the
equality of their children with those of Rachel and Leah. But had it
been otherwise--had Laban given them as _articles of property_, then,
indeed, the example of this "good old patriarch and slaveholder," Saint
Laban, would have been a forecloser to all argument. Ah! we remember his
jealousy for _religion_--his holy indignation when he found that his
"GODS" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, and plunged over the
desert in hot pursuit, seven days, by forced marches; how he ransacked a
whole caravan, sifting the contents of every tent, little heeding such
small matters as domestic privacy, or female seclusion, for lo! the zeal
of his "IMAGES" had eaten him up! No wonder that slavery, in its
Bible-navigation, drifting dismantled before the free gusts, should scud
under the lee of such a pious worthy to haul up and refit: invoking his
protection, and the benediction of his "GODS!" "Again, it may be
objected that, servants were enumerated in inventories of property. If
that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ property. "Thou shalt
not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's
WIFE, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his
ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Ex. xx. 17. In inventories
of _mere property_ if servants are included, it is in such a way, as to
show that they are not regarded as _property_. See Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But
when the design is to show not merely the wealth, but the _greatness_ of
any personage, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word,
if _riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if
_greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. "And Abraham was very
rich in cattle, in silver and in gold." So in the fifth verse, "And Lot
also had flocks, and herds, and tents." In the seventh verse servants
are mentioned, "And there was a strife between the HERDMEN of Abraham's
cattle and the HERDMEN of Lot's cattle." See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen.
xxxiv. 23; Job xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; xxxii. 27-29; Job i. 3-5;
Deut. viii. 12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35, xxvi. 13, xxx. 43. Jacobs's wives say
to him, "All the _riches_ which thou hast taken from our father that is
ours and our children's." Then follows an inventory of property. "All
his cattle," "all his goods," "the cattle of his getting." He had a
large number of servants at the time but they are not included with his
property. Comp. Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. 16-18. When he sent
messengers to Esau, wishing to impress him with an idea of his state and
sway, he bade them tell him not only of his RICHES, but of his
GREATNESS; that Jacob had "oxen, and asses, and flocks, and
men-servants, and maid-servants." Gen. xxxii. 4, 5. Yet in the present
which he sent, there were no servants; though he seems to have sought as
much variety as possible. Gen. xxxii. 14, 15; see also Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7;
Gen. xxxiv. 23. As flocks and herds were the staples of wealth, a large
number of servants presupposed large possessions of cattle, which would
require many herdsmen. When servants are spoken of in connection with
_mere property_, the terms used to express the latter do not include the
former. The Hebrew word _Mikne_, is an illustration. It is derived from
_Kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, _a possession, wealth,
riches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament, and is
applied always to _mere property_, generally to domestic animals, but
never to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in
distinction from the _Mikne_.  And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot
his brother's son, and all their SUBSTANCE that they had gathered; and
the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into
the land of Canaan."--Gen. xii. 5. Many will have it, that these _souls_
were a part of Abraham's _substance_ (notwithstanding the pains here
taken to separate them from it)--that they were slaves taken with him in
his migration as a part of his family effects. Who but slaveholders,
either actually or in heart, would torture into the principle and
practice of slavery, such a harmless phrase as "_the souls that they had
gotten_?" Until the slave trade breathed its haze upon the vision of the
church, and smote her with palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery
in, "The souls that they had gotten." In the Targum of Onkelos[A] it is
rendered, "The souls whom they had brought to obey the law in Haran." In
the Targum of Jonathan, "The souls whom they had made proselytes in
Haran." In the Targum of Jerusalem, "The souls proselyted in Haran."
Jarchi, the prince of Jewish commentators, "The souls whom they had
brought under the Divine wings." Jerome, one of the most learned of the
Christian fathers, "The persons whom they had proselyted." The Persian
version, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Samaritan all
render it, "All the wealth which they had gathered, and the souls which
they had made in Haran." Menochius, a commentator who wrote before our
present translation of the Bible, renders it, "Quas de idolatraria
converterant." "Those whom they had converted from idolatry."--Paulus
Fagius[B]. "Quas instituerant in religione." "Those whom they had
established in religion." Luke Francke, a German commentator who lived
two centuries ago. "Quas legi subjicerant"--"Those whom they had brought
to obey the law."

[Footnote A: The Targums are Chaldee paraphrases of parts of the Old
Testament. The Targum of Onkelas is, for the most part, a very accurate
and faithful translation of the original, and was probably made at about
the commencement of the Christian era. The Targum of Jonathan Ben
Uzziel, bears about the same date. The Targum of Jerusalem was probably
about five hundred years later. The Israelites, during their captivity
in Babylon, lost, as a body, their own language. These translations into
the Chaldee, the language which they acquired in Babylon, were thus
called for by the necessity of the case.]


[Footnote B: This eminent Hebrew scholar was invited to England to
superintend the translation of the Bible into English, under the
patronage of Henry the Eighth. He had hardly commenced the work when he
died. This was nearly a century before the date of our present
translation.]

II. The condition and treatment of servants make the doctrine that they
were mere COMMODITIES, an absurdity. St. Paul's testimony in Gal. iv. 1,
shows the condition of servants: "Now I say unto you, that the heir, so
long as he is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, though he be
lord of all." That Abraham's servants were voluntary, that their
interests were identified with those of their master's family, and that
the utmost confidence was reposed in them, is shown in their being
armed.--Gen. xiv. 14, 15. When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the
young Princess Rebecca did not disdain to say to him, "Drink, MY LORD,"
as "she hasted and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him
drink." Laban, the brother of Rebecca, "ungirded his camels, and brought
him water to wash his feet and the men's feet that were with him!" In 1
Sam. ix. is an account of a festival in the city of Zuph, at which
Samuel presided. None but those bidden, sat down at the feast, and only
"about thirty persons" were invited. Quite a select party!--the elite of
the city. Saul and his servant had just arrived at Zuph, and _both_ of
them, at Samuel's solicitation, accompany him as invited guests. "And
Samuel took Saul and his SERVANT, and brought THEM into the PARLOR(!)
and made THEM sit in the CHIEFEST SEATS among those that were bidden." A
_servant_ invited by the chief judge, ruler, and prophet in Israel, to
dine publicly with a select party, in company with his master, who was
at the same time anointed King of Israel! and this servant introduced by
Samuel into the PARLOR, and assigned, with his master, to the _chiefest
seat_ at the table! This was "_one_ of the servants" of Kish, Saul's
father; not the steward or the chief of them--not at all a _picked_ man,
but "_one_ of the servants;" _any_ one that could be most easily spared,
as no endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking
after asses. Again: we find Elah, the King of Israel, at a festive
entertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with
whom he seems to have been on terms of familiarity.--1 Kings xvi. 8, 9.
See also the intercourse between Gideon and his servant.--Judg. vii. 10,
11. Jonathan and his servant.--1 Sam. xiv. 1-14. Elisha and his
servant.--2 Kings iv. v. vi.

III. The case of the Gibeonites. The condition of the inhabitants of
Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Hebrew
commonwealth, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and
truly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from
it. Milton's devils made desperate snatches at fruit that turned to
ashes on their lips. The spirit of slavery raves under tormenting
gnawings, and casts about in blind phrenzy for something to ease, or
even to _mock_ them. But for this, it would never have clutched at the
Gibeonites, for even the incantations of the demon cauldron, could not
extract from their case enough to tantalize starvation's self. But to
the question. What was the condition of the Gibeonites under the
Israelites? (1.) _It was voluntary_. Their own proposition to Joshua was
to become servants. Josh. ix. 8, 11. It was accepted, but the kind of
service which they should perform, was not specified until their gross
imposition came to light; they were then assigned to menial offices in
the Tabernacle. (2.) _They were not domestic servants in the families of
the Israelites_. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated
their own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the
functions of a _distinct_, though not independent community. They were
subject to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. So far from being
distributed among the Israelites, and their internal organization as a
distinct people abolished, they remained a separate, and, in some
respects, an independent community for many centuries. When attacked by
the Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aid--it
was rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in
their cities. Josh. x. 6-18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them,
and God sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. David inquired of
the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the
atonement?" At their demand, he delivered up to them, seven of Saul's
descendants. 2 Sam. xxi. 1-9. The whole transaction was a formal
recognition of the Gibeonites as a distinct people. There is no
intimation that they served families, or individuals of the Israelites,
but only the "house of God," or the Tabernacle. This was established
first at Gilgal, a day's journey from their cities; and then at Shiloh,
nearly two day's journey from them; where it continued about 350 years.
During this period, the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient cities and
territory. Only a few, comparatively, could have been absent at any one
time in attendance on the Tabernacle. Wherever allusion is made to them
in the history, the main body are spoken of as _at home_. It is
preposterous to suppose that all the inhabitants of these four cities
could find employment at the Tabernacle. One of them "was a great city,
as one of the royal cities;" so large, that a confederacy of five kings,
apparently the most powerful in the land, was deemed necessary for its
destruction. It is probable that the men were divided into classes,
ministering in rotation--each class a few days or weeks at a time. This
service was their _national tribute_ to the Israelites, for the
privilege of residence and protection under their government. No service
seems to have been required of the _females_. As these Gibeonites were
Canaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by
impudent imposition, and lying, we might assuredly expect that they
would reduce _them_ to the condition of chattels if there was _any_ case
in which God permitted them to do so.

IV. Throughout the Mosaic system, God warns the Israelites against
holding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by the
Egyptians. How often are they pointed back to the grindings of their
prison-house! What motives to the exercise of justice and kindness
towards their servants, are held out to their fears in threatened
judgments; to their hopes in promised good; and to all within them that
could feel; by those oft repeated words of tenderness and terror! "For
ye were bondmen in the land of Egypt"--waking anew the memory of tears
and anguish, and of the wrath that avenged them.

God's denunciations against the bondage of Egypt make it incumbent on us
to ascertain, of what rights the Israelites were plundered, and what
they retained.

EGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. (1.) The Israelites were not dispersed among
the families of Egypt[A], but formed a separate community. Gen. xlvi.
35. Ex. viii. 22, 24; ix. 26; x. 23; xi. 7; ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5.
(2.) They had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen[B]. Gen.
xlv. 18; xlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, 23, 27. (3.) They lived
in permanent dwellings. These were _houses_, not _tents_. In Ex. xii. 6,
22, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_, and the lintel of
the houses are mentioned. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by
itself_,--Acts vii. 20. Ex. xii. 4--and judging from the regulation
about the eating of the Passover, they could hardly have been small
ones, Ex. xii. 4, probably contained separate apartments, and places for
concealment. Ex. ii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well
apparelled. Ex. xii. 11. To have their own burial grounds. Ex. xiii. 19,
and xiv. 11. (4.) They owned "a mixed multitude of flocks and herds,"
and "very much cattle." Ex. xii. 32, 37, 38. (5.) They had their own
form of government, and preserved their tribe and family divisions, and
their internal organization throughout, though still a province of
Egypt, and _tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1; xii. 19, 21; vi. 14, 25; v. 19;
iii. 16, 18. (6.) They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the
disposal of their own time,--Ex. xxiii. 4; iii. 16, 18, xii. 6; ii. 9;
and iv. 27, 29-31. And to have practiced the fine arts. Ex. xxxii. 4;
xxxv. 22-35. (7.) They were all armed. Ex. xxxii. 27. (8.) They held
their possessions independently, and the Egyptians seem to have regarded
them as inviolable. No intimation is given that the Egyptians
dispossessed them of their habitations, or took away their flocks, or
herds, or crops, or implements of agriculture, or any article of
property. (9.) All the females seem to have known something of domestic
refinements; they were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled
in the working of fine fabrics. Ex. xv. 20; xxxv. 25, 26. (10.) Service
seems to have been exacted from none but adult males. Nothing is said
from which the bond service of females could he inferred; the hiding of
Moses three months by his mother, and the payment of wages to her by
Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a supposition. Ex. ii. 29. (11.) So
far from being fed upon a given allowance, their food was abundant, and
of great variety. "They sat by the flesh-pots," and "did eat bread to
the full." Ex. xvi. 3; xxiv. 1; xvii. 5; iv. 29; vi. 14; "they did eat
fish freely, and cucumbers, and melons, and leeks, and onions, and
garlic." Num. xi. 4, 5; x. 18; xx. 5. (12.) The great body of the people
were not in the service of the Egyptians. (a.) The extent and variety of
their own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their crops
as would provide them with bread, and such care of their immense flocks
and herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must have
furnished constant employment for the main body of the nation. (b.)
During the plague of darkness, God informs us that "ALL the children of
Israel had light in their dwellings." We infer that they were _there_ to
enjoy it. (c.) It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only
service named during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could
have furnished permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See also
Ex. iv. 29-31. Besides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, it
was as now, in the use of the levy, requiring them to furnish a given
quota, drafted off periodically, so that comparatively but a small
portion of the nation would be absent _at any one time_. Probably
one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor was required of the
Israelites in common with the Egyptians. Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of
taking it from their _crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_) they
exacted it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that labor
was exacted only from the _poorer_ Israelites, the wealthy being able to
pay their tribute in money. Ex. iv. 27-31. Contrast this bondage of
Egypt with American slavery. Have our slaves "very much cattle," and "a
mixed multitude of flocks and herds?" Do they live in commodious houses
of their own, "sit by the flesh-pots," "eat fish freely," and "eat bread
to the full?" Do they live in a separate community, in their distinct
tribes, under their own rulers, in the exclusive occupation of an
extensive tract of country for the culture of their crops, and for
rearing immense herds of their own cattle--and all these held inviolable
by their masters? Are our female slaves free from exactions of labor and
liabilities of outrage? or when employed, are they paid wages, as was
the Israelitish woman by the king's daughter? Have they the disposal of
their own time and the means for cultivating social refinements, for
practising the fine arts, and for personal improvement? THE ISRAELITES
UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.
True, "all the service wherein they made them serve was with rigor." But
what was this when compared with the incessant toil of American slaves,
the robbery of all their time and earnings, and even the power to "own
any thing, or acquire any thing?" a "quart of corn a-day," the legal
allowance of food[C]! their _only_ clothing for one half the year,
"_one_ shirt and _one_ pair of pantaloons[D]!" _two hours and a half
only_, for rest and refreshment in the twenty-four[E]!--their dwellings,
_hovels_, unfit for human residence, with but one apartment, where both
sexes and all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the
field. Add to this, the ignorance, and degradation; the daily sundering
of kindred, the revelries of lust, the lacerations and baptisms of
blood, sanctioned by law, and patronized by public sentiment. What was
the bondage of Egypt when compared with this? And yet for her oppression
of the poor, God smote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire,
till she passed away in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her
pride, knew her no more. Ah! "I have seen the afflictions of my people,
and I have heard their groanings, and am come down to deliver them." HE
DID COME, and Egypt sank a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over her.
If such was God's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, of
how much sorer punishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy,
who cloak with religion a system, in comparison with which the bondage
of Egypt dwindles to nothing? Let those believe who can that God
commissioned his people to rob others of _all_ their rights, while he
denounced against them wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the
_far lighter_ oppression of Egypt--which robbed it's victims of only the
least and cheapest of their rights, and left the females unplundered
even of these. What! Is God divided against himself? When He had just
turned Egypt into a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her
unburied dead, and his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the
smoke of her torment went upwards because she had "ROBBED THE POOR," did
He license the victims of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As _Lawgiver_
did he _create_ a system tenfold more grinding than that for which he
had just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and overwhelmed his princes, and his
hosts, till "hell was moved to meet them at their coming?"

[Footnote A: The Egyptians evidently had _domestic_ servants living in
their families; these may have been slaves; allusion is made to them in
Ex. ix. 14, 20, 21.]


[Footnote B: The land of Goshen was a large tract of country, east of
the Pelusian arm of the Nile, and between it and the head of the Red
Sea, and the lower border of Palestine. The probable centre of that
portion, occupied by the Israelites, could hardly have been less than
sixty miles from the city. The border of Goshen nearest to Egypt must
have been many miles distant. See "Exodus of the Israelites out of
Egypt," an able article by Professor Robinson, in the Biblical
Repository for October, 1832.]


[Footnote C: Law of N.C. Haywood's Manual 524-5.]


[Footnote D: Law of La. Martin's Digest, 610.]


[Footnote E: Law of La. Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12.]

We now proceed to examine various objections which will doubtless be set
in array against all the foregoing conclusions.


OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

The advocates of slavery find themselves at their wits end in pressing
the Bible into their service. Every movement shows them hard-pushed.
Their ever-varying shifts, their forced constructions, and blind
guesswork, proclaim both their _cause_ desperate, and themselves. The
Bible defences thrown around slavery by professed ministers of the
Gospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and historical facts it
were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity, ignorance, or blasphemy,
predominates in the compound; each strives so lustily for the mastery it
may be set down a drawn battle. How often has it been bruited that the
color of the negro is the _Cain-mark_, propagated downward. Cain's
posterity started an opposition to the ark, forsooth, and rode out the
flood with flying streamers! Why should not a miracle be wrought to
point such an argument, and fill out for slaveholders a Divine
title-deed, vindicating the ways of God to man?



OBJECTION 1. "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto
his brethren." Gen. ix. 25.

This prophecy of Noah is the _vade mecum_ of slaveholders, and they
never venture abroad without it; it is a pocket-piece for sudden
occasion, a keepsake to dote over, a charm to spell-bind opposition, and
a magnet to draw around their standard "whatsoever worketh abomination
or maketh a lie." But "cursed be Canaan" is a poor drug to ease a
throbbing conscience--a mocking lullaby, to unquiet tossings, and vainly
crying "Peace be still," where God wakes war, and breaks his thunders.
Those who justify negro slavery by the curse of Canaan, _assume_ all the
points in debate. (1.) That _slavery_ was prophesied rather than mere
_service_ to others, and _individual_ bondage rather than _national_
subjection and tribute. (2.) That the _prediction_ of crime _justifies_
it; at least absolving those whose crimes fulfill it, if not
transforming the crimes into _virtues_. How piously the Pharoahs might
have quoted the prophecy _"Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that
is not theirs, and they shall afflict there four hundred years."_ And
then, what _saints_ were those that crucified the Lord of glory! (3.)
That the Africans are descended from Canaan. Whereas Africa was peopled
from Egypt and Ethiopia, and they were settled by Mizraim and Cush. For
the location and boundaries of Canaan's posterity, see Gen. x. 15-19. So
a prophecy of evil to one people, is quoted to justify its infliction
upon another. Perhaps it may be argued that Canaan includes all Ham's
posterity. If so, the prophecy is yet unfulfilled. The other sons of Ham
settled Egypt and Assyria, and, conjointly with Shem, Persia, and
afterward, to some extent, the Grecian and Roman empires. The history of
these nations gives no verification of the prophecy. Whereas, the
history of Canaan's descendants for more than three thousand years,
records its fulfilment. First, they were put to tribute by the
Israelites; then by the Medes and Persians; then by the Macedonians,
Grecians and Romans, successively; and finally, were subjected by the
Ottoman dynasty, where they yet remain. Thus Canaan has been for ages
the servant mainly of Shem and Japhet, and secondarily of the other sons
of Ham. It may still be objected, that though Canaan alone is _named_ in
the curse, yet the 23d and 24th verses show the posterity of Ham in
general to be meant. "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness
of his father, and told his two brethren without." "And Noah awoke from
his wine, and knew what his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said,"
&c. It is argued that this "_younger_ son" can not be _Canaan_, as he
was the _grandson_ of Noah, and therefore it must be _Ham._ We answer,
whoever that "_younger son_" was, _Canaan_ alone was named in the curse.
Besides, the Hebrew word _Ben_, signifies son, grandson, or _any_ of
_one_ the posterity of an individual. "_Know ye Laban the SON of
Nahor?_" Laban was the _grandson_ of Nahor. Gen. xxix. 5. "_Mephibosheth
the SON of Saul_." 2 Sam. xix. 24. Mephibosheth was the _grandson_ of
Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. "_There is a SON born to Naomi._" Ruth iv. 17. This
was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi. "_Let seven men of
his (Saul's) SONS be delivered unto us._" 2 Sam. xxi. 6. Seven of Saul's
_grandsons_ were delivered up. "_Laban rose up and kissed his SONS._"
Gen. xxi. 55. These were his _grandsons_. "_The driving of Jehu the SON
of Nimshi._" 2 Kings ix. 20. Jehu was the _grandson_ of Nimshi. Shall we
forbid the inspired writer to use the _same_ word when speaking of
_Noah's_ grandson? Further; Ham was not the "_younger_" son. The order
of enumeration makes him the _second_ son. If it be said that Bible
usage varies, the order of birth not always being observed in
enumerations, the reply is, that, enumeration in that order is the
_rule_, in any other order the _exception_. Besides, if a younger member
of a family, takes precedence of older ones in the family record, it is
a mark of pre-eminence, either in endowments, or providential
instrumentality. Abraham, though sixty years younger than his eldest
brother, stands first in the family genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history
shows him pre-eminent; besides, the Hebrew word _Hakkatan_ rendered "the
_younger_," means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isa. xl.
22. "_A LITTLE ONE shall become a thousand_." Isa. xxii. 24. "_All
vessels of SMALL quantity_." Ps. cxv. 13. "_He will bless them that fear
the Lord both SMALL and great_." Ex. xviii. 22. "_But every SMALL matter
they shall judge_." It would be a literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if
it were translated thus. "When Noah knew what his little son[A], or
grandson (_Beno Hakkatan_) had done unto him, he said cursed be Canaan,"
&c. Further, even if the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, the
assumption that their enslavement fulfils this prophecy, lacks even
plausibility, for, only a _fraction_ of the Africans have at any time
been the slaves of other nations. If the objector say in reply, that a
large majority of the Africans have always been slaves _at home_, we
answer: _It is false in point of fact_, though zealously bruited often
to serve a turn; and _if it were true_, how does it help the argument?
The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be
_unto his_ BRETHREN," not unto _himself_!

[Footnote A: The French follows the same analogy; _grandson_ being
_petit fils_ (little son.)]



OBJECTION II.--"If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and
he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if
he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his
money." Ex. xxi. 20, 21. What was the design of this regulation? Was it
to grant masters an indulgence to beat servants with impunity, and an
assurance, that if they beat them to death, the offense shall not be
_capital_? This is substantially what commentators tell us. What Deity
do such men worship? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human
hecatombs, and snuffing carnage for incense? Did He who thundered from
Sinai's flames, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL," offer a bounty on _murder_?
Whoever analyzes the Mosaic system, will find a moot court in session,
trying law points--settling definitions, or laying down rules of
evidence, in almost every chapter. Num. xxxv. 10-22; Deut. xi. 11, and
xix. 4-6; Lev. xxiv. 19-22; Ex. xxi. 18, 19, are a few, out of many
cases stated, with tests furnished the judges by which to detect _the
intent_, in actions brought before them. Their ignorance of judicial
proceedings, laws of evidence, &c., made such instructions necessary.
The detail gone into, in the verses quoted, is manifestly to enable them
to get at the _motive_ and find out whether the master _designed_ to
kill. (1.) "If a man smite his servant with a _rod_."--The instrument
used, gives a clue to the _intent_. See Num. xxxv. 16, 18. A _rod_, not
an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other death-weapon--hence,
from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_ would be inferred;
for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_ for its weapon. But
if the servant die _under his hand_, then the unfitness of the
instrument, is point blank against him; for, to strike him with a _rod_
until he _dies_, argues a great many blows and great violence, and this
kept up to the death-gasp, showed an _intent to kill_. Hence "He shall
_surely_ be punished." But if he continued _a day or two_, the _length
of time that he lived_, together with the _kind_ of instrument used, and
the master's pecuniary interest in his _life_, ("he is his _money_,")
all made a strong case of circumstantial evidence, showing that the
master did not design to kill. Further, the word _nakam_, here rendered
_punished_, is _not so rendered in another instance_. Yet it occurs
thirty-five times in the Old Testament, and in almost every place is
translated "_avenge_," in a few, "_to take vengeance_," or "_to
revenge_," and in this instance ALONE, "_punish_." As it stands in our
translation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the _master_, whereas
it should refer to the _crime_, and the word rendered _punished_, should
have been rendered _avenged_. The meaning is this: If a man smite his
servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, IT (the
death) shall surely be avenged, or literally, _by avenging it shall be
avenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be _avenged_ by the
_death_ of the master. So in the next verse, "If he continue a day or
two," his death is not to be avenged by the _death_ of the _master_, as
in that case the crime was to be adjudged _manslaughter_, and not
_murder_. In the following verse, another case of personal injury is
stated, for which the injurer is to pay a _sum of money_; and yet our
translators employ the same phraseology in both places. One, an instance
of deliberate, wanton, killing by piecemeal. The other, an accidental,
and comparatively slight injury--of the inflicter, in both cases, they
say the same thing! "He shall surely be punished." Now, just the
discrimination to be looked for where God legislates, is marked in the
original. In the case of the servant wilfully murdered, He says, "It
(the death) shall surely be _avenged_," that is, the life of the wrong
doer shall expiate the crime. The same word is used in the Old
Testament, when the greatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the
perpetrators to _destruction_. In the case of the unintentional injury,
in the following verse, God says, "He shall surely be _fined_,"
(_Aunash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges determine." The simple meaning
of the word _anash_, is to lay a fine. It is used in Deut. xxii. 19:
"They shall amerce him in one hundred shekels," and in 2 Chron. xxxvi.
3: "He condemned (_mulcted_) the land in a hundred talents of gold."
That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was neither imprisonment, nor
stripes, nor a fine, but that it was _taking the master's life_ we
infer, (1.) From the _use_ of the word _nakam_. See Gen. iv. 24; Josh.
x. 13; Judg. xiv. 7; xvi. 28; I Sam. xiv. 24; xviii. 25; xxv. 31; 2 Sam.
iv. 8; Judg. v. 2: I Sam. xxv. 26-33. (2.) From the express statute,
Lev. xxiv. 17; "He that killeth ANY man shall surely be put to death."
Also Num. xxxv. 30, 31: "Whoso killeth ANY person, the murderer shall be
put to death. Moreover, ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a
murderer which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death."
(3.) The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, "Death by the sword
shall surely be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem. "Vengeance shall be
taken for him to the _uttermost_." Jarchi, the same. The Samaritan
version: "He shall die the death," Again the clause "for he is his
money," is quoted to prove that the servant is his master's property,
and therefore, if he died, the master was not to be punished. The
assumption is, that the phrase, "HE IS HIS MONEY." proves not only that
the servant is _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an _article
of property_. If the advocates of slavery insist upon taking the
principle of interpretation into the Bible, and turning it loose, let
them stand and draw in self-defence. If they endorse for it at one
point, they must stand sponsors all around the circle. It will be too
late to cry for quarter when its stroke clears the table, and tilts them
among the sweepings beneath. The Bible abounds with such expressions as
the following: "This (bread) is my body;" "this (wine) _is_ my blood;"
"all they (the Israelites) _are_ brass and tin;" "this (water) _is_ the
blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "the Lord God
_is_ a sun and a shield;" "God _is_ love;" "the seven good ears _are_
seven years, and the seven good kine _are_ seven years;" "the tree of
the field _is_ man's life;" "God _is_ a consuming fire;" "he _is_ his
money," &c. A passion for the exact _literalities_ of the Bible is so
amiable, it were hard not to gratify it in this case. The words in the
original are (_Kaspo-hu_,) "his _silver_ is he." The objector's
principle of interpretation is a philosopher's stone! Its miracle touch
transmutes five feet eight inches of flesh and bones into _solid
silver!_ Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble with
all--reasoning against "_forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and,
Deut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase,
"_He is his money_," is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since,
if the master had killed him, it would have taken money out of his
pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the
fact of his living some time after the injury_, (if the master _meant_
to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it,) all together
make a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master of
_intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector's _inferences_. One
is, that as the master might dispose of his _property_ as he pleased, he
was not to be punished, if he destroyed it. Whether the servant died
under the master's hand, or after a day or two, he was _equally_ his
property, and the objector admits that in the _first_ case the master is
to be "surely punished" for destroying _his own property!_ The other
inference is, that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the
master of _intent to kill_, the loss of the slave would be a sufficient
punishment for inflicting the injury which caused his death. This
inference makes the Mosaic law false to its own principles. A _pecuniary
loss_ was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the _life_ of
another. In such case, the law spurned money, whatever the sum. God
would not cheapen human life, by balancing it with such a weight. "Ye
shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer, but he shall
surely be put to death." Num. xxxv. 31. Even in excusable homicide,
where an axe slipped from the helve and killed a man, no sum of money
availed to release from confinement in the city of refuge, until the
death of the High Priest. Numb. xxxv. 32. The doctrine that the loss of
the servant would be a penalty _adequate_ to the desert of the master,
admits his _guilt_ and his desert of _some_ punishment, and it
prescribes a kind of punishment, rejected by the law in all cases where
man took the life of man, whether with or without the intent to kill. In
short, the objector annuls an integral part of the system--makes a _new_
law, and coolly metes out such penalty as he thinks fit. Divine
legislation revised and improved! The master who struck out his
servant's tooth, whether intentionally or not, was required to set him
free. The _pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though he had
killed him. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so that he
dies of his wounds; another accidentally strikes out his servant's
tooth,--_the pecuniary loss of both cases is the same_. If the loss of
the slave's services is punishment sufficient for the crime of killing
him, would _God_ command the _same_ punishment for the _accidental_
knocking out of a _tooth?_ Indeed, unless the injury was done
_inadvertantly_, the loss of the servant's services was only a _part_ of
the punishment--mere reparation to the _individual_ for injury done; the
_main_ punishment, that strictly _judicial_, was reparation to the
_community_. To set the servant free, and thus proclaim his injury, his
right to redress, and the measure of it--answered not the ends of
_public_ justice. The law made an example of the offender. That "those
that remain might hear and fear." "If a man cause a blemish in his
neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for
breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Ye shall have one manner of law as
well for the STRANGER as for one of your own country." Lev xxiv. 19, 20,
22. Finally, if a master smote out his servant's tooth the law smote out
_his_ tooth--thus redressing the _public_ wrong; and it cancelled the
servant's obligation to the master, thus giving some compensation for
the injury done, and exempting him form perilous liabilities in future.



OBJECTION III. "Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have
shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy
bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the stranger that do
sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are
with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your
possessions. And ye shall take them as an inheritance of your children
from you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen
forever." Lev, xxv. 44-46.

The _points_ in these verses urged as proof, that the Mosaic system
sanctioned slavery, are 1. The word "BONDMEN." 2. "BUY." 3. "INHERITANCE
AND POSSESSION." and 4. "FOREVER."

The _buying_ of servants was discussed, pp. 17-22, and holding them as a
"possession." pp. 37-46. We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery
is derivable from the terms "bondmen," "inheritance," and "forever."

1. "BONDMEN." The fact that servants from the heathen are called
"_bondmen_," while others are called "_servants_," is quoted as proof
that the former were slaves. As the caprices of King James' translators
were not inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The word
here rendered bondmen is uniformly rendered servants elsewhere. The
Hebrew word "_ebedh_," the plural of which is here translated "bondmen,"
is in Isa. xlii. 1, applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_ (bondman,
slave?) whom I have chosen." So Isa. lii. 13. "Behold my _servant_
(Christ) shall deal prudently." In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, to _King
Rehoboam_. "And they spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a _servant_
unto this people, then they will be thy _servants_ forever." In 2 Chron.
xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, to the king and all the nation. In fine, the word is
applied to _all_ persons doing service for others--to magistrates, to
all governmental officers, to tributaries, to all the subjects of
governments, to younger sons--defining their relation to the first born,
who is called _Lord_ and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah,
and in respectful addresses not less than _fifty_ times in the Old
Testament.

If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, if
Abraham had thousands and if they _abounded_ under the Mosaic system,
why had their language _no word_ that _meant slave_? That language must
be wofully poverty-stricken, which has no signs to represent the most
common and familiar objects and conditions. To represent by the same
word, and without figure, property, and the owner of that property, is a
solecism. Ziba was an "_ebedh_," yet he "_owned_" (!) twenty _ebedhs_!
In our language, we have both _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we
have both the _things_ and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a
sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but
our dictionaries give us none. Why? Because there is no such _thing_.
But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word _ebedh_
if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. Their _national_
servants or tributaries, are spoken of frequently, but domestic servants
so rarely that no necessity existed, even if they were slaves, for
coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their being domestics, under
_heathen laws and usages_ proclaimed their _liabilities_, their
_locality_ made a _specific_ term unnecessary. But if the Israelites had
not only _servants_, but a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning
slave_, would have been indispensable for every day convenience.
Further, the laws of the Mosaic system were so many sentinels on the
outposts to warn off foreign practices. The border ground of Canaan, was
quarantine ground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse in usages
between the without and the within.

2. "FOREVER." This is quoted to prove that servants were to serve during
their life time, and their posterity from generation to generation. No
such idea is contained in the passage. The word "forever," instead of
defining the length of _individual_ service, proclaims the permanence of
the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that their
_permanent domestics_ should be of the Strangers, and not of the
Israelites: it declares the duration of that general provision. As if
God had said, "You shall _always_ get your _permanent_ laborers from the
nations round about you--your servants shall always be of that class of
persons." As it stands in the original it is plain--"Forever of them
shall ye serve yourselves." This is the literal rendering.

That "_forever_" refers to the permanent relations of a _community_,
rather than to the services of _individuals_, is a fair inference from
the form of the expression, "Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the
_heathen_. Of THEM shall ye buy," &c. "THEY shall be your possession."
To say nothing of the uncertainty of _those individuals_ surviving those
_after_ whom they are to live, the language used, applies more naturally
to a _body_ of people, than to _individual_ servants. Besides
_perpetual_ service cannot be argued from the term _forever_. The ninth
and tenth verses of the same chapter, limit it absolutely by the
jubilee. "Then thou shalt cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound * *
throughout ALL your land." "And ye shall proclaim liberty throughout all
the land unto ALL the inhabitants thereof." It may be objected that
"inhabitants" here means _Israelitish_ inhabitants alone. The command
is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL _the inhabitants
thereof_." Besides, in the sixth verse, there is an enumeration of the
different classes of the inhabitants, in which servants and Strangers
are included; and in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the
sabbatical year, the Strangers are included in the precepts,
prohibitions, and promises. Again: the year of jubilee was ushered in,
by the day of atonement. What did these institutions show forth? The day
of atonement prefigured the atonement of Christ, and the year of
jubilee, the gospel jubilee. And did they prefigure an atonement and a
jubilee to Jews only? Were they types of sins remitted, and of salvation
proclaimed to the nation of Israel alone? Is there no redemption for us
Gentiles in these ends of the earth, and is our hope presumption and
impiety? Did that old partition wall survive the shock, that made earth
quake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and rent the temple
veil? and did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder direr perdition
from its frowning battlements on all without? No! The God of our
salvation lives "Good tidings of great joy shall be to ALL people." One
shout shall swell from all the ransomed, "Thou hast redeemed us unto God
by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation."
To deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to the servants from
the _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_. It not only eclipses the
glory of the Gospel, but strikes out the sun. The refusal to release
servants at the jubilee falsified and disannulled a grand leading type
of the atonement, and was a libel on the doctrine of Christ's
redemption. Finally, even if _forever_ did refer to _individual_
service, we have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee.
The same word defines the length of time which _Jewish_ servants served
who did not go out in the _seventh_ year. And all admit that they went
out at the jubilee. Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17. The 23d verse of the
same chapter is quoted to prove that "_forever_" in the 46th verse,
extends beyond the jubilee. "The land shall not be sold FOREVER, for the
land is mine"--since it would hardly be used in different senses in the
same general connection. As _forever_, in the 46th verse, respects the
_general arrangement_, and not _individual service_ the objection does
not touch the argument. Besides in the 46th verse, the word used, is
_Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that may be. Whereas
in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning, a _cutting off_.

3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION," "Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE
for your children after you to inherit them for a possession." This
refers to the _nations_, and not to the _individual_ servants, procured
from these nations. We have already shown, that servants could not be
held as a _property_-possession, and inheritance; that they became
servants of their _own accord_, and were paid wages; that they were
released by law from their regular labor nearly _half the days in each
year_, and thoroughly _instructed_; that the servants were _protected_
in all their personal, social and religious rights, equally with their
masters &c. All remaining, after these ample reservations, would be
small temptation, either to the lust of power or of lucre; a profitable
"possession" and "inheritance," truly! What if our American slaves were
all placed in _just such a condition_ Alas, for that soft, melodious
circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!" Verily, emphasis
would be cadence, and euphony and irony meet together!  What eager
snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of connection,
principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by
other passages--and all to eke out such a sense as sanctifies existing
usages, thus making God pander for lust. The words _nahal_ and _nahala_,
inherit and inheritance by no means necessarily signify _articles of
property_. "The people answered the king and said, we have none
_inheritance_ in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they moan
gravely to disclaim the holding of their kin; as an article of
_property_? "Children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps.
cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine _inheritance_."
Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children,
does he make them _articles of property_? Are forgiveness, and
chattel-making, synonymes? "Thy testimonies have I taken as a
_heritage_" (inheritance.) Ps. cxix. 111. "_I_ am their _inheritance_."
Ezek. xliv. 28. "I will give thee the heathen for thine _inheritance_."
Ps. ii. 8. "For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he
forsake his _inheritance_." Ps. xciv 14. see also Deut. iv. 20; Josh.
xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov. xiv. 8. The question
whether the servants were a PROPERTY-"_possession_," has been already
discussed--pp. 37-46--we need add in this place but a word, _ahuzza_
rendered "_possession_." "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren,
and gave them a _possession_ in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlii. 11. In
what sense was Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites? Answer, in the
sense of _having it to live in_. In what sense were the Israelites to
_possess_ these nations, and _take them_ as an _inheritance for their
children_? Answer, they possessed them as a permanent source of supply
for domestic or household servants. And this relation to these nations
was to go down to posterity as a standing regulation, having the
certainty and regularity of a descent by inheritance. The sense of the
whole regulation may be given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, which thou
shalt have, shall be of the nations that are round about you, of _them_
shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of
the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of _them_ shall ye get, and of
their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and
_they_ shall be your permanent resource." "And ye shall take them as a
_perpetual_ provision for your children after you, to hold as a
_constant source of supply_. Always _of them_ shall ye serve
yourselves." The design of the passage is manifest from its structure.
It was to point out the _class_ of persons from which they were to get
their supply of servants, and the _way_ in which they were to get them.



OBJECTION IV. "If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and
be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a BOND-SERVANT,
but as an HIRED-SERVANT, and as a sojourner shall he be with thee, and
shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee." Lev. xxv. 39, 40.

As only _one_ class is called "_hired_," it is inferred that servants of
the _other_ class were _not paid_ for their labor. That God, with
thundering anathemas against those who "used their neighbor's service
without wages," granted a special indulgence to his chosen people to
force others to work, and rob them of earnings, provided always, in
selecting their victims, they spared "the gentlemen of property and
standing," and pounced only upon the strangers and the common people.
The inference that "_hired_" is synonymous with _paid_, and that those
servants not _called_ "hired" were not _paid_ for their labor, is a mere
assumption. The meaning of the English verb _to hire_, is to procure for
a _temporary_ use at a certain price--to engage a person to temporary
service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew word
"_saukar_." It is not used when the procurement of _permanent_ service
is spoken of. Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who
constituted a stationary part of the family, have been designated by the
same term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinction on
this subject, are familiar as table-talk. In many families the domestics
perform only the _regular_ work. Whatever is occasional merely, as the
washing of a family, is done by persons hired expressly for the purpose.
The familiar distinction between the two classes, is "servants," and
"hired help," (not _paid_ help.) _Both classes are paid_. One is
permanent, the other occasional and temporary, and therefore in this
case called "_hired_[A]."

[Footnote A: To suppose a servant robbed of his earnings because he is
not called a _hired_ servant is profound induction! If I employ a man at
twelve dollars a month to work my farm, he is my "_hired_" man, but if
_I give him such a portion of the crop_, or in other words, if he works
my farm "_on shares_," every farmer knows that he is no longer called my
"_hired_" man. Yet he works the same farm, in the same way, at the same
time, and with the same teams and tools; and does the same amount of
work in the year, and perhaps earns twenty dollars a month, instead of
twelve. Now as he is no longer called "_hired_," and as he still works
my farm, suppose my neighbours sagely infer, that since he is not my
"_hired_" laborer, I _rob_ him of his earnings and with all the gravity
of owls, pronounce the oracular decision, and hoot it abroad. My
neighbors are deep divers!--like some theological professors, they not
only go to the bottom but come up covered with the tokens.]

A variety of particulars are recorded distinguishing _hired_ from
_bought_ servants. (1.) Hired servants were paid daily at the close of
their work. Lev. xix 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Job. vii. 2; Matt. xx. 8.
"_Bought_" servants were paid in advance, (a reason for their being
called _bought_,) and those that went out at the seventh year received a
_gratuity_. Deut. xv. 12, 13. (2.) The "hired" were paid _in money_, the
"bought" received their _gratuity_, at least, in grain, cattle, and the
product of the vintage. Deut. xiv. 17. (3.) The "hired" _lived_ in their
own families, the "bought" were part of their masters' families. (4.)
The "hired" supported their families out of their wages: the "bought"
and their families were supported by the master _besides_ their wages.
The "bought" servants were, _as a class, superior to the hired_--were
more trust-worthy, had greater privileges, and occupied a higher station
in society. (1.) They were intimately incorporated with the family of
the masters, were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities,
from which hired servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10; Ex. xii, 43, 45.
(2.) Their interests were far more identified with those of their
masters' family. They were often, actually or prospectively, heirs of
their masters' estates, as in the case of Eliezer, of Ziba, and the sons
of Bilhah and Zilpah. When there were no sons, or when they were
unworthy, bought servants were made heirs. Prov. xvii. 2. We find traces
of this usage in the New Testament. "But when the husbandmen saw him,
they reasoned among themselves, saying, this is the _heir_, come let us
kill him, _that the inheritance may be ours._" Luke xx. 14. In no
instance does a _hired_ servant inherit his master's estate. (3.)
Marriages took place between servants and their master's daughters.
Sheshan had a _servant_, an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan
gave his daughter to Jarha his servant to wife. 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35.
There is no instance of a _hired_ servant forming such an alliance. (4.)
Bought servants and their descendants were treated with the same
affection and respect as the other members of the family.[A]. The
treatment of Abraham's servants, Gen. xxv.--the intercourse between
Gideon and his servant, Judg. vii. 10, 11; Saul and his servant, 1 Sam.
iv. 5, 22; Jonathan and his servant, 1 Sam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and
his servant, are illustrations. No such tie seems to have existed
between _hired_ servants and their masters. Their untrustworthiness was
proverbial. John ix. 12, 13. None but the _lowest class_ engaged as
hired servants, and the kinds of labor assigned to them required little
knowledge and skill. Various passages show the low repute and trifling
character of the class from which they were hired. Judg. ix. 4; 1 Sam.
ii. 5. The superior condition of bought servants is manifest in the high
trusts confided to them, and in their dignity and authority in the
household. In no instance is a _hired_ servant thus distinguished. The
_bought_ servant is manifestly the master's representative in the
family--with plenipotentiary powers over adult children, even
negotiating marriage for them. Abraham adjured his servant not to take a
wife for Isaac of the daughters of the Canaanites. The servant himself
selected the individual. Servants also exercised discretionary power in
the management of their masters' estates, "And the servant took ten
camels of the camels of his master, _for all the goods of his master
were under his hand_." Gen. xxiv. 10. The reason assigned for taking
them, is not that such was Abraham's direction, but that the servant had
discretionary control. Servants had also discretionary power in the
_disposal of property_. See Gen. xxiv. 22, 23, 53. The condition of Ziba
in the house of Mephibosheth, is a case in point. So in Prov. xvii. 2.
Distinct traces of this estimation are to be found in the New Testament,
Matt. xxiv. 45; Luke xii, 42, 44. So in the parable of the talents; the
master seems to have set up each of his servants in trade with a large
capital. The unjust steward had large _discretionary_ power, was
"accused of wasting his master's goods," and manifestly regulated with
his debtors, the _terms_ of settlement. Luke xvi. 4-8. Such trusts were
never reposed in _hired_ servants.

[Footnote A: "For the _purchased servant_ who is an Israelite, or
proselyte, shall fare as his master. The master shall not eat fine
bread, and his servant bread of bran. Nor yet drink old wine, and give
his servant new; nor sleep on soft pillows, and bedding, and his servant
on straw. I say unto you, that he that gets a _purchased_ servant does
well to make him as his friend, or he will prove to his employer as if
he got himself a master."--Maimonides, in Mishna Kiddushim. Chap. 1,
Sec. 2.]

The inferior condition of _hired_ servants, is illustrated in the
parable of the prodigal son. When the prodigal, perishing with hunger
among the swine and husks, came to himself, his proud heart broke; "I
will arise," he cried, "and go to my father." And then to assure his
father of the depth of his humility, resolved to add, "Make me as one of
thy _hired_ servants." If _hired_ servants were the _superior_ class--to
apply for the situation, savored little of that sense of unworthiness
that seeks the dust with hidden face, and cries "unclean." Unhumbled
nature _climbs_; or if it falls, clings fast, where first it may.
Humility sinks of its own weight, and in the lowest deep, digs lower.
The design of the parable was to illustrate on the one hand, the joy of
God, as he beholds afar off, the returning sinner "seeking an injured
father's face" who runs to clasp and bless him with unchiding welcome;
and on the other, the contrition of the penitent, turning homeward with
tears from his wanderings, his stricken spirit breaking with its
ill-desert he sobs aloud. "The lowest place, _the lowest place_, I can
abide no other." Or in those inimitable words, "Father I have sinned
against Heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy
son; make me as one of thy HIRED servants." The supposition that _hired_
servants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of
winning beauty and pathos. It is manifest to every careful student of
the Bible, that _one_ class of servants, was on terms of equality with
the children and other members of the family. (Hence the force of Paul's
declaration, Gal. iv. 1, "Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as
he is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, though he be lord of
all.") If this were the _hired_ class, the prodigal was a sorry specimen
of humility. Would our Lord have put such language upon the lips of one
held up by himself, as a model of gospel humility, to illustrate its
deep sense of an ill-desert? If this is _humility_, put it on stilts,
and set it a strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in
apeing it.

Israelites and Strangers, belonged indiscriminately to _each_ class of
the servants, the _bought_ and the _hired_. That those in the former
class, whether Jews or Strangers, rose to honors and authority in the
family circle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been
shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges,
merely _political_, the hired servants from the _Israelites_, were more
favored than even the bought servants from the _Strangers_. No one from
the Strangers, however wealthy or highly endowed, was eligible to the
highest office, nor could he own the soil. This last disability seems to
have been one reason for the different periods of service required of
the two classes of bought servants--the Israelites and the Strangers.
The Israelite was to serve six years--the Stranger until the jubilee. As
the Strangers could not own the soil, nor even houses, except within
walled towns, most would attach themselves to Israelitish families.
Those who were wealthy, or skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming
servants would need servants for their own use, and as inducements for
the Stranger's to become servants to the Israelites, were greater than
persons of their own nation could hold out to them, these wealthy
Strangers would naturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants.
Lev. xxv. 47. In a word, such was the political condition of the
Strangers, that the Jewish polity offered a virtual bounty, to such as
would become permanent servants, and thus secure those privileges
already enumerated, and for their children in the second generation a
permanent inheritance. Ezek. xlvii. 21-23. None but the monied
aristocracy would be likely to decline such offers. On the other hand,
the Israelites, owning all the soil, and an inheritance of land being a
sacred possession, to hold it free of incumbrance was with every
Israelite, a delicate point, both of family honor and personal
character. 1 Kings xxi. 3. Hence, to forego the control of one's
inheritance, after the division of the paternal domain, or to be kept
out of it after having acceded to it, was a burden grievous to be borne.
To mitigate as much as possible such a calamity, the law released the
Israelitish servant at the end of six years[A]; as, during that time--if
of the first class--the partition of the patrimonial land might have
taken place; or, if of the second, enough money might have been earned
to disencumber his estate, and thus he might assume his station as a
lord of the soil. If neither contingency had occurred, then after
another six years the opportunity was again offered, and so on, until
the jubilee. So while strong motives urged the Israelite to discontinue
his service as soon as the exigency had passed which made him a servant,
every consideration impelled the _Stranger_ to _prolong_ his term of
service; and the same kindness which dictated the law of six years'
service for the Israelite, assigned as a general rule, a much longer
period to the Gentile servant, who had every inducement to protract the
term. It should be borne in mind, that adult Jews ordinarily became
servants, only as a temporary expedient to relieve themselves from
embarrassment, and ceased to be such when that object was effected. The
poverty that forced them to it was a calamity, and their service was
either a means of relief, or a measure of prevention; not pursued as a
permanent business, but resorted to on emergencies--a sort of episode in
the main scope of their lives. Whereas with the Strangers, it was a
_permanent employment_, pursued both as a _means_ of bettering their own
condition, and that of their posterity, and as an _end_ for its own
sake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not
otherwise attainable.

[Footnote A: Another reason for protracting the service until the
seventh year, seems to have been the coincidence of that period with
other arrangements, in the Jewish economy. Its pecuniary
responsibilities, social relations, and general internal structure, were
_graduated_ upon a septennial scale. Besides as those Israelites who
became servants through poverty, would not sell themselves, till other
expedients to recruit their finances had failed--(Lev. xxv. 35)--their
_becoming servants_ proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as
demanded the labor of a _course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]

We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are
called by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_,) (1.) They
followed it as a _permanent business_. (2.) Their term of service was
_much longer_ than that of the other class. (3.) As a class they
doubtless greatly outnumbered the Israelitish servants. (4.) All the
Strangers that dwelt in the land were _tributaries_, required to pay an
annual tax to the government, either in money, or in public service,
(called a "_tribute of land-service_;") in other words, all the
Strangers were _national servants_ to the Israelites, and the same
Hebrew word used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates
_national_ servants or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, 14. 2 Chron.
viii. 7-9. Deut xx. 11. 2 Sam. x. 19. 1 Kings ix. 21, 22. 1 Kings iv.
21. Gen. xxvii. 29. The same word is applied to the Israelites, when
they paid tribute to other nations. 2 Kings xvii. 3. Judg. iii. 8, 14.
Gen. xlix. 15. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought
servants, was in their _kinds_ of service. The servants from the
Strangers were properly the _domestics_, or household servants, employed
in all family work, in offices of personal attendance, and in such
mechanical labor, as was required by increasing wants, and needed
repairs. The Jewish bought servants seem almost exclusively
_agricultural_. Besides being better fitted for it by previous
habits--agriculture, and the tending of cattle, were regarded by the
Israelites as the most honorable of all occupations. After Saul was
elected king, and escorted to Gibeah, the next report of him is, "_And
behold Saul came after the herd out of the field_." 1 Sam. xi. 7. Elisha
"was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen." 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah
"loved husbandry." 2 Chron. xxvi. 10. Gideon _was "threshing wheat_"
when called to lead the host against the Midianites. Judg. vi. 11. The
superior honorableness of agriculture, is shown, in that it was
protected and supported by the fundamental law of the theocracy--God
indicating it as the chief prop of the government. The Israelites were
like permanent fixtures on their soil, so did they cling to it. To be
agriculturalists on their own inheritances, was with them the grand
claim to honorable estimation. Agriculture being pre-eminently a
_Jewish_ employment, to assign a native Israelite to other employments
as a business, was to break up his habits, do violence to cherished
predilections, and put him to a kind of labor in which he had no skill,
and which he deemed degrading. In short, it was in the earlier ages of
the Mosaic system, practically to _unjew_ him, a hardship and rigor
grievous to be borne, as it annihilated a visible distinction between
the descendants of Abraham and the Strangers.--_To guard this and
another fundamental distinction_, God instituted the regulation which
stands at the head of this branch of our inquiry, "If thy brother that
dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not
compel him to serve as a bond-servant." In other words, thou shalt not
put him to servant's work--to the business, and into the condition of
domestics. In the Persian version it is translated thus, "Thou shalt not
assign to him the work of _servitude_." In the Septuagint, "He shall not
serve thee with the service of a _domestic_." In the Syriac, "Thou shalt
not employ him after the manner of servants." In the Samaritan, "Thou
shalt not require him to serve in the service of a servant." In the
Targum of Onkelos, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a
household servant." In the Targum of Jonathan, "Thou shalt not cause him
to serve according to the usages of the servitude of servants."[A] The
meaning of the passage is, _thou shalt not assign him to the same grade,
nor put him to the same service, with permanent domestics._ The
remainder of the regulation is,--"_But as an hired servant and as a
sojourner shall he be with thee._" Hired servants were not incorporated
into the families of their masters: they still retained their own family
organization, without the surrender of any domestic privilege, honor, or
authority; and this even though they resided under the same roof with
their master. While bought servants were associated with their master's
families at meals, at the Passover, and at other family festivals, hired
servants and sojourners were not. Ex. xii. 44, 45; Lev. xxii. 10, 11.
Hired servants were not subject to the authority of their masters in any
such sense as the master's wife, children, and bought servants. Hence
the only form of oppressing hired servants spoken of in the Scriptures
as practicable to masters, is that _of keeping back their wages_. To
have taken away such privileges in the case under consideration, would
have been pre-eminent "_rigor_," for it was not a servant born in the
house of a master, not a minor, whose minority had been sold by the
father, neither was it one who had not yet acceded to his inheritance:
nor finally, one who had received the _assignment_ of his inheritance,
but was working off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its
possession and control. But it was that of _the head of a family_, who
had known better days, now reduced to poverty, forced to relinquish the
loved inheritance of his fathers, with the competence and respectful
consideration its possession secured to him, and to be indebted to a
neighbor for shelter, sustenance, and employment. So sad a reverse,
might well claim sympathy; but one consolation cheers him in the house
of his pilgrimage; he is an _Israelite--Abraham is his father_, and now
in his calamity he clings closer than ever, to the distinction conferred
by his birth-right. To rob him of this, were "the unkindest cut of all."
To have assigned him to a grade of service filled only by those whose
permanent business was serving, would have been to "rule over him with"
peculiar "rigor." "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a
bond-servant," or literally, _thou shalt not serve thyself with him,
with the service of a servant_, guaranties his political privileges, and
a kind and grade of service, comporting with his character and relations
as an Israelite. And "as a _hired_ servant, and as a sojourner shall he
be with thee," secures to him his family organization, the respect and
authority due to its head, and the general consideration resulting from
such a station. Being already in possession of his inheritance, and the
head of a household, the law so arranged the conditions of his service
as to _alleviate_ as much as possible the calamity, which had reduced
him from independence and authority, to penury and subjection. The
import of the command which concludes this topic in the forty-third
verse, ("Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor,") is manifestly this,
you shall not disregard those differences in previous associations,
station, authority, and political privileges, upon which this regulation
is based; for to hold this class of servants _irrespective_ of these
distinctions, and annihilating them, is to "rule with rigor." The same
command is repeated in the forty-sixth verse, and applied to the
distinction between servants of Jewish, and those of Gentile extraction,
and forbids the overlooking of distinctive Jewish peculiarities, the
disregard of which would be _rigorous_ in the extreme[B]. The
construction commonly put upon the phrase "rule with rigor," and the
inference drawn from it, have an air vastly oracular. It is interpreted
to mean, "you shall not make him a chattel, and strip him of legal
protection, nor force him to work without pay." The inference is like
unto it, viz., since the command forbade such outrages upon the
Israelites, it permitted and commissioned their infliction upon the
Strangers. Such impious and shallow smattering captivates scoffers and
libertines; its flippancy and blasphemy, and the strong scent of its
loose-reined license works like a charm upon them. What boots it to
reason against such rampant affinities! In Ex. i. 13, it is said that
the Egyptians "made the children of Israel to _serve_ with rigor." This
rigor is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted and the _mode_ of
the exaction. The expression, "serve with rigor," is never applied to
the service of servants under the Mosaic system. The phrase, "thou shalt
not RULE over him with rigor," does not prohibit unreasonable exactions
of labor, nor inflictions of cruelty. Such were provided against
otherwise. But it forbids confounding the distinctions between a Jew and
a Stranger, by assigning the former to the same grade of service, for
the same term of time, and under the same political disabilities as the
latter.

[Footnote A:  Jarchi's comment on "Thou shall not compel him to serve as
a bond-servant" is, "The Hebrew servant is not to be required to do any
thing which is accounted degrading--such as all offices of personal
attendance, as loosing his master's shoe-latchet, bringing him water to
wash his feet and hands, waiting on him at table, dressing him, carrying
things to and from the bath. The Hebrew servant is to work with his
master as a son or brother, in the business of his farm, or other labor,
until his legal release."]


[Footnote B: The disabilities of the Strangers, which were distinctions,
based on a different national descent, and important to the preservation
of national characteristics, and a national worship, did not at all
affect their _social_ estimation. They were regarded according to their
character, and worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin,
employments, and political condition.]



We are now prepared to review at a glance, the condition of the
different classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each
class. In the possession of all fundamental rights, all classes of
servants were on an absolute equality, all were equally protected by law
in their persons, character, property and social relations; all were
voluntary, all were compensated for their labor, and released from it
nearly half of the days in each year; all were furnished with stated
instruction: none in either class were in any sense articles of
property, all were regarded as _men_, with the rights, interests, hopes
and destinies of _men_. In all these respects, _all_ classes of servants
among the Israelites, formed but ONE CLASS. The _different_ classes and
the differences in _each_ class, were, (1.) _Hired Servants._ This class
consisted both of Israelites and Strangers. Their employments were
different. The _Israelite_ was an agricultural servant. The Stranger was
a _domestic_ and _personal_ servant, and in some instances _mechanical_;
both were occasional and temporary. Both lived in their own families,
their wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work was done.
(2.) _Bought Servants_, (including those "born in the house.") This
class also, consisted of Israelites and Strangers, the same difference
in their kinds of employments noticed before. Both were paid in
advance[A], and neither was temporary. The Israelitish servant, with the
exception of the _freeholders_ was released after six years. The
stranger was a permanent servant, continuing until the jubilee. A marked
distinction obtained also between different classes of _Jewish_ bought
servants. Ordinarily, they were merged in their master's family, and,
like his wife and children, subject to his authority; (and, like them,
protected by law from its abuse.) But the _freeholder_ was a marked
exception: his family relations, and authority remained unaffected, nor
was he subjected as an inferior to the control of his master, though
dependent upon him for employment.

[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, doubtless lessened the price of
the purchase; the servant thus having the use of the money, and the
master assuming all the risks of life and health for labor: at the
expiration of the six year's contract, the master having suffered no
loss from the risk incurred at the making of it, was obliged by law to
release the servant with a liberal gratuity. The reason assigned for
this is, "he hath been worth a double hired servant unto thee in serving
thee six years," as if it had been said, as you have experienced no loss
from the risks of life, and ability to labor, incurred in the purchase,
and which lessened the price, and as, by being your servant for six
years, he has saved you the time and trouble of looking up and hiring
laborers on emergencies, therefore, "thou shalt furnish him liberally,"
&c.]

It should be kept in mind, that _both_ classes of servants, the
Israelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal natural and
religious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed
by those of their own people who were _not_ servants. They also shared
in common with them the political disabilities which appertained to all
Strangers, whether the servants of Jewish masters, or the masters of
Jewish servants. Further, the disabilities of the servants from the
Strangers were exclusively _political_ and _national._ (1.) They, in
common with all Strangers, could not own the soil. (2.) They were
ineligible to civil offices. (3.) They were assigned to employments less
honorable than those in which Israelitish servants engaged; agriculture
being regarded as fundamental to the existence of the state, other
employments were in less repute, and deemed _unjewish._

Finally, the Strangers, whether servants or masters, were all protected
equally with the descendants of Abraham. In respect to political
privileges, their condition was much like that of naturalized foreigners
in the United States; whatever their wealth or intelligence, or moral
principle, or love for our institutions, they can neither go to the
ballot-box, nor own the soil, nor be eligible to office. Let a native
American, be suddenly bereft of these privilege, and loaded with the
disabilities of an alien, and what to the foreigner would be a light
matter, to _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_. The recent condition
of the Jews and Catholics in England, is another illustration.
Rothschild, the late banker, though the richest private citizen in the
world, and perhaps master of scores of English servants, who sued for
the smallest crumbs of his favor, was, as a subject of the government,
inferior to the lowest among them. Suppose an Englishman of the
Established Church, were by law deprived of power to own the soil, of
eligibility to office and of the electoral franchise, would Englishmen
think it a misapplication of language, if it were said, the government
"rules over him with rigor?" And yet his person, property, reputation,
conscience, all his social relations, the disposal of his time, the
right of locomotion at pleasure, and of natural liberty in all respects,
are just as much protected by law as the Lord Chancellor's.



FINALLY,--As the Mosaic system was a great compound type, rife with
meaning in doctrine and duty; the practical power of the whole, depended
upon the exact observance of those distinctions and relations which
constituted its significancy. Hence, the care to preserve serve
inviolate the distinction between a _descendant of Abraham_ and a
_Stranger_, even when the Stranger was a proselyte, had gone through the
initiatory ordinances, entered the congregation, and become incorporated
with the Israelites by family alliance. The regulation laid down in Ex.
xxi. 2-6, is an illustration. In this case, the Israelitish servant,
whose term expired in six years, married one of his master's _permanent
female domestics_; but her marriage, did not release her master from
_his_ part of the contract for her whole term of service, nor from his
legal obligation to support and educate her children. Neither did it do
away that distinction, which marked her national descent by a specific
_grade_ and _term_ of service, nor impair her obligation to fulfill
_her_ part of the contract. Her relations as a permanent domestic grew
out of a distinction guarded with great care throughout the Mosaic
system. To render it void, would have been to divide the system against
itself. This God would not tolerate. Nor, on the other hand, would he
permit the master, to throw off the responsibility of instructing her
children, nor the care and expense of their helpless infancy and
rearing. He was bound to support and educate them, and all her children
born afterwards during her term of service. The whole arrangement
beautifully illustrates that wise and tender regard for the interests of
all the parties concerned, which arrays the Mosaic system in robes of
glory, and causes it to shine as the sun in the kingdom of our Father.
By this law, the children had secured to them a mother's tender care. If
the husband loved his wife and children, he could compel his master to
keep him, whether he had any occasion for his services or not. If he did
not love them, to be rid of him was a blessing; and in that case, the
regulation would prove an act for the relief of an afflicted family. It
is not by any means to be inferred, that the release of the servant in
the seventh year, either absolved him from the obligations of marriage,
or shut him out from the society of his family. He could doubtless
procure a service at no great distance from them, and might often do it,
to get higher wages, or a kind of employment better suited to his taste
and skill. The great number of days on which the law released servants
from regular labor, would enable him to spend much more time with his
family, than can be spent by most of the agents of our benevolent
societies with _their_ families, or by many merchants, editors, artists
&c., whose daily business is in New York, while their families reside
from ten to one hundred miles in the country.



We conclude this Inquiry by touching briefly upon an objection, which,
though not formally stated, has been already set aside by the whole
tenor of the foregoing argument. It is this,--"The slavery of the
Canaanites by the Israelites, was appointed by God as a commutation of
the punishment of death denounced against them for their sins." If the
absurdity of a sentence consigning persons to _death_, and at the same
time to perpetual _slavery_, did not sufficiently laugh at itself, it
would be small self-denial, in a case so tempting, to make up the
deficiency by a general contribution. For, _be it remembered_, only
_one_ statute was ever given respecting the disposition to be made of
the inhabitants of Canaan. If the sentence of death was pronounced
against them, and afterwards _commuted_, when? where? by whom? and in
what terms was the commutation, and where is it recorded? Grant, for
argument's sake, that all the Canaanites were sentenced to unconditional
extermination; as there was no reversal of the sentence, how can a right
to _enslave_ them, be drawn from such premises? The punishment of death
is one of the highest recognitions of man's moral nature possible. It
proclaims him _man_--rational, accountable, guilty, deserving death for
having done his utmost to cheapen human life, when the proof of its
priceless worth lived in his own nature. But to make him a _slave_,
cheapens to nothing _universal human nature_, and instead of healing a
wound, gives a death-stab. What! repair an injury to rational being in
the robbery of _one_ of its rights, by robbing it of _all_, and
annihilating their _foundation_--the everlasting distinction between
persons and things? To make a man a chattel, is not the _punishment_,
but the _annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and, so far as it goes, of
_all_ human beings. This commutation of the punishment of death, into
perpetual slavery, what a fortunate discovery! Alas! for the honor of
Deity, if commentators had not manned the forlorn hope, and by a timely
movement rescued the Divine character, at the very crisis of its fate,
from the perilous position in which inspiration had carelessly left it!
Here a question arises of sufficient importance for a separate
dissertation; but must for the present be disposed of in a few
paragraphs. WERE THE CANAANITES SENTENCED BY GOD TO INDIVIDUAL AND
UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION? As the limits of this inquiry forbid our
giving all the grounds of dissent from commonly received opinions, the
suggestions made, will be thrown out merely as QUERIES, rather than laid
down as _doctrines_. The directions as to the disposal of the
Canaanites, are mainly in the following passages: Ex. xxiii. 23-33;
xxxiv. 11; Deut. vii. 16-25; ix. 3; xxxi. 3-5. In these verses, the
Israelites are commanded to "destroy the Canaanites," "drive out,"
"consume," "utterly overthrow," "put out," "dispossess them," &c. Did
these commands enjoin the unconditional and universal destruction of the
_inhabitants_ or merely of the _body politic?_ The word _haram_, to
destroy, signifies _national_, as well as individual destruction, the
destruction of _political_ existence, equally with _personal_; of
governmental organization, equally with the lives of the subjects.
Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &c., to
mean _personal_ destruction, what meaning shall we give to the
expressions, "throw out before thee;" "cast out before thee;" "expel,"
"put out," "dispossess," &c., which are used in the same passages? "I
will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all
thine enemies _turn their backs unto thee_" Ex. xxiii. 27. Here "_all
thine enemies_" were to _turn their backs_ and "_all the people_" to be
"_destroyed_." Does this mean that God would let all their _enemies_
escape, but kill all their _friends_, or that he would _first_ kill "all
the people" and THEN make them "turn their backs," an army of runaway
corpses? If these commands required the destruction of all the
inhabitants, the Mosaic law was at war with itself, for directions as to
the treatment of native residents form a large part of it. See Lev. xix.
34; xxv. 35, 36; xx. 22. Ex. xxiii. 9; xxii. 21; Deut. i. 16, 17; x. 17,
19, xxvii. 19. We find, also that provision was made for them in the
cities of refuge. Num. xxxv. 15;--the gleanings of the harvest and
vintage were theirs, Lev. xix. 9, 10; xxiii. 22;--the blessings of the
Sabbath, Ex. xx. 10;--the privilege of offering sacrifices secured, Lev.
xxii. 18; and stated religious instruction provided for them, Deut.
xxxi. 9, 12. Now does this same law require the _individual
extermination_ of those whose lives and interests it thus protects?
These laws were given to the Israelites, long _before_ they entered
Canaan; and they must have inferred from them that a multitude of the
inhabitants of the land were to _continue_ in it, under their
government. Again Joshua was selected as the leader of Israel to execute
God's threatenings upon Canaan. He had no _discretionary_ power. God's
commands were his _official instructions_. Going beyond them would have
been usurpation; refusing to carry them out rebellion and treason. Saul
was rejected from being king for disobeying god's commands in a _single_
instance. Now, if God commanded the individual destruction of all the
Canaanites. Joshua _disobeyed him in every instance_. For at his death,
the Israelites still "_dwelt among them_," and each nation is mentioned
by name. Judg. i. 5, and yet we are told that Joshua "left nothing
undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses;" and that he "took all that
land." Josh. xi. 15-22. Also, that "there _stood not a man_ of _all_
their enemies before them." How can this be, if the command to _destroy_
enjoined _individual_ extermination, and the command to _drive out_,
unconditional expulsion from the country, rather than their expulsion
from the _possession_ or _ownership_ of it, as the lords of the soil?
True, multitudes of the Canaanites were slain, but not a case can be
found in which one was either killed or expelled who _acquiesced_ in the
transfer of the territory, and its sovereignty, from the inhabitants of
the land to the Israelites. Witness the case of Rahab and her kindred,
and the Gibeonites[A]. The Canaanites knew of the miracles wrought for
the Israelites; and that their land had been transferred to them as a
judgment for their sins. Josh. ii. 9-11; ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of them
were awed by these wonders, and made no resistance. Others defied God
and came out to battle. These occupied the fortified cities, were the
most inveterate heathen--the aristocracy of idolatry, the kings, the
nobility and gentry, the priests, with their crowds of satellite, and
retainers that aided in idolatrous rites, and the military forces, with
the chief profligates of both sexes. Many facts corroborate the general
position. Such as the multitude of _tributaries_ in the midst of Israel,
and that too, after they had "waxed strong," and the uttermost nations
quaked at the terror of their name--the Canaanites, Philistines, and
others, who became proselytes--as the Nethenims, Uriah the
Hittite--Rahab, who married one of the princes of Judah--Ittai--the six
hundred Gitites--David's body guard. 2 Sam. xv. 18, 21. Obededom the
Gittite, adopted into the tribe of Levi. Comp. 2 Sam. vi. 10, 11, with 1
Chron. xv. 18, and 1 Chron. xxvi. 45--Jaziz, and Obil. 1 Chron. xxvi.
30, 31, 33. Jephunneh the father of Caleb, the Kenite, registered in the
genealogies of the tribe of Judah, and the one hundred and fifty
thousand Canaanites, employed by Solomon in the building of the
Temple[B]. Besides, the greatest miracle on record, was wrought to save
a portion of those very Canaanites, and for the destruction of those who
would exterminate them. Josh. x. 12-14. Further--the terms employed in
the directions regulating the disposal of the Canaanites, such as "drive
out," "put out," "cast out," "expel," "dispossess," &c. seem used
interchangeably with "consume," "destroy," "overthrow," &c., and thus
indicate the sense in which the latter words are used. As an
illustration of the meaning generally attached to these and similar
terms, we refer to the history of the Amelekites. "I will utterly put
out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven." Ex. xxvii. 14. "Thou
shalt blot out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven; thou shalt
not forget it." Deut. xxv. 19. "Smite Amelek and _utterly destroy_ all
that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant
and suckling, ox and sheep." 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. "Saul smote the
Amelekites, and took Agag the king of the Amelekites, alive and UTTERLY
DESTROYED ALL THE PEOPLE with the edge of the sword." Verses 7, 8. In
verse 20, Saul says, "I have brought Agag, the king of Amelek, and have
_utterly destroyed_ the Amelekites." In 1 Sam. xxx. we find the
Amelekites marching an army into Israel, and sweeping everything before
them--and this in about eighteen years after they had _all been_
"UTTERLY DESTROYED!" Deut. xx. 16, 17, will probably be quoted against
the preceding view. We argue that the command in these verses, did not
include all the individuals of the Canaanitish nations, but only the
inhabitants of the _cities_, (and even those conditionally,) because,
only the inhabitants of the _cities_ are specified,--"of the _cities_ of
these people thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." Cities then,
as now, were pest-houses of vice--they reeked with abominations little
practiced in the country. On this account their influence would be far
more perilous to the Israelites than that of the country. Besides, they
were the centres of idolatry--there were the temples and altars, and
idols, and priests, without number. Even their buildings, streets, and
public walks were so many visibilities of idolatry. The reason assigned
in the 18th verse for exterminating them, strengthens the idea,--"that
they teach you not to do after all the abominations which they have done
unto their gods." This would be a reason for exterminating _all_ the
nations and individuals _around_ them, as all were idolaters; but God
commanded them, in certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact with
_any_ of them would be perilous--with the inhabitants of the _cities_
peculiarly, and of the _Canaanitish_ cities pre-eminently so. The 10th
and 11th verses contain the general rule prescribing the method in which
cities were to be summoned to surrender. They were first to receive the
offer of peace--if it was accepted, the inhabitants became
_tributaries_--but if they came out against Israel in battle, the _men_
were to be killed, and the women and little ones saved alive. The 15th
verse restricts this lenient treatment to the inhabitants of the cities
_afar off_. The 16th directs as to the disposal of the inhabitants of
Canaanitish cities. They were to save alive "nothing that breathed." The
common mistake has been, in supposing that the command in the 15th verse
refers to the _whole system of directions preceding_, commencing with
the 10th, whereas it manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_
specified in the 12th, 13th, and 14th, making a distinction between
those _Canaanitish_ cities that _fought_, and the cities _afar off_ that
fought--in one case destroying the males and females, and in the other,
the _males_ only. The offer of peace, and the _conditional
preservation_, were as really guarantied to _Canaanitish_ cities as to
others. Their inhabitants were not to be exterminated unless they came
out against Israel in battle. But let us settle this question by the
"law and the testimony." "There was not a city that made peace with the
children of Israel save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all
others they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their
hearts, that they should COME OUT AGAINST ISRAEL IN BATTLE, that he
might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that
he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses." Josh. xix. 19, 20.
That is, if they had _not_ come out against Israel in battle, they would
have had "favor" shown them, and would not have been "_destroyed
utterly._" The great design was to _transfer the territory_ of the
Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute sovereignty
in every respect_; to annihilate their political organizations, civil
polity, and jurisprudence and their system of religion, with all its
rights and appendages; and to substitute therefor, a pure theocracy,
administered by Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and
agents. In a word the people were to be _denationalized_, their
political existence annihilated, their idol temples, altars, images
groves and heathen rites destroyed, and themselves put under tribute.
Those who resisted the execution of Jehovah's purpose were to be killed,
while those who quietly submitted to it were to be spared. All had the
choice of these alternatives, either free egress out of the land[C]; or
acquiescence in the decree, with life and residence as tributaries,
under the protection of the government; or resistance to the execution
of the decree, with death. "_And it shall come to pass, if they will
diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, the Lord
liveth as they taught my people to swear by Baal_; THEN SHALL THEY BE
BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE."

[Footnote A: Perhaps it will be objected, that the preservation of the
Gibeonites, and of Rahab and her kindred, was a violation of the command
of God. We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such intimation.
If God had strictly commanded them to _exterminate all the Canaanites_,
their pledge to save themselves was neither a repeal of the statute, nor
absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ was the
import of the command, would God have permitted such an act to pass
without rebuke? Would he have established such a precedent when Israel
had hardly passed the threshold of Canaan, and was then striking the
first blow of a half century war? What if they _had_ passed their word
to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding than God's command?
So Saul seems to have passed _his_ word to Agag; yet Samuel hewed him in
pieces, because in saving his life, Saul had violated God's command.
When Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites in "his zeal for the children of
Israel and Judah," God sent upon Israel three years famine for it. When
David inquired of them what atonement he should make, they say, "The man
that devised against us, that we should be destroyed from _remaining in
any of the coasts of Israel_, let seven of his sons be delivered," &c. 2
Sam. xxii. 1-6.]


[Footnote B: If the Canaanites were devoted by God to unconditional
extermination, to have employed them in the erection of the
temple,--what was it but the climax of impiety? As well might they
pollute its altars with swine's flesh, or make their sons pass through
the fire to Moloch.]


[Footnote C: Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had abandoned their
territory at the tidings of Israel's approach, did God's command require
the Israelites to chase them to the ends of the earth and hunt them out,
until every Canaanite was destroyed? It is too preposterous for belief
and yet it follows legitimately from that construction, which interprets
the terms "consume," "destroy," "destroy utterly," &c. to mean
unconditional, individual extermination.]

[The original design of the preceding Inquiry embraced a much wider
range of topics. It was soon found, however, that to fill up the outline
would be to make a volume. Much of the foregoing has therefore been
thrown into a mere series of _indices_, to trains of thought and classes
of proof which, however limited or imperfect, may perhaps, afford some
facilities to those who have little leisure for protracted
investigation.]





THE


ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER  NO 4.


THE


BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.


AN INQUIRY INTO THE


PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS


ON THE SUBJECT OF


HUMAN RIGHTS.


Fourth Edition--Enlarged.



NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,

NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.

1838.

This No. contains 7 sheets:--Postage, under 100 miles, 10 1/2 cents;
over 100 miles, 14 cents.

Please read and Circulate.






CONTENTS.

    DEFINITION OF SLAVERY,


        NEGATIVE,

        AFFIRMATIVE,

        LEGAL,


    THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY


        "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL,"

        "THOU SHALT NOT COVET,"


    MAN-STEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 16,


        SEPARATION OF MAN FROM BRUTES AND THINGS,


    IMPORT OF "BUY" AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY,"


        SERVANTS SOLD THEMSELVES,


    RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED BY LAW TO SERVANTS,

    SERVANTS WERE VOLUNTARY,


        RUNAWAY SERVANTS NOT TO BE DELIVERED TO THEIR MASTERS,


    SERVANTS WERE PAID WAGES,

    MASTERS NOT "OWNERS,"


        SERVANTS NOT SUBJECTED TO THE USES OF PROPERTY,

        SERVANTS EXPRESSLY DISTINGUISHED FROM PROPERTY,

        EXAMINATION OF GEN. xii. 5.--"THE SOULS THAT THEY HAD
        GOTTEN," &c.

        SOCIAL EQUALITY OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS,

        CONDITION OF THE GIBEONITES AS SUBJECTS OF THE HEBREW
        COMMONWEALTH,

        EGYPTIAN BONDAGE CONTRASTED WITH AMERICAN SLAVERY,

        CONDITION OF AMERICAN SLAVES,

        ILL FED,

        ILL CLOTHED,

        OVER-WORKED,

        THEIR DWELLING UNFIT FOR HUMAN BEINGS,

        MORAL CONDITION--"HEATHENS,"


    OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

    "CURSED BE CANAAN," &c.--EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25,

    "FOR HE IS HIS MONEY," &c.--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 20, 21,

    EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 44-46,


        "BOTH THY BONDMEN, &c., SHALL BE OF THE HEATHEN,"

        "OF THEM SHALL YE BUY,"

        "THEY SHALL BE YOUR BONDMEN FOREVER,"

        "YE SHALL TAKE THEM AS AN INHERITANCE," &c.


    EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 39, 40.--THE FREEHOLDER NOT TO "SERVE
    AS A BOND SERVANT,"


        DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIRED AND BOUGHT SERVANTS,

        BOUGHT SERVANTS THE MOST FAVORED AND HONORED CLASS,

        ISRAELITES AND STRANGERS BELONGED TO BOTH CLASSES,

        ISRAELITES SERVANTS TO THE STRANGERS,

        REASONS FOR THE RELEASE OF THE ISRAELITISH SERVANTS IN
        THE SEVENTH YEAR,

        REASONS FOR ASSIGNING THE STRANGERS TO A LONGER SERVICE,

        REASONS FOR CALLING THEM THE SERVANTS,

        DIFFERENT KINDS OF SERVICE ASSIGNED TO THE ISRAELITES
        AND STRANGERS,


    REVIEW OF ALL THE CLASSES OF SERVANTS WITH THE MODIFICATIONS OF
    EACH,


        POLITICAL DISABILITIES OF THE STRANGERS,


    EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 2-6.--"IF THOU BUY AN HEBREW SERVANT,"

    THE CANAANITES NOT SENTENCED TO UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION,





THE BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.



The spirit of slavery never seeks refuge in the Bible of its own accord.
The horns of the altar are its last resort--seized only in desperation,
as it rushes from the terror of the avenger's arm. Like other unclean
spirits, it "hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest its
deeds should be reproved." Goaded to phrenzy in its conflicts with
conscience and common sense, denied all quarter, and hunted from every
covert, it vaults over the sacred inclosure and courses up and down the
Bible, "seeking rest, and finding none." THE LAW OF LOVE, glowing on
every page, flashes around it an omnipresent anguish and despair. It
shrinks from the hated light, and howls under the consuming touch, as
demons quailed before the Son of God, and shrieked, "Torment us not." At
last, it slinks away under the types of the Mosaic system, and seeks to
burrow out of sight among their shadows. Vain hope! Its asylum is its
sepulchre; its city of refuge, the city of destruction. It flies from
light into the sun; from heat, into devouring fire; and from the voice
of God into the thickest of His thunders.



DEFINITION OF SLAVERY.

If we would know whether the Bible sanctions slavery, we must determine
_what slavery is_. An element, is one thing; a relation, another; an
appendage, another. Relations and appendages presuppose other things to
which they belong. To regard them as the things themselves, or as
constituent parts of them, leads to endless fallacies. Mere political
disabilities are often confounded with slavery; so are many relations,
and tenures, indispensible to the social state. We will specify some of
these.

1. PRIVATION OF SUFFRAGE. Then minors are slaves.

2. INELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE. Then females are slaves.

3. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Then slaveholders in the District of
Columbia are slaves.

4. PRIVATION OF ONE'S OATH IN LAW. Then atheists are slaves.

5. PRIVATION OF TRIAL BY JURY. Then all in France are slaves.

6. BEING REQUIRED TO SUPPORT A PARTICULAR RELIGION. Then the people of
England are slaves.

7. APPRENTICESHIP. The rights and duties of master and apprentice are
correlative. The _claim_ of each upon the other results from his
_obligation_ to the other. Apprenticeship is based on the principle of
equivalent for value received. The rights of the apprentice are secured,
equally with those of the master. Indeed while the law is _just_ to the
former it is _benevolent_ to the latter; its main design being rather to
benefit the apprentice than the master. To the master it secures a mere
compensation--to the apprentice, both a compensation and a virtual
gratuity in addition, he being of the two the greatest gainer. The law
not only recognizes the _right_ of the apprentice to a reward for his
labor, but appoints the wages, and enforces the payment. The master's
claim covers only the _services_ of the apprentice. The apprentice's
claim covers _equally_ the services of the master. Neither can hold the
other as property; but each holds property in the services of the other,
and BOTH EQUALLY. Is this slavery?

8. FILIAL SUBORDINATION AND PARENTAL CLAIMS. Both are nature's dictates,
and intrinsic elements of the social state; the natural affections which
blend parent and child in one, excite each to discharge those offices
incidental to the relation, and are a shield for mutual protection. The
parent's legal claim to the child's services, is a slight return for the
care and toil of his rearing, exclusively of outlays for support and
education. This provision is, with the mass of mankind, indispensable to
the preservation of the family state. The child, in helping his parents,
helps himself--increases a common stock, in which he has a share; while
his most faithful services do but acknowledge a debt that money cannot
cancel.

9. CLAIMS OF GOVERNMENT ON SUBJECTS. Governments owe their subjects
protection; subjects owe just governments allegiance and support. The
obligations of both are reciprocal, and the benefits received by both
are mutual, equal, and voluntarily rendered.

10. BONDAGE FOR CRIME. Must innocence be punished because guilt suffers
penalties? True, the criminal works for the government without pay; and
well he may. He owes the government. A century's work would not pay its
drafts on him. He will die a public defaulter. Because laws make men pay
their debts, shall those be forced to pay who owe nothing? The law makes
no criminal, PROPERTY. It restrains his liberty, and makes him pay
something, a mere penny in the pound, of his debt to the government; but
it does not make him a chattel. Test it. To own property, is to own its
product. Are children born of convicts, government property? Besides,
can _property_ be guilty? Can _chattels_ deserve punishment?

11. RESTRAINTS UPON FREEDOM. Children are restrained by parents, pupils,
by teachers, patients, by physicians, corporations, by charters, and
legislatures, by constitutions. Embargoes, tariffs, quarantine, and all
other laws, keep men from doing as they please. Restraints are the web
of civilized society, warp and woof. Are they slavery? then a government
of LAW, is the climax of slavery!

12. INVOLUNTARY OR COMPULSORY SERVICE. A juryman is empannelled against
his will, and sit he _must_. A sheriff orders his posse; bystanders
_must_ turn in. Men are _compelled_ to remove nuisances, pay fines and
taxes, support their families, and "turn to the right as the law
directs," however much against their wills. Are they therefore slaves?
To confound slavery with involuntary service is absurd. Slavery is a
_condition_. The slave's _feelings_ toward it cannot alter its nature.
Whether he desires or detests it, the condition remains the same. The
slave's willingness to be a slave is no palliation of the slaveholder's
guilt. Suppose he should really believe himself a chattel, and consent
to be so regarded by others, would that _make_ him a chattel, or make
those guiltless who _hold_ him as such? I may be sick of life, and I
tell the assassin so that stabs me; is he any the less a murderer? Does
my _consent_ to his crime, atone for it? my partnership in his guilt,
blot out his part of it? The slave's willingness to be a slave, so far
from lessening the guilt of his "owner," aggravates it. If slavery has
so palsied his mind that he looks upon himself as a chattel, and
consents to be one, actually to hold him as such, falls in with his
delusion, and confirms the impious falsehood. These very feelings and
convictions of the slave, (if such were possible) increase a hundred
fold the guilt of the master, and call upon him in thunder, immediately
to recognize him as a MAN, and thus break the sorcery that cheats him
out of his birthright--the consciousness of his worth and destiny.

Many of the foregoing conditions are _appendages_ of slavery, but no
one, nor all of them together, constitute its intrinsic unchanging
element.

ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY--making free
agents, chattels--converting _persons_ into _things_--sinking
immortality into _merchandize_. A _slave_ is one held in this condition.
In law, "he owns nothing, and can acquire nothing." His right to himself
is abrogated. If he say _my_ hands, _my_ body, _my_ mind, MY_self_, they
are figures of speech. To _use himself_ for his own good, is a _crime_.
To keep what he earns, is _stealing_. To take his body into his own
keeping, is _insurrection_. In a word, the profit of his master is made
the END of his being, and he, a _mere means_ to that end--a mere means
to an end into which his interests do not enter, of which they
constitute no portion[A]. MAN, sunk to a _thing!_ the intrinsic element,
the _principle_ of slavery; MEN, bartered, leased, mortgaged,
bequeathed, invoiced, shipped in cargoes, stored as goods, taken on
executions, and knocked off at a public outcry! Their _rights_,
another's conveniences; their interests, wares on sale; their happiness,
a household utensil; their personal inalienable ownership, a serviceable
article or a plaything, as best suits the humour of the hour; their
deathless nature, conscience, social affections, sympathies,
hopes--marketable commodities! We repeat it, THE REDUCTION OF PERSONS TO
THINGS! Not robbing a man of privileges, but of _himself_; not loading
him with burdens, but making him a _beast of burden_; not restraining
liberty, but subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them;
not inflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating _personality_; not
exacting involuntary labor, but sinking man into an _implement_ of
labor; not abridging human comforts, but abrogating human _nature_; not
depriving an animal of immunities, but despoiling a rational being of
attributes--uncreating a MAN, to make room for a _thing_!

[Footnote A: To deprive human nature of _any_ of its rights is
_oppression_; to take away the _foundation_ of its rights is slavery. In
other words, whatever sinks man from an END to a mere _means_, just so
far makes him a slave. Hence West-India apprenticeship retained the
cardinal principle of slavery. The apprentice, during three-fourths of
his time, was forced to labor, and robbed of his earnings; just so far
forth he was a _mere means_, a slave. True in other respects slavery was
abolished in the British West Indies August, 1834. Its bloodiest
features were blotted _out_--but the meanest and most despicable of
all--forcing the poor to work for the rich without pay three fourths of
their time, with a legal officer to flog them if they demurred at the
outrage, was one of the provisions of the "Emancipation Act!" For the
glories of that luminary, abolitionists thanked God, while they mourned
that it rose behind clouds and shone through an eclipse. [West India
apprenticeship is now (August 1838) abolished. On the first of the
present month, every slave in every British island and colony stood up a
freeman!--Note to fourth edition.] ]

That this is American slavery, is shown by the laws of slave states.
Judge Stroud, in his "Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery," says,
"The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked
among sentient beings, but among _things_--obtains as undoubted law in
all of these [the slave] states." The law of South Carolina says,
"Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be
chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their
executors, administrators, and assigns, to ALL INTENTS, CONSTRUCTIONS,
AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER." _Brev. Dig._, 229. In Louisiana, "A slave is
one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs; the master may
sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labor; he can do
nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing, but what must belong to
his master."--_Civ. Code_, Art. 35.

This is American slavery. The eternal distinction between a person and a
thing, trampled under foot--the crowning distinction of all
others--alike the source, the test, and the measure of their value--the
rational, immortal principle, consecrated by God to universal homage in
a baptism of glory and honor, by the gift of his Son, his Spirit, his
word, his presence, providence, and power; his shield, and staff, and
sheltering wing; his opening heavens, and angels ministering, and
chariots of fire, and songs of morning stars, and a great voice in
heaven proclaiming eternal sanctions, and confirming the word with signs
following.

Having stated the _principle_ of American slavery, we ask, DOES THE
BIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A] "To the _law_ and the testimony?"

[Footnote A: The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral
character. It vouches for them as _facts_, not as _virtues_. It records
without rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob
and his mother--not only single acts, but _usages_, such as polygamy and
concubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that _silent
entry_ God's _endorsement?_ Because the Bible in its catalogue of human
actions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write
against it, _this is a crime_--does that wash out its guilt, and bleach
it into a virtue?]



THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY.

Just after the Israelites were emancipated from their bondage in Egypt,
while they stood before Sinai to receive the law, as the trumpet waxed
louder, and the mount quaked and blazed, God spake the ten commandments
from the midst of clouds and thunderings. Two of those commandments deal
death to slavery. "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL," or, "thou shalt not take from
another what _belongs_ to him." All man's powers are God's gift to HIM.
Each of them is a part of himself, and all of them together constitute
himself. All else that belongs to man, is acquired by the _use_ of these
powers. The interest belongs to him, because the principal does; the
product is his, because he is the producer. Ownership of any thing, is
ownership of its _use_. The right to use according to will, is _itself_
ownership. The eighth commandment presupposes and assumes the right of
every man to his powers, and their product. Slavery robs of both. A
man's right to himself, is the only right absolutely original and
intrinsic--his right to anything else is merely _relative_ to this, is
derived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the
_foundation right_--the _post in the middle_, to which all other rights
are fastened. Slaveholders, when talking about their RIGHT to their
slaves, always assume their own right to themselves. What slave-holder
ever undertook to prove his right to himself? He knows it to be a
self-evident proposition, that _a man belongs to himself_--that the
right is intrinsic and absolute. In making out his own title, he makes
out the title of every human being. As the fact of being _a man_ is
itself the title, the whole human family have one common title deed. If
one man's title is valid, all are valid. If one is worthless, all are.
To deny the validity of the _slave's_ title is to deny the validity of
_his own_; and yet in the act of making a man a slave, the slaveholder
_asserts_ the validity of his own title, while he seizes him as his
property who has the _same_ title. Further, in making him a slave, he
does not merely disfranchise of humanity _one_ individual, but UNIVERSAL
MAN. He destroys the foundations. He annihilates _all rights_. He
attacks not only the human race, but _universal being_, and rushes upon
JEHOVAH. For rights are _rights_; God's are no more--man's are no less.

The eighth commandment forbids the taking of _any part_ of that which
belongs to another. Slavery takes the _whole_. Does the same Bible which
prohibits the taking of _any_ thing from him, sanction the taking of
_every_ thing! Does it thunder wrath against the man who robs his
neighbor of a _cent_, yet commission him to rob his neighbour of
_himself?_ Slaveholding is the highest possible violation of the eight
commandment. To take from a man his earnings, is theft. But to take the
_earner_, is a compound, life-long theft--supreme robbery that vaults up
the climax at a leap--the dread, terrific, giant robbery, that towers
among other robberies a solitary horror. The eight commandment forbids
the taking away, and the  tenth adds, "Thou shalt not _covet_ any thing
that is thy neighbor's;" thus guarding every man's right to himself and
property, by making not only the actual taking away a sin, but even that
state of mind which would _tempt_ to it. Who ever made human beings
slaves, without _coveting_ them? Why take from them their time, labor,
liberty, right of self-preservation and improvement, their right to
acquire property, to worship according to conscience, to search the
Scriptures, to live with their families, and their right to their own
bodies, if they do not _desire_ them? They COVET them for purposes of
gain, convenience, lust of dominion, of sensual gratification, of pride
and ostentation. THEY BREAK THE TENTH COMMANDMENT, and pluck down upon
their heads the plagues that are written in the book. _Ten_ commandments
constitute the brief compend of human duty. _Two_ of these brand slavery
as sin.



MANSTEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. XXI. 16.

The giving of the law at Sinai, immediately preceded the promulgation of
that body of laws called the "Mosaic system." Over the gateway of that
system, fearful words were written by the finger of God--"HE THAT
STEALETH A MAN AND SELLETH HIM, OR IF HE BE FOUND IN HIS HAND, HE SHALL
SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH[A]." Ex. xxi. 16.

[Footnote A: A writer in the American Quarterly Review, commenting on
this passage, thus blasphemes. "On this passage an impression has gone
abroad that slave-owners are necessarily menstealers; how hastily, any
one will perceive who consults the passage in its connection. Being
found in the chapter which authorizes this species of property among the
Hebrews, it must of course relate to _its full protection from the
danger of being enticed away from its rightful owner."_--Am. Quart.
Review for June, 1833. Article "Negro slavery."]

The oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, and the wonders wrought for
their deliverance, proclaim the reason for such a law at such a time.
They had just been emancipated. The tragedies of their house of bondage
were the realities of yesterday, and peopled their memories with
thronging horrors. They had just witnessed God's testimony against
oppression in the plagues of Egypt--the burning blains on man and beast;
the dust quickened into loathsome life, and swarming upon every living
thing; the streets, the palaces, the temples, and every house heaped up
with the carcases of things abhorred; the kneading troughs and ovens,
the secret chambers and the couches, reeking and dissolving with the
putrid death; the pestilence walking in darkness at noonday, the
devouring locusts, and hail mingled with fire, the first-born
death-struck, and the waters blood; and last of all, that dread high
hand and stretched-out arm, that whelmed the monarch and his hosts, and
strewed their corpses on the sea. All this their eyes had looked upon;
earth's proudest city, wasted and thunder-scarred, lying in desolation,
and the doom of oppressors traced on her ruins in the hand-writing of
God, glaring in letters of fire mingled with blood--a blackened monument
of wrath to the uttermost against the stealers of men. No wonder that
God, in a code of laws prepared for such a people at such a time, should
uprear on its foreground a blazing beacon to flash terror on
slaveholders. "_He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be
found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."_ Ex. xxi. 16. Deut.
xxiv, 7[A]. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance to
the Mosaic system!

[Footnote A: Jarchi, the most eminent of the Jewish Commentators, who
wrote seven hundred years ago, in his comment on this stealing and
making merchandize of men, gives the meaning thus:--"Using a man against
his will, as a servant lawfully purchased; yea, though he should use his
services ever so little, only to the value of a farthing, or use but his
arm to lean on to support him, _if he be forced so to act as a servant_,
the person compelling him but once to do so, shall die as a thief,
whether he has sold him or not."]

The word _Ganabh_ here rendered _stealeth,_ means, the taking of what
belongs to another, whether by violence or fraud; the same word is used
in the eight commandment, and prohibits both robbery and theft.

The crime specified, is that of depriving SOMEBODY of the ownership of a
man. Is this somebody a master? and is the crime that of depriving a
master of his servant? Then it would have been "he that stealeth" a
_servant_, not "he that stealeth a _man_." If the crime had been the
taking of an individual from _another_, then the _term_ used would have
been expressive of that relation, and most especially if it was the
relation of property and _proprietor!_

The crime is stated in a three-fold form--man _stealing_, _selling_, and
_holding_. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one
penalty--DEATH[A]. This _somebody_ deprived of the ownership of a man,
is the _man himself_, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said, "Indeed
I was _stolen_ away out of the land of the Hebrews." Gen. xl. 15. How
_stolen?_ His brethren sold him as an article of merchandize. Contrast
this penalty for _man_-stealing with that for _property_-stealing, Ex.
xxii. 14. If a man had stolen an _ox_ and killed or sold it, he was to
restore five oxen; if he had neither sold nor killed it, two oxen. But
in the case of stealing a _man_, the _first_ act drew down the utmost
power of punishment; however often repeated or aggravated the crime,
human penalty could do no more. The fact that the penalty for
_man_-stealing was death, and the penalty for _property_-stealing, the
mere restoration of double, shows that the two cases were adjudicated on
totally different principles. The man stolen might be diseased or
totally past labor, consequently instead of being profitable to the
thief, he would be a tax upon him, yet death was still the penalty,
though not a cent's worth of _property-value_ was taken. The penalty for
stealing property was a mere property-penalty. However large the theft,
the payment of double wiped out the score. It might have a greater money
value than a thousand men, yet death was not the penalty, nor maiming,
nor braiding, nor even stripes, but double _of the same kind_. Why was
not the rule uniform? When a _man_ was stolen why was not the thief
required to restore double of the same kind--two men, or if he had sold
him, five men? Do you say that the man-thief might not _have_ them? So
the ox-thief might not have two oxen, or if he had killed it, five. But
if God permitted men to hold _men_ as property, equally with oxen, the
man-thief, could get men with whom to pay the penalty, as well as the
ox-thief, oxen. Further, when property was stolen, the legal penalty was
a compensation to the person injured. But when a _man_ was stolen, no
property compensation was offered. To tender money as an equivalent,
would have been to repeat the outrage with intolerable aggravations.
Compute the value of a MAN in _money!_ Throw dust into the scale against
immortality! The law recoiled from such supreme insult and impiety. To
have permitted the man-thief to expiate his crime by restoring double,
would have been making the repetition of crime its atonement. But the
infliction of death for man-stealing exacted the utmost possibility of
reparation. It wrung from the guilty wretch as he gave up the ghost, the
testimony of blood, and death-groans, to the infinite dignity and worth
of man,--a proclamation to the universe, voiced in mortal agony, "MAN IS
INVIOLABLE."--a confession shrieked in phrenzy at the grave's mouth--"I
die accursed, and God is just."

[Footnote A: "Those are _men-stealers_ who abduct, _keep_, sell, or buy
slaves or freemen." GROTIUS.]

If God permitted man to hold man as property, why did he punish for
stealing that kind of property infinitely more than for stealing any
other kind of property? Why punish with death for stealing a very little
of _that_ sort of property, and make a mere fine the penalty for
stealing a thousand times as much, of any other sort of
property--especially if by his own act, God had annihilated the
difference between man and _property_, by putting him on a level with
it?

The guilt of a crime, depends much upon the nature, character, and
condition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the thief, or
whatever the plunder. To steal bread from a full man, is theft; to steal
it from a starving man, is both theft and murder. If I steal my
neighbor's property, the crime consists not in altering the _nature_ of
the article, but in taking as _mine_ what is _his_. But when I take my
neighbor himself, and first make him _property_, and then _my_ property,
the latter act, which was the sole crime in the former case, dwindles to
nothing. The sin in stealing a man, is not the transfer from its owner
to another of that which is already property, but the turning of
_personality_ into _property_. True, the attributes of man remain, but
the rights and immunities which grow out of them are annihilated. It is
the first law both of reason and revelation, to regard things and beings
as they are; and the sum of religion, to feel and act toward them
according to their value. Knowingly to treat them otherwise is sin; and
the degree of violence done to their nature, relations, and value,
measures its guilt. When things are sundered which God has indissolubly
joined, or confounded in one, which he has separated by infinite
extremes; when sacred and eternal distinctions, which he has garnished
with glory, are derided and set at nought, then, if ever, sin reddens to
its "scarlet dye." The sin specified in the passage, is that of doing
violence to the _nature_ of a _man_--to his intrinsic value as a
rational being. In the verse preceding the one under consideration, and
in that which follows, the same principle is laid down. Verse 15, "He
that smiteth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."
Verse. 17, "He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be
put to death." If a Jew smote his neighbor, the law merely smote him in
return; but if the blow was given to a _parent_, it struck the smiter
dead. The parental relation is the _centre_ of human society. God guards
it with peculiar care. To violate that, is to violate all. Whoever
tramples on that, shows that _no_ relation has any sacredness in his
eyes--that he is unfit to move among human relations who violates one so
sacred and tender. Therefore, the Mosaic law uplifted his bleeding
corpse, and brandished the ghastly terror around the parental relation
to guard it from impious inroads.

Why such a difference in penalties, for the same act? Answer. 1. The
relation violated was obvious--the distinction between parents and
others self-evident, dictated by a law of nature. 2. The act was
violence to nature--a suicide on constitutional susceptibilities. 3. The
parental relation then, as now, was the focal point of the social
system, and required powerful safe-guards. "_Honor thy father and thy
mother_," stands at the head of those commands which prescribe the
duties of man to man; and throughout the Bible, the parental state is
God's favorite illustration of his own relations to the human family. In
this case, death was to be inflicted not for smiting a _man,_ but a
_parent_--_a distinction_ made sacred by God, and fortified by a bulwark
of defence. In the next verse, "He that stealeth a man," &c., the SAME
PRINCIPLE is wrought out in still stronger relief. The crime to be
punished with death was not the taking of property from its owner, but
violence to an _immortal nature_, the blotting out of a sacred
_distinction_--making MEN "chattels."

The incessant pains taken in the Old Testament to separate human beings
from brutes and things, shows God's regard for this, his own
distinction. "In the beginning" he proclaimed it to the universe as it
rose into being. Creation stood up at the instant of its birth, to do it
homage. It paused in adoration while God ushered forth its crowning
work. Why that dread pause and that creating arm held back in mid career
and that high conference in the godhead? "Let us make man in OUR IMAGE
after OUR LIKENESS, and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and over all the
earth." Then while every living thing, with land, and sea, and
firmament, and marshalled worlds, waited to swell the shout of morning
stars--then God created man IN HIS OWN IMAGE; IN THE IMAGE OF GOD
created he him." This solves the problem, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, CREATED
HE HIM. This distinction is often repeated and always with great
solemnity. In Gen. i. 26-28, it is expressed in various forms. In Gen.
v. 1, we find it again, "IN THE LIKENESS OF GOD MADE HE HIM." In Gen.
ix. 6, again. After giving license to shed the blood of "every moving
thing that liveth," it is added, "_Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man
shall his blood be shed, for_ IN THE IMAGE OF GOD MADE HE MAN." As
though it had been said, "All these creatures are your property,
designed for your use--they have the likeness of earth, and their
spirits go downward; but this other being, MAN, has my own likeness: IN
THE IMAGE OF GOD made I man; an intelligent, moral, immortal agent,
invited to all that I can give and he can be. So in Lev. xxiv. 17, 18,
21, "He that killeth any MAN shall surely be put to death; and he that
killeth a beast shall make it good, beast for beast; and he that killeth
a MAN he shall be put to death." So in Ps. viii. 5, 6, we have an
enumeration of particulars, each separating infinitely MEN from brutes
and things! 1. "_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels."_
Slavery drags him down among _brutes._ 2. _"And hast crowned him with
glory and honor."_ Slavery tears off his crown, and puts on a _yoke_. 3.
_"Thou madest him to have dominion_[A] OVER _the works of thy hands."_
Slavery breaks his sceptre, and cast him down _among_ those works--yea,
_beneath them_. 4. _"Thou hast put all things under his feet_." Slavery
puts HIM under the feet of an "owner." Who, but an impious scorner, dare
thus strive with his Maker, and mutilate HIS IMAGE, and blaspheme the
Holy One, who saith, _"Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of
these, ye did it unto ME._"

[Footnote A: "Thou madest him to have dominion." In Gen. i. 28, God says
to man, _"Have dominion_ over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth," thus
vesting in _every_ human being the right of ownership over the earth,
its products and animal life, and in _each_ human being the _same_
right. By so doing God prohibited the exercise of ownership by man over
_man_; for the grant to _all_ men of _equal_ ownership, for ever _shut_
out the possibility of their exercising ownership over _each other_, as
whoever is the owner of a _man_, is the owner of his _right of
property_--in other words, when one man becomes the property of another
his rights become such too, his _right of property_ is transferred to
his "owner," and thus as far as _himself_ is concerned, is annihilated.
Finally, by originally vesting _all_ men with dominion or ownership over
property, God proclaimed the _right of all_ to exercise it, and
pronounced every man who takes it away a robber of the highest grade.
Such is every slaveholder.]

In further prosecuting this inquiry, the Patriarchal and Mosaic systems
will be considered together, as each reflects light upon the other, and
as many regulations of the latter are mere _legal_ forms of Divine
institutions previously existing. As a _system_, the latter alone is of
Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs God has not
made them our exemplars.[B] The question to be settled by us, is not
what were Jewish _customs_, but what were the rules that God gave for
the regulation of those customs.

[Footnote B: Those who insist that the patriarchs held slaves, and sit
with such delight under their shadow, hymning the praises of "those good
old slaveholders and patriarchs," might at small cost greatly augment
their numbers. A single stanza celebrating patriarchal _concubinage_,
winding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, would
be a trumpet-call, summoning from brothels, bush and brake, highway and
hedge, and sheltering fence, a brotherhood of kindred affinities, each
claiming Abraham or Noah as his patron saint, and shouting, "My name is
legion." A myriad choir and thunderous song!]

Before entering upon an analysis of the condition of servants under
these two states of society, we will consider the import of certain
terms which describe the mode of procuring them.



IMPORT OF "BUY," AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY."

As the Israelites were commanded to "buy" their servants, and as Abraham
had servants "bought with money," it is argued that servants were
articles of property! The sole ground for this belief is _the terms
themselves!_ How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be
proved were always _assumed_! To beg the question in debate, is vast
economy of midnight oil, and a wholesale forestaller of wrinkles and
gray hairs. Instead of protracted investigation into Scripture usage,
painfully collating passages, to settle the meaning of terms, let every
man interpret the oldest book in the world by the usages of his own time
and place, and the work is done. And then instead of one revelation,
they might be multiplied as the drops of the morning, and every man have
an infallible clue to the mind of the Spirit, in the dialect of his own
neighborhood! What a Babel-jargon, to take it for granted that the sense
in which words are _now_ used, is the _inspired_ sense. David says, "I
prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried." What, stop the earth
in its revolution! Two hundred years ago, _prevent_ was used in its
strict Latin sense, to _come before_, or _anticipate_. It is always used
in this sense in the Old and New Testaments. David's expression, in the
English of the nineteenth century, would be "Before the dawning of the
morning I cried." In almost every chapter of the Bible, words are used
in a sense now nearly, or quite obsolete, and sometimes in a sense
totally _opposite_ to their present meaning. A few examples follow: "I
purposed to come to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto." "And the
four _beasts_ (living ones) fell down and worshiped God,"--"Whosoever
shall _offend_ (cause to sin) one of these little ones,"--Go out into
the highways and _compel_ (urge) them to come in,"--Only let your
_conversation_ (habitual conduct) be as becometh the Gospel,"--"The Lord
Jesus Christ who shall judge the _quick_ (living) and the dead,"--They
that seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me," So when tribulation or
persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (immediately) they are offended."
Nothing is more mutable than language. Words, like bodies, are always
throwing off some particles and absorbing others. So long as they are
mere representatives, elected by the whims of universal suffrage, their
meaning will be a perfect volatile, and to cork it up for the next
century is an employment sufficiently silly (to speak within bounds) for
a modern Bible-Dictionary maker. There never was a shallower conceit
than that of establishing the sense attached to a word centuries ago, by
showing what it means _now_. Pity that fashionable mantuamakers were not
a little quicker at taking hints from some Doctors of Divinity. How
easily they might save their pious customers all qualms of conscience
about the weekly shiftings of fashion, by proving that the last
importation of Parisian indecency now "showing off" on promenade, was
the very style of dress in which the modest and pious Sarah kneaded
cakes for the angels. Since such a fashion flaunts along Broadway _now_,
it _must_ have trailed over Canaan four thousand years ago!

The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of
servants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the
fallacy, that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or
whoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of
your paying for it, _proves_ it property. 1. The children of Israel were
required to purchase their firstborn from under the obligations of the
priesthood, Num. xviii. 15, 16; iii. 45-51; Ex. xiii. 13; xxxiv. 20.
This custom still exists among the Jews, and the word _buy_ is still
used to describe the transaction. Does this prove that their firstborn
were or are, held as property? They were _bought_ as really as were
_servants_. 2. The Israelites were required to pay money for their own
souls. This is called sometimes a ransom, sometimes an atonement. Were
their souls therefore marketable commodities? 3. When the Israelites set
apart themselves or their children to the Lord by vow, for the
performance of some service, an express statute provided that a _price_
should be set upon the "_persons_," and it prescribed the manner and
_terms_ of the "estimation" or valuation, by the payment of which, the
persons might be _bought off_ from the service vowed. The _price_ for
males from one month old to five years, was five shekels, for females,
three; from five years old to twenty, for males, twenty shekels, for
females, ten; from twenty years old to sixty, for males, fifty shekels,
for females, thirty; above sixty years old, for males, fifteen shekels,
for females, ten, Lev. xxvii. 2-8. What egregious folly to contend that
all these descriptions of persons were goods and chattels because they
were _bought_ and their _prices_ regulated by law! 4. Bible saints
_bought_ their wives. Boaz bought Ruth. "Moreover Ruth the Moabitess,
the wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ (bought) to be my wife." Ruth iv.
10.[A] Hosea bought his wife. "So I _bought_ her to me for fifteen
pieces of silver, and for an homer of Barley, and an half homer of
barley." Hosea iii. 2. Jacob bought his wives Rachael and Leah, and not
having money, paid for them in labor--seven years a piece. Gen. xxix.
15-23. Moses probably bought his wife in the same way, and paid for her
by his labor, as the servant of her father.[B] Exod. ii. 21. Shechem,
when negotiating with Jacob and his sons for Dinah, says, "Ask me never
so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto
me." Gen. xxxiv. 11, 12. David purchased Michael, and Othniel, Achsah,
by performing perilous services for the fathers of the damsels. 1 Sam.
xviii. 25-27; Judg. i. 12, 13. That the purchase of wives, either with
money or by service, was the general practice, is plain from such
passages as Ex. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Among the modern Jews
this usage exists, though now a mere form, there being no _real_
purchase. Yet among their marriage ceremonies, is one called "marrying
by the penny." The similarity in the methods of procuring wives and
servants, in the terms employed in describing the transactions, and in
the prices paid for each, are worthy of notice. The highest price of
wives (virgins) and servants was the same. Comp. Deut, xxii. 28, 29, and
Ex. xxii. 17, with Lev. xxvii. 2-8. The _medium_ price of wives and
servants was the same. Comp. Hos. iii. 2, with Ex. xxi. 32. Hosea seems
to have paid one half in money and the other half in grain. Further, the
Israelitish female bought-servants were _wives_, their husbands and
masters being the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, Judg. xix. 3, 27. If
_buying_ servants proves them property, buying wives proves _them_
property. Why not contend that the _wives_ of the ancient fathers of the
faithful were their "chattels," and used as ready change at a pinch; and
thence deduce the rights of modern husbands? Alas! Patriarchs and
prophets are followed afar off! When will pious husbands live up to
their Bible privileges, and become partakers with Old Testament worthies
in the blessedness of a husband's rightful immunities! Refusing so to
do, is questioning the morality of those "good old slaveholders and
patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

[Footnote A: In the verse preceding, Boaz says, "I have _bought_ all
that was Elimelech's * * * of the hand of Naomi." In the original, the
same word (_kana_) is used in both verses. In the 9th, "a parcel of
land" is "bought," in the 10th a "wife" is "bought." If the Israelites
had been as profound at inferences as our modern Commentators, they
would have put such a fact as this to the rack till they had tortured
out of it a divine warrant for holding their wives as property and
speculating in the article whenever it happened to be scarce.]


[Footnote B: This custom still prevails in some eastern countries. The
Crim Tartars, who are poor, serve an apprenticeship for their wives,
during which they live under the same roof with them and at the close of
it are adopted into the family.]

This use of the word buy, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. In the Syriac,
the common expression for "the espoused," is "the bought." Even so late
as the 16th century, the common record of _marriages_ in the old German
Chronicles was, "A BOUGHT B."

The word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the nature
of the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, "I have _gotten_
(bought) a man from the Lord." She named him Cain, that is _bought_. "He
that heareth reproof, getteth (buyeth) understanding," Prov. xv. 32. So
in Isa. xi. 11. "The Lord shall set his hand again to recover (to _buy_)
the remnant of his people." So Ps. lxxviii. 54. "He brought them to his
mountain which his right hand had _purchased_," (gotten.) Neh. v. 8. "We
of our ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren the Jews, that were
sold unto the heathen." Here "_bought_" is not applied to persons
reduced to servitude, but to those taken _out_ of it. Prov. viii. 22.
"The Lord possessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way." Prov. xix.
8. "He that _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul." Finally, to
_buy_ is a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word _kana_.

Even at this day the word _buy_ is used to describe the procuring of
servants, where slavery is abolished. In the British West Indies, where
slaves became apprentices in 1834, they are still, (1837,) "bought."
This is the current word in West India newspapers. Ten years since
servants were "_bought_" in New York, and still are in New Jersey, as
really as in Virginia, yet the different senses in which the word is
used in those states, puts no man in a quandary. Under the system of
legal _indenture_ in Illinois, servants now are "_bought_."[A] Until
recently immigrants to this country were "bought" in great numbers. By
voluntary contract they engaged to work a given time to pay for their
passage. This class of persons, called "redemptioners," consisted at one
time of thousands. Multitudes are "bought" _out_ of slavery by
themselves or others. Under the same roof with the writer is a "servant
bought with money." A few weeks since, she was a slave; when "bought,"
she was a slave no longer. Alas! for our leading politicians if "buying"
men makes them "chattels." The Whigs say, that Calhoun has been "bought"
by the administration; and the other party, that Clay and Webster have
been "bought" by the Bank. The histories of the revolution tell us that
Benedict Arnold was "bought" by British gold, and that Williams,
Paulding, and Van Wert, could not be "bought" by Major Andre. When a
northern clergyman marries a rich southern widow, country gossip thus
hits off the indecency, "The cotton bags _bought_ him." Sir Robert
Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it, can
_buy_ him," and John Randolph said, "The northern delegation is in the
market; give me money enough, and I can _buy_ them." The temperance
publications tell us that candidates for office _buy_ men with whiskey;
and the oracles of street tattle, that the court, district attorney, and
jury, in the late trial of Robinson were _bought_, yet we have no
floating visions of "chattels personal," man-auctions, or coffles.

[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the free state of
Illinois--"No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time _purchase_
any servant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the
persons aforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such
servant shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed and
taken."]

In Connecticut, town paupers are "bought" by individuals, who, for a
stipulated sum become responsible to the town for their comfortable
support for one year. If these "bought" persons perform any labor for
those who "buy" them, it is wholly _voluntary_. It is hardly necessary
to add that they are in no sense the "property" of their purchasers.[A]

[Footnote A: "The select-men" of each town annually give notice, that at
such a time and place, they will proceed to _sell_ the poor of said
town. The persons thus "sold" are "bought" by such persons, approved by
the "select-men," as engage to furnish them with sufficient wholesome
food, adequate clothing, shelter, medicine, &c., for such a sum as the
parties may agree upon. The Connecticut papers frequently contain
advertisements like the following: "NOTICE--The poor of the town of
Chatham will be SOLD on the first Monday in April, 1837, at the house of
F. Penfield, Esq., at 9 o'clock in the forenoon,"--[Middletown Sentinel,
Feb. 3, 1837.] ]

The transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to the use
of "buy" and "bought with money." Gen. xlvii. 18-26. The Egyptians
proposed to Joseph to become servants. When the bargain was closed,
Joseph said, "Behold I have _bought you_ this day," and yet it is plain
that neither party regarded the persons _bought_ as articles of
property, but merely as bound to labor on certain conditions, to pay for
their support during the famine. The idea attached by both parties to
"buy us," and "behold I have bought you," was merely that of service
voluntarily offered, and secured by contract, in return, for _value
received_, and not at all that the Egyptians were bereft of their
personal ownership, and made articles of property. And this buying of
_services_ (in this case it was but one-fifth part) is called in
Scripture usage, _buying the persons_. This case claims special notice,
as it is the only one where the whole transaction of buying servants is
detailed--the preliminaries, the process, the mutual acquiescence, and
the permanent relation resulting therefrom. In all other instances, the
mere fact is stated without particulars. In this case, the whole process
is laid open. 1. The persons "bought," _sold themselves_, and of their
own accord. 2. Paying for the permanent _service_ of persons, or even a
portion of it, is called "buying" those persons; just as paying for the
_use_ of land or houses for a number of years in succession is called in
Scripture usage _buying_ them. See Lev. xxv. 28, 33, and xxvii. 24. The
objector, at the outset, takes it for granted, that servants were bought
of _third_ persons; and thence infers that they were articles of
property. Both the alleged fact and the inference are _sheer
assumptions_. No instance is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in which
a _master sold his servant_.

That servants who were "bought," _sold themselves_, is a fair inference
from various passages of Scripture.[A] In Leviticus xxv. 47, the case of
the Israelite, who became the servant of the stranger, the words are,
"If he SELL HIMSELF unto the stranger." Yet the 51st verse informs us
that this servant was "BOUGHT" and that the price of his purchase was
paid to _himself_. The _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word,
which, in verse 47, is rendered _sell himself_, is in verse 39 of the
same chapter, rendered _be sold_; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is
rendered "be sold." "And there ye shall BE SOLD unto your enemies for
bond-men and bond-women and NO MAN SHALL BUY YOU." How could they "_be
sold_" without _being bought_? Our translation makes it nonsense. The
word _Makar_ rendered "_be sold_" is used here in Hithpael conjugation,
which is generally reflexive in its force, and like the middle voice in
Greek, represents what an individual does for himself, and should
manifestly have been rendered "ye shall _offer yourselves_ for sale, and
there shall be no purchaser." For a clue to Scripture usage on this
point, see 1 Kings xxi. 20. 25.--"Thou hast _sold thyself_ to work
evil." "There was none like unto Ahab which did sell _himself_ to work
wickedness."--2 Kings xvii. 17. "They used divination and enchantments,
and _sold themselves_ to do evil."--Isa. l. 1. "For your iniquities have
ye _sold yourselves."_ Isa. lii. 3, "Ye have _sold yourselves_ FOR
NOUGHT, and ye shall be redeemed without money." See also, Jer. xxxiv.
14; Rom. vii. 14, vi. 16; John, viii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the
Egyptians, already quoted. In the purchase of wives, though spoken of
rarely, it is generally stated that they were bought of _third_ persons.
If _servants_ were bought of third persons, it is strange that no
_instance_ of it is on record.

[Footnote A: Those who insist that the servants which the Israelites
were commanded to buy of "the heathen which were round about" them, were
to be bought of _third persons_, virtually charge God with the
inconsistency of recognizing and affirming the right of those very
persons to freedom, upon whom, say they, he pronounced the doom of
slavery. For they tell us, that the sentence of death uttered against
those heathen was commuted into slavery, which punishment God denounced
against them. Now if "the heathen round about" were doomed to slavery,
the _sellers_ were doomed as well as the _sold_. Where, we ask, did the
sellers get their right to sell? God by commanding the Israelites to
BUY, affirmed the right of _somebody_ to _sell_, and that the
_ownership_ of what was sold existed _somewhere_; which _right_ and
ownership he commanded them to _recognize_ and _respect_. We repeat the
question, where did the heathen _sellers_ get their right to sell, since
_they_ were dispossessed of their right to _themselves_ and doomed to
slavery equally with those whom they sold. Did God's decree vest in them
a right to _others_ while it annulled their right to _themselves_? If,
as the objector's argument assumes, one part of "the heathen round
about" were _already_ held as slaves by the other part, _such_ of course
were not _doomed_ to slavery, for they were already slaves. So also, if
those heathen who held them as slaves had a _right_ to hold them, which
right God commanded the Israelites to _buy out_, thus requiring them to
recognize _it_ as a _right_, and on no account to procure its transfer
to themselves without paying to the holders an equivalent, surely, these
_slaveholders_ were not doomed by God to be slaves, for according to the
objector, God had himself affirmed their right _to hold others as
slaves_, and commanded his people to respect it.]

We now proceed to inquire into the _condition_ of servants under the
patriarchal and Mosaic systems.



I. THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF SERVANTS.

The leading design of the laws defining the relations of master and
servant, was the good of both parties--more especially the good of the
_servants_. While the master's interests were guarded from injury, those
of the servants were _promoted_. These laws made a merciful provision
for the poorer classes, both of the Israelites and Strangers, not laying
on burdens, but lightening them--they were a grant of _privileges_ and
_favors_.

I. BUYING SERVANTS WAS REGARDED AS A KINDNESS TO THE PERSONS BOUGHT, and
as establishing between them and their purchasers a bond of affection
and confidence. This is plain from the frequent use of it to illustrate
the love and care of God for his chosen people. Deut. xxxii. 6; Ex. xv.
16; Ps. lxxiv. 2; Prov. viii. 22.

II. NO STRANGER COULD JOIN THE FAMILY OF AN ISRAELITE WITHOUT BECOMING A
PROSELYTE. Compliance with this condition was the _price of the
privilege_. Gen. xvii. 9-14, 23, 27. In other words, to become a servant
was virtually to become an Israelite.[A] In the light of this fact, look
at the relation sustained by a proselyted servant to his master. Was it
a sentence consigning to _punishment_, or a ticket of admission to
_privileges_?

[Footnote A: The rites by which a stranger became a proselyte
transformed him into a Jew. Compare 1 Chron. ii. 17, with 2 Sam. xvii.
25. In Esther viii. 17, it is said "Many of the people of the land
_became Jews_." In the Septuagint, the passage is thus rendered, "Many
of the heathen were circumcised and became Jews." The intimate union and
incorporation of the proselytes with the Hebrews is shown by such
passages as Isa. lvi. 6, 7, 8; Eph. ii. 11, 22; Num. x. 29-32. Calmet,
Art. Proselyte, says "They were admitted to all the prerogatives of the
people of the Lord." Mahommed doubtless borrowed from the laws and
usages of the Jews, his well known regulation for admitting to all civil
and religious privileges, all proselytes of whatever nation or
religion.]

III. EXPULSION FROM THE FAMILY WAS THE DEPRIVATION OF A PRIVILEGE IF NOT
A PUNISHMENT. When Sarah took umbrage at the conduct of Hagar and
Ishmael, her servants, "She said unto Abraham _cast out_ this bond-woman
and her son." * * And Abraham rose up early in the morning and took
bread and a bottle of water and gave it unto Hagar and the child, and
_sent her away_. Gen. xxi. 10, 14; in Luke xvi. 1-8, our Lord tells us
of the steward or head-servant of a rich man who defrauded his master,
and was, in consequence, excluded from his household. The servant
anticipating such a punishment, says, "I am resolved what to do, that
when I am _put out_ of the stewardship, they may receive me into their
houses." The case of Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, appears to be a
similar one. He was guilty of fraud in procuring a large sum of money
from Naaman, and of deliberate lying to his master, on account of which
Elisha seems to have discarded him. 2 Kings v. 20-27. In this connection
we may add that if a servant neglected the observance of any ceremonial
rite, and was on that account excommunicated from the congregation of
Israel, such excommunication excluded him also from the _family_ of an
Israelite. In other words he could be a _servant_ no longer than he was
an _Israelite_. To forfeit the latter _distinction_ involved the
forfeiture of the former _privilege_--which proves that it _was_ a
privilege.

IV. THE HEBREW SERVANT COULD COMPEL HIS MASTER TO KEEP HIM.

When the six years' contract had expired, if the servant _demanded_ it,
the law _obliged_ the master to retain him permanently, however little
he might need his services. Deut. xv. 12-17; Ex. xxi. 2-6. This shows
that the system was framed to advance the interest and gratify the
wishes of the servant quite as much as those of the master.

V. SERVANTS WERE ADMITTED INTO COVENANT WITH GOD. Deut. xxix. 10-13.

VI. THEY WERE GUESTS AT ALL NATIONAL AND FAMILY FESTIVALS Ex. xii.
43-44; Deut xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10-16.

VII. THEY WERE STATEDLY INSTRUCTED IN MORALITY AND RELIGION. Deut. xxxi.
10-13; Josh. viii. 33-35; 2 Chron. xvii. 8-9, xxxv. 3, and xxxiv. 30.
Neh. viii. 7, 8.

VIII. THEY WERE RELEASED FROM THEIR REGULAR LABOR NEARLY ONE HALF OF THE
WHOLE TIME. During which they had their entire support, and the same
instruction that was provided for the other members of the Hebrew
community. The Law secured to them,

1. _Every seventh year;_ Lev. xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those who were
servants during the entire period between the jubilees, _eight whole
years_, (including the jubilee year,) of unbroken rest.

2. _Every seventh day._ This in forty-two years, the eight being
subtracted from the fifty, would amount to just _six years_.

3. _The three annual festivals._ Ex. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23. The
_Passover_, which commenced on the 15th of the 1st month, and lasted
seven days, Deut. xvi. 3, 8. The Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which
began on the 6th day of the 3d month, and lasted seven days. Deut. xvi.
10, 11. The Feast of Tabernacles, which commenced on the 15th of the 7th
month, and lasted eight days. Deut. xvi. 13, 15; Lev. xxiii. 34-39. As
all met in one place, much time would be spent on the journey. Cumbered
caravans move slowly. After their arrival, a day or two would be
requisite for divers preparations before the celebration, besides some
time at the close of it, in preparations for return. If we assign three
weeks to each festival--including the time spent on the journeys, and
the delays before and after the celebration, together with the _festival
week_, it will be a small allowance for the cessation of their regular
labor. As there were three festivals in the year, the main body of the
servants would be absent from their stated employments at least _nine
weeks annually_, which would amount in forty-two years, subtracting the
sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.

4. _The new moons_. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus says that the
Jews always kept _two_ days for the new moon. See Calmet on the Jewish
Calendar, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 Sam. xx, 18, 19, 27. This, in
forty-two years, would be two years 280 days.

5. _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and
of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.

6. _The atonement day_. On the tenth of the seventh month Lev. xxiii.
27.

These two feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days not
reckoned above.

Thus it appears that those who continued servants during the period
between the jubilees, were by law released from their labor,
TWENTY-THREE YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, and those
who remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In this
calculation, besides making a donation of all the _fractions_ to the
objector, we have left out those numerous _local_ festivals to which
frequent allusion is made, Judg. xxi. 19; 1 Sam. ix. 12. 22. etc., and
the various _family_ festivals, such as at the weaning of children; at
marriages; at sheep shearings; at circumcisions; at the making of
covenants, &c., to which reference is often made, as in 1 Sam, xx. 6.
28, 29. Neither have we included the festivals instituted at a later
period of the Jewish history--the feast of Purim, Esth. ix. 28, 29; and
of the Dedication, which lasted eight days. John x. 22; 1 Mac. iv. 59.

Finally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time which,
if distributed, would be almost ONE HALF OF THE DAYS IN EACH YEAR.
Meanwhile, they were supported, and furnished with opportunities of
instruction. If this time were distributed over _every day_, the
servants would have to themselves nearly _one half of each day_.

The service of those Strangers who were _national_ servants or
tributaries, was regulated upon the same benevolent principle, and
secured to them TWO-THIRDS of the whole year. "A month they were in
Lebanon, and two months they were at home." 1 Kings, v. 13-15. Compared
with 2 Chron. 11. 17-19, viii. 7-9; 1 Kings, ix 20. 22. The regulations
under which the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth and
Kirjath-jearim, (afterwards called _Nethinims_) performed service for
the Israelites, must have secured to them nearly the whole of their
time. If, as is probable, they served in courses corresponding to those
of their priests whom they assisted, they were in actual service less
than one month annually.

IX. THE SERVANT WAS PROTECTED BY LAW EQUALLY WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE COMMUNITY

Proof.--"Judge righteously between every man and his brother and THE
STRANGER THAT IS WITH HIM." "Ye shall not RESPECT PERSONS in judgment,
but ye shall hear the SMALL as well as the great." Deut. i. 16, 19. Also
Lev. xix. 15. xxiv. 22. "Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the
STRANGER, as for one of your own country." So Num. xv. 29. "Ye shall
have ONE LAW for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that
is born among the children of Israel and for the STRANGER that
sojourneth among them." Deut. xxvii. 19. "Cursed be he that PERVERTETH
THE JUDGMENT OF THE STRANGER."[A] Deut. xxvii. 19.

[Footnote A: In a work entitled, "Instruction in the Mosaic Religion" by
Professor Jholson, of the Jewish seminary at Frankfort-on-the-Main,
translated into English by Rabbi Leeser, we find the following.--Sec.
165. "Question. Does holy writ any where make a difference between the
Israelite and the other who is no Israelite, in those laws and
prohibitions which forbid us the _committal of any thing against our
fellow men?_"

"Answer. No where we do find a trace of such a difference. See Lev. xix.
33-36."

"God says thou shalt not murder, _steal_, cheat, &c. In every place the
action _itself_ is prohibited as being an abomination to God _without
respect to the PERSONS against whom it is committed_." ]

X. THE MOSAIC SYSTEM ENJOINED THE GREATEST AFFECTION AND KINDNESS
TOWARDS SERVANTS, FOREIGN AS WELL AS JEWISH.

"The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among
you, and thou shalt love him as thyself." Lev. xix. 34. "For the Lord
your God * * REGARDETH NOT PERSONS. He doth execute the judgment of the
fatherless and widow, and LOVETH THE STRANGER, in giving him food and
raiment, LOVE YE THEREFORE THE STRANGER." Deut. x. 17, 19. "Thou shalt
neither vex a STRANGER nor oppress him." Ex. xxii. 21. "Thou shalt not
oppress a STRANGER, for ye know the heart of a stranger." Ex. xxiii. 9.
"If thy brother be waxen poor thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be
a STRANGER or a sojourner, that he may live with thee, take thou no
usury of him or increase, but fear thy God." Lev. xxv. 35, 36. Could
this same stranger be taken by one that feared his God, and held as a
slave, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights?

XI. SERVANTS WERE PLACED UPON A LEVEL WITH THEIR MASTERS IN ALL CIVIL
AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. Num. xv. 15, 16, 29; ix. 14; Deut. i. 16, 17; Lev.
xxiv. 22. To these may be added that numerous class of passages which
represents God as regarding _alike_ the natural rights of _all_ men, and
making for all an _equal_ provision. Such as, 2 Chron. xix. 7; Prov.
xxiv. 23, xxviii. 21; Job. xxxiv. 19, 2 Sam. xiv. 14; Acts x. 35; Eph.
vi. 9.

Finally--With such watchful jealousy did the Mosaic Institutes guard the
_rights_ of servants, as to make the mere fact of a servant's escape
from his master presumptive evidence that his master had _oppressed_
him; and on that presumption, annulled his master's authority over him,
gave him license to go wherever he pleased, and commanded all to protect
him. Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. As this regulation will be examined under a
subsequent head, where its full discussion more appropriately belongs,
we notice it here merely to point out its bearings on the topic under
consideration.

THESE ARE REGULATIONS OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY
SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.



II. WERE PERSONS MADE SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?

We argue that they became servants of _their own accord,_ because,

I. TO BECOME A SERVANT WAS TO BECOME A PROSELYTE. Whoever of the
strangers became a servant, he was required to abjure idolatry, to enter
into covenant with God[A], be circumcised in token of it, be bound to
keep the Sabbath, the Passover, the Pentecost, and the Feast of
Tabernacles, and to receive instruction in the moral and ceremonial law.
Were the servants _forced_ through all these processes? Was the
renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenant
with God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_? Were they
_compelled_ mechanically to chew and swallow the flesh of the Paschal
lamb, while they abhorred the institution, spurned the laws that
enjoined it, detested its author and its executors, and instead of
rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemorated, bewailed it as a
calamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? Were they _driven_
from all parts of the land three times in the year to the annual
festivals? Were they drugged with instruction which they nauseated? Were
they goaded through a round of ceremonies, to them senseless and
disgusting mummeries; and drilled into the tactics of a creed rank with
loathed abominations? We repeat it, to become a _servant_, was to become
a _proselyte_. Did God authorize his people to make proselytes at the
point of the bayonet? by the terror of pains and penalties? by
converting men into _merchandise?_ Were _proselyte and chattel_
synonymes in the Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_
before taken into covenant with God? Was this the stipulated condition
of adoption? the sure and sacred passport to the communion of the
saints?

[Footnote A: Maimonides, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with
him at the head of Jewish writers, gives the following testimony on this
point: "Whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or
whether he be purchased from the heathen, the master is to bring them
both into the covenant.

"But he that is in the _house_ is entered on the eighth day, and he that
is bought with money, on the day on which his master receives him,
unless the slave be _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown
slave, and he be _unwilling_, his master is to bear with him, to seek to
win him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year.
After which, should he _refuse_ so long, it is forbidden to keep him
longer than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangers
from whence he came. For the God of Jacob will not accept any other than
the worship of a _willing_ heart."--Maimon, Hilcoth Miloth, Chap. 1,
Sec. 8.

The ancient Jewish Doctors assert that the servant from the Strangers
who at the close of his probationary year, refused to adopt the Jewish
religion and was on that account sent back to his own people, received a
_full compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his
expenses. But that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign
servant for a year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of
an Israelite) of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a
mere usage_. We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic
system. Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_.
Whether it was a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes
not within the scope of this inquiry. ]

II. THE SURRENDER OF FUGITIVE SERVANTS TO THEIR MASTERS WAS PROHIBITED.
"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." Deut. xxiii. 15, 16.

As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the
_right_ of the master to hold him; his _fleeing_ shows his _choice_,
proclaims his wrongs and his title to protection; you shall not force
him back and thus recognize the _right_ of the master to hold him in
such a condition as induces him to flee to others for protection." It
may be said that this command referred only to the servants of _heathen_
masters in the surrounding nations. We answer: the terms of the command
are unlimited. But the objection, if valid, would merely shift the
pressure of the difficulty to another point. Did God require them to
protect the _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the heathen, and
yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice of
_thousands_ of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A _foreign_
servant escapes to the Israelites; God says, "He shall dwell with thee,
in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy gates where it
_liketh him_ best." Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming
into Israel of his own accord, had been _dragged_ in by some kidnapper,
who bought him of his master, and forced him into a condition against
his will; would He who forbade such treatment of the stranger, who
_voluntarily_ came into the land, sanction the same treatment of the
_same person_, provided in addition to this last outrage, the previous
one had been committed of forcing him into the nation against his will?
To commit violence on the free choice of a foreign servant is forsooth a
horrible enormity, provided you _begin_ the violence _after_ he has come
among you. But if you commit the first act on the _other side of the
line_; if you begin the outrage by buying him from a third person
against his will, and then tear him from home, drag him across the line
into the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave--ah! that alters the
case, and you may perpetrate the violence now with impunity! Would
_greater_ favor have been shown to this new comer than to the old
residents--those who had been servants in Jewish families perhaps for a
generation? Were the Israelites commanded to exercise towards _him_,
uncircumcised and out of the covenant, a justice and kindness denied to
the multitudes who _were_ circumcised, and _within_ the covenant? But,
the objector finds small gain to his argument on the supposition that
the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surrounding
nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition
against their wills. In that case, the surrounding nations would adopt
retaliatory measures, and become so many asylums for Jewish fugitives.
As these nations were not only on every side of them, but in their
midst, such a proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men
whose condition was a constant counteraction of will. Besides the same
command which protected the servant from the power of his foreign
_master_, protected him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was
not, merely "Thou shalt not deliver him unto his _master_," but "he
shall dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_ in one of
thy gates where it liketh _him_ best." Every Israelite was forbidden to
put him in any condition _against his will_. What was this but a
proclamation, that all who _chose_ to live in the land and obey the
laws, were left to their own free will, to dispose of their services at
such a rate, to such persons, and in such places as they pleased?
Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of
_foreign_ servants only, there was no law requiring the return of
servants who had escaped from the _Israelites_. _Property_ lost, and
_cattle_ escaped, they were required to return, but not escaped
_servants_. These verses contain, 1st, a command, "Thou shalt not
deliver," &c., 2d. a declaration of the fugitive's right of _free
choice_, and of God's will that he should exercise it at his own
discretion; and 3d, a command guarding this right, namely, "Thou shalt
not oppress him," as though God had said, "If you restrain him from
exercising his _own choice_, as to the place and condition of his
residence, it is _oppression_, and shall not be tolerated."[A]

[Footnote A: Perhaps it may be objected that this view of Deut. xxiii.
15, 16, makes nonsense of Ex. xxi. 27, which provides that if a man
strikes out his servant's tooth he shall let him go free. Small favor
indeed if the servant might set himself free whenever he pleased!
Answer--The former passage might remove the servant from the master's
_authority_, without annulling the master's legal claims upon the
servant, if he had paid him in advance and had not received from him an
equivalent, and this equally, whether his master were a Jew or a
Gentile. The latter passage, "He shall let him go free _for his tooth's
sake,"_ not only freed the servant from the master's authority, but also
from any pecuniary claim which the master might have on account of
having paid his wages in advance; and this _as a compensation_, for the
loss of a tooth.]

III. THE SERVANTS HAD PECULIAR OPPORTUNITIES AND FACILITIES FOR ESCAPE.
Three times every year, all the males over twelve years, were required
to attend the national feasts. They were thus absent from their homes
not less than three weeks at each time, making nine weeks annually. As
these caravans moved over the country, were there military scouts lining
the way, to intercept deserters?--a corporal's guard at each pass of the
mountains, sentinels pacing the hilltops, and light-horse scouring the
defiles? The Israelites must have had some safe contrivance for taking
their "_slaves_" three times in a year to Jerusalem and back. When a
body of slaves is moved any distance in our _republic_, they are
handcuffed and chained together, to keep them from running away, or
beating their drivers' brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ plan, or an
improvement introduced by Samuel, or was it left for the wisdom of
Solomon? The usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less venerable and
biblical! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and transported in
bundles, or caged up and trundled on wheels to and fro, and while at the
Holy City, "lodged in jail for safe keeping," the Sanhedrim appointing
special religious services for their benefit, and their "drivers"
officiating at "ORAL instruction." Meanwhile, what became of the sturdy
_handmaids_ left at home? What hindered them from stalking off in a
body? Perhaps the Israelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the
kitchens, while the young ladies scoured the country, as mounted
rangers, picking up stragglers by day, and patrolled the streets,
keeping a sharp look-out at night!

IV. WILFUL NEGLECT OF CEREMONIAL RITES DISSOLVED THE RELATION.

Suppose the servants from the heathen had, upon entering Jewish
families, refused circumcision; if _slaves_, how simple the process of
emancipation! Their _refusal_ did the job. Or, suppose they had refused
to attend the annual feasts, or had eaten leavened bread during the
Passover, or compounded the ingredients of the anointing oil, or had
touched a dead body, a bone, or a grave, or in any way had contracted
ceremonial uncleanness, and refused to be cleansed with the "water of
separation," they would have been "cut off from the people;"
_excommunicated_. Ex. xii. 19; xxx. 33; Num. xix. 16.

V. SERVANTS OF THE PATRIARCHS NECESSARILY VOLUNTARY.

Abraham's servants are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred
and eighteen _young men_ "born in his house," and many more _not_ born
in his house. His servants of all ages were probably MANY THOUSANDS. How
did Abraham and Sarah contrive to hold fast so many thousand servants
against their wills? The most natural supposition is that the Patriarch
and his wife "took turns" in surrounding them! The neighboring tribes,
instead of constituting a picket guard to hem in his servants, would
have been far more likely to sweep them and him into captivity, as they
did Lot and his household. Besides, there was neither "constitution" nor
"compact," to send back Abraham's fugitives, nor a truckling police to
pounce upon them, nor gentlemen-kidnappers, suing for his patronage,
volunteering to howl on their track, boasting their blood-hound scent,
and pledging their honour to hunt down and deliver up, provided they had
a description of the "flesh-marks," and were suitably stimulated by
pieces of silver.[A] Abraham seems also to have been sadly deficient in
all the auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks, hand-cuffs,
foot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution of these
patriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, since he faithfully
trained "his household to do justice and judgment," though so deplorably
destitute of the needful aids.

[Footnote A: The following is a standing newspaper advertisement of one
of these professional man-catchers, a member of the New York bar, who
coolly plies his trade in the commercial emporium, sustained by the
complacent greetings and courtesies of "HONORABLE MEN!" "IMPORTANT TO
THE SOUTH.--F.H. Pettis, native of Orange County, Va., being located in
the city of New York, in the practice of law, announces to his friends
and the public in general, that he has been engaged as Counsel and
Adviser in General for a party whose business it is in the northern
cities to arrest and secure runaway slaves. He has been thus engaged for
several years, and as the act of Congress alone governs now in this
city, in business of this sort, which renders it easy for the recovery
of such property, he invites post paid communications to him, inclosing
a fee of $20 in each case, and a power of Attorney minutely descriptive
of the party absconded, and if in the northern region, he, or she will
soon be had.

"Mr. Pettis will attend promptly to all law business confided to him.

"N.B. New York City is estimated to contain 5,000 Runaway Slaves.

"PETTIS." ]

Probably Job had even more servants than Abraham. See Job. i. 3, 14-19,
and xlii. 12. That his thousands of servants staid with him entirely of
their own accord, is proved by the _fact_ of their staying with him.
Suppose they had wished to quit his service, and so the whole army had
filed off before him in full retreat, how could the patriarch have
brought them to halt? Doubtless with his wife, seven sons, and three
daughters for allies, he would have soon out-flanked the fugitive host
and dragged each of them back to his wonted chain and staple.

But the impossibility of Job's servants being held against their wills,
is not the only proof of their voluntary condition. We have his own
explicit testimony that he had not "withheld from the poor their
_desire_." Job. xxxi. 16. Of course he could hardly have made them live
with him, and forced them to work for him against _their desire_.

When Isaac sojourned in the country of the Philistines he "had _great
store_ of servants." And we have his testimony that the Philistines
hated him, added to that of inspiration that they "envied" him. Of
course they would hardly volunteer to organize patroles and committees
of vigilance to keep his servants from running away, and to drive back
all who were found beyond the limits of his plantation without a "pass!"
If the thousands of Isaac's servants were held against their wills, who
held them?

The servants of the Jews, during the building of the wall of Jerusalem,
under Nehemiah, may be included under this head. That they remained with
their masters of their own accord, we argue from the fact, that the
circumstances of the Jews made it impossible for them to _compel_ their
residence and service. They were few in number, without resources,
defensive fortifications, or munitions of war, and surrounded withal by
a host of foes, scoffing at their feebleness and inviting desertion from
their ranks. Yet so far from the Jews attempting in any way to restrain
their servants, or resorting to precautions to prevent escape, they put
arms into their hands, and enrolled them as a night-guard, for the
defence of the city. By cheerfully engaging in this service and in labor
by day, when with entire ease they might all have left their masters,
marched over to the enemy, and been received with shoutings, the
servants testified that their condition was one of _their own choice_,
and that they regarded their own interests as inseparably identified
with those of their masters. Neh. iv. 23.

VI. NO INSTANCES OF ISRAELITISH MASTERS SELLING SERVANTS. Neither
Abraham nor Isaac seem ever to have sold one, though they had "great
store of servants." Jacob was himself a servant in the family of Laban
twenty-one years. He had afterward a large number of servants. Joseph
invited him to come into Egypt, and to bring all that he had with
him--"thou and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks
and thy herds, and ALL THAT THOU HAST." Gen. xlv. 10. Jacob took his
flocks and herds but _no servants_. Yet we are told that Jacob "took his
journey with _all that he had_." Gen. xlvi. 1. And after his arrival in
Egypt, Joseph said to Pharaoh "my father, and my brethren, and their
flocks, and their herds and _all that they have_, are come." Gen. xlvii.
1. The servants doubtless, served under their _own contracts_, and when
Jacob went into Egypt, they _chose_ to stay in their own country.

The government might sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until
their services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex.
xxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their
_servants_. To give the master a _right_ to sell his servant, would
annihilate the servant's right of choice in his own disposal; but says
the objector, "to give the master a right to _buy_ a servant, equally
annihilates the servant's _right of choice_." Answer. It is one thing to
have a right to buy a man, and a quite another thing to have a right to
buy him of _another_ man.[A]

[Footnote A: There is no evidence that masters had the power to dispose
of even the _services_ of their servants, as men hire out their laborers
whom they employ by the year; but whether they had or not, affects not
the argument.]

Though servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females were
bought of their _fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ was their
betrothal as WIVES. Ex. xxi. 7, 8. "If a man sell his daughter to be a
maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please
not her master WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF, he shall let her be
redeemed."[B]

[Footnote B: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as
follows:--"A Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid
himself under obligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when
she was fit to be betrothed."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV.
Sec. XI. Jarchi, on the same passage, says, "He is bound to espouse her
to be his wife, for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her
_espousal_."]

VII. VOLUNTARY SERVANTS FROM THE STRANGERS.

We infer that _all_ the servants from the Strangers were voluntary in
becoming such, since we have direct testimony that some of them were so.
"Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether
he be of thy brethren, OR OF THY STRANGERS that are in thy land within
thy gates." Deut. xxiv. 14. We learn from this that some of the
servants, which the Israelites obtained from the strangers were procured
by presenting the inducement of _wages_ to their _free choice_, thus
recognizing their right to sell their services to others, or not, at
their own pleasure. Did the Israelites, when they went among the heathen
to procure servants, take money in one hand and ropes in the other? Did
they _ask_ one man to engage in their service, and _drag_ along with
them the next that they met, in spite of his struggles. Did they knock
for admission at one door and break down the next? Did they go through
one village with friendly salutations and respectful demeanor, and with
the air of those soliciting favors, offer wages to the inhabitants as an
inducement to engage in their service--while they sent on their agents
to prowl through the next, with a kidnapping posse at their heels, to
tear from their homes as many as they could get within their clutches?

VIII. HEBREW SERVANTS VOLUNTARY.

We infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in COMMENCING his
service, because he was preeminently so IN CONTINUING it. If, at the
year of release, it was the servant's _choice_ to remain with his
master, the law required his ear to be bored by the judges of the land,
thus making it impossible for him to be held against his will. Yea more,
his master was _compelled_ to keep him, however much he might wish to
get rid of him.

IX. THE MANNER OF PROCURING SERVANTS, AN APPEAL TO CHOICE.

The Israelites were commanded to offer them a suitable inducement, and
then leave them to decide. They might neither seize them by _force_, nor
frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle them by false pretences, nor
_borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they were commanded to BUY
them[A]--that is, they were to recognize the _right_ of the individuals
to _dispose_ of their own services, and their right to _refuse all
offers_, and thus oblige those who made them, _to do their own work_.
Suppose all, with one accord, had _refused_ to become servants, what
provision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency? NONE.

[Footnote A: The case of thieves, whose services were sold until they
had earned enough to make restitution to the person wronged, and to pay
the legal penalty, _stands by itself_, and has nothing to do with the
condition of servants.]

X. INCIDENTAL CORROBORATIVES. Various incidental expressions corroborate
the idea that servants became such by their own contract. Job. xli. 4,
is an illustration, "Will he (Leviathan) make a COVENANT with thee? wilt
thou take him for a SERVANT forever?" Isa. xiv. 1, 2 is also an
illustration. "The strangers shall be joined with them (the Israelites)
and _they shall_ CLEAVE to the house of Jacob, and the house of Israel
shall possess them in the land of the Lord, for servants and handmaids."

The transaction which made the Egyptians the SERVANTS OF PHARAOH was
voluntary throughout. See Gen. xlvii. 18-26. Of their own accord they
came to Joseph and said, "There is not aught left but our _bodies_ and
our lands; _buy_ us;" then in the 25th verse, "We will be Pharaoh's
servants." To these it may be added, that the sacrifices and offerings
which ALL were required to present, were to be made VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i.
2. 3.

The pertinence and point of our Lord's declaration in Luke xvi. 13, is
destroyed on the supposition that servants did not become such by _their
own choice_. "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate
the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise
the other." Let it be kept in mind, that our Lord was a _Jew_. The lost
sheep of the house of Israel were his flock. Wherever he went, they were
around him: whenever he spake, they were his auditors. His public
preaching and his private teaching and conversation, were full of
references to their own institutions, laws and usages, and of
illustrations drawn from them. In the verse quoted, he illustrates the
impossibility of their making choice of God as their portion, and
becoming his servants, while they chose the world, and were _its_
servants. To make this clear, he refers to one of their own
institutions, that of _domestic service_, with which, in all its
relations, incidents and usages, they were perfectly familiar. He
reminds them of the well-known impossibility of any person being the
servant of two masters, and declares the sole ground of that
impossibility to be, the fact that the servant _chooses_ the service of
the one, and _spurns_ that of the other. "He shall _hold to_ the one and
_despise_ (reject) the other." As though our Lord had said, "No one can
become the servant of another, when his will revolts from his service,
and when the conditions of it tend to make him hate the man." Since the
fact that the servant _spurns_ one of two masters, makes it impossible
for him to serve _that one_, if he spurned _both_ it would make it
impossible for him to serve _either_. So, also, if the fact that an
individual did not "hold to" or choose the service of another, proves
that he could not become his servant, then the question, whether or not
he should become the servant of another was suspended on _his own will_.
Further, the phraseology of the passage shows that the _choice_ of the
servant decided the question. "He will HOLD TO the one,"--hence there is
no difficulty in the way of his serving _him_; but "no servant can
serve" a master whom he does not "_hold to_," or _cleave_ to, whose
service he does not _choose_. This is the sole ground of the
impossibility asserted by our Lord.

The last clause of the verse furnishes an application of the principle
asserted in the former part, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Now in
what does the impossibility of serving both God and the world consist?
Solely in the fact that the will which chooses the one refuses the
other, and the affections which "hold to" the one, reject the other.
Thus the question, Which of the two is to be served, is suspended alone
upon the _choice_ of the individual.

XI. RICH STRANGERS DID NOT BECOME SERVANTS. Indeed, so far were they
from becoming servants themselves, that they bought and held Jewish
servants. Lev. xxv. 47. Since _rich_ strangers did not become servants
to the Israelites, we infer that those who _did_, became such not
because they were _strangers_, but because they were _poor_,--not
because, on account of their being heathen, they were _compelled by
force_ to become servants, but because, on account of their _poverty_,
they _chose_ to become servants to better their condition.

XII. INSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SERVANTS. Mention is often made of persons
becoming servants who were manifestly VOLUNTARY. As the Prophet Elisha.
1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. 2 Kings ii.
5. The word translated master, is the same that is so rendered in almost
every instance where masters are spoken of under the Mosaic and
patriarchal systems. Moses was the servant of Jethro. Ex. iii. 1; iv.
10. Joshua was the servant of Moses. Ex. xxxiii. 11. Num. xi. 28. Jacob
was the servant of Laban. Gen. xxix. 18-27. See also the case of the
Gibeonites who _voluntarily_ became servants to the Israelites and
afterwards performed service for the "house of God" throughout the
subsequent Jewish history, were incorporate with the Israelites,
registered in the genealogies, and manifestly of their own accord
remained with them, and "_clave_" to them. Neh. x. 28, 29; xi. 3; Ez.
vii. 7.

Finally, in all the regulations respecting servants and their service,
no form of expression is employed from which it could be inferred, that
servants were made such, and held in that condition by force. Add to
this the entire absence of all the machinery, appurtenances and
incidents of _compulsion_.

Voluntary service on the part of servants would have been in keeping
with regulations which abounded in the Mosaic system and sustained by a
multitude of analogies. Compulsory service on the other hand, could have
harmonized with nothing, and would have been the solitary disturbing
force, marring its design, counteracting its tendencies, and confusing
and falsifying its types. The directions given to regulate the
performance of service for the _public_, lay great stress on the
_willingness_ of those employed to perform it. For the spirit and usages
that obtained under the Mosaic system in this respect, see 1 Chron.
xxviii. 21; Ex. xxxv. 5, 21, 22, 29; 1 Chron. xxix. 5, 6, 9, 14, 17; Ex.
xxv. 2; Judges v. 2; Lev. xxii. 29; 2 Chron. xxxv. 8; Ezra i. 6; Ex.
xxxv; Neh. xi. 2.[A]

[Footnote A: We should naturally infer that the directions which
regulated the rendering of service to individuals, would proceed upon
the same principle in this respect with those which regulated the
rendering of service to the _public_. Otherwise the Mosaic system,
instead of constituting in its different parts a harmonious _whole_,
would be divided against itself; its principles counteracting and
nullifying each other.]

Again, the voluntariness of servants is a natural inference from the
fact that the Hebrew word _ebedh,_ uniformly rendered _servant_, is
applied to a great variety of classes and descriptions of persons under
the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, _all of whom_ were voluntary
and most of them eminently so. For instance, it is applied to persons
rendering acts of _worship_ about seventy times, whereas it is applied
to _servants_ not more than half that number of times.

To this we may add, that the illustrations drawn from the condition and
service of _servants_ and the ideas which the term servant is employed
to convey when applied figuratively to moral subjects would, in most
instances, lose all their force, and often become absurdities if the
will of the servant _resisted_ his service, and he performed it only by
_compulsion_. Many passages will at once occur to those who are familiar
with the Bible. We give a single example. "_To whom YE YIELD YOURSELVES
servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey._" Rom. vi. 16. It
would hardly be possible to assert the voluntariness of servants more
strongly in a direct proposition than it is here asserted by
implication.



III. WERE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY

As the servants became and continued such of _their own accord_, it
would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work without pay. Their
becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a motive. That they
_were paid_ for their labor, we argue.

1. BECAUSE GOD REBUKED THE USING OF SERVICE WITHOUT WAGES. "Wo unto him
that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong;
THAT USETH HIS NEIGHBOR'S SERVICE WITHOUT WAGES, AND GIVETH HIM NOT FOR
HIS WORK." Jer. xxii. 13. The Hebrew word _rea_, translated _neighbor_,
means any one with whom we have to do--all descriptions of persons, even
those who prosecute us in lawsuits, and enemies while in the act of
fighting us--"As when a man riseth against his NEIGHBOR and slayeth
him." Deut. xxii. 26. "Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know
not what to do in the end thereof, when thy NEIGHBOR hath put thee to
shame." Prov. xxv. 8. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
NEIGHBOR." Ex. xx. 16. "If a man come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR
to slay him with guile." Ex. xxi. 14, &c. The doctrine plainly
inculcated in this passage is, that every man's labor, or "service,"
being his own property, he is entitled to the profit of it, and that for
another to "use" it without paying him the value of it, is
"unrighteousness." The last clause of the verse "and giveth him not for
his work," reaffirms the same principle, that every man is to be _paid_
for "his work." In the context, the prophet contrasts the
unrighteousness of those who used the labor of others without pay, with
the justice and equity practiced by their patriarchal ancestor toward
the poor. "Did not thy father eat and drink and _do judgment and
justice_, and then it was well with him. He _judged the cause of the
poor and needy_; then it was well with him. But thine eyes and thine
heart are not but for thy _covetousness_, and for to shed innocent
blood, and for _oppression_, and for violence to do it." Jer. xxii. 15,
16. 17.[A]

[Footnote A: Paul lays down the same principle in the form of a precept
"Masters give unto your servants that which is JUST and EQUAL." Col. iv.
1. Thus not only asserting the _right_ of the servant to an equivalent
for his labor, and the duty of the master to render it, but condemning
all those relations between master and servant which were not founded
upon justice and equality of rights. The apostle James enforces the same
principle. "Behold, the hire of the laborers, who have reaped down your
fields, which is of you kept back _by fraud_, crieth." James v. 4. As
though he had said, "wages are the _right_ of laborers; those who work
for you have a just claim on you for _pay_; this you refuse to render,
and thus _defraud_ them by keeping from them what _belongs_ to them."
See also Mal. iii 5.]

II. GOD TESTIFIES THAT IN OUR DUTY TO OUR FELLOW MEN, ALL THE LAW AND
THE PROPHETS HANG UPON THIS COMMAND, "THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS
THYSELF." Our Savior, in giving this command, quoted _verbatim_ one of
the laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the
same chapter, Moses applies this law to the treatment of strangers, "The
stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you,
and THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF." If it be loving others as
ourselves, to make them work for us without pay; to rob them of food and
clothing also, would be a stronger illustration still of the law of
love! _Super_-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others
as we would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ good
alone, Paul should be called to order for his hard sayings against human
nature, especially for that libellous matter in Eph. v. 29, "No man ever
yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it."

III. SERVANTS WERE OFTEN WEALTHY. As persons became servants FROM
POVERTY, we argue that they were compensated, since they frequently
owned property, and sometimes a large amount. Ziba, the servant of
Mephibosheth, gave David "Two hundred loaves of bread, and a hundred
bunches of raisins, and a hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of
wine." 2 Sam. xvi. 1. The extent of his possessions can be inferred from
the fact, that though the father of fifteen sons, he had twenty
servants. In Lev. xxv. 47-49, where a servant, reduced to poverty, sold
himself, it is declared that he may be _redeemed,_ either by his
kindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been forced to sell himself from poverty,
he must have acquired considerable property _after_ he became a servant.
If it had not been common for servants to acquire property over which
they had the control, the servant of Elisha would hardly have ventured
to take a large sum of money, (nearly $3000[A]) from Naaman, 2 Kings v.
22, 23. As it was procured by deceit, he wished to conceal the means
used in getting it; but if servants could "own nothing, nor acquire
anything," to embark in such an enterprise would have been consummate
stupidity. The fact of having in his possession two talents of silver,
would of itself convict him of theft.[B] But since it was common for
servants to own property, he might have it, and invest or use it,
without attracting special attention, and that consideration alone would
have been a strong motive to the act. His master, though he rebuked him
for using such means to get the money, not only does not take it from
him, but seems to expect that he would invest it in real estate, and
cattle, and would procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. We find the
servant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emergency.
1 Sam. ix. 8. Arza, the servant of Elah, was the _owner of a house_.
That it was somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from its
being a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. When Jacob became the
servant of Laban, it was evidently from poverty, yet Laban said to him,
Tell me "what shall thy _wages_ be?" After Jacob had been his servant
for ten years, he proposed to set up for himself, but Laban said
"Appoint me thy wages and I will give it," and he paid him his price.
During the twenty years that Jacob was a servant, he always worked for
wages and at his own price. Gen. xxix. 15, 18; xxx. 28-33. The case of
the Gibeonites, who, after becoming servants, still occupied their
cities, and remained in many respects, a distinct people for
centuries;[C] and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the _servants_ of
Solomon, who worked out their "tribute of bond-service" in levies,
periodically relieving each other, are additional illustrations of
independence in the acquisition and ownership of property.

[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide upon the
_relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and now, yet we have enough to
warrant us in saying that two talents of silver, had far more value
_then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]


[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing
a large amount of money? They _"know how to take care of themselves"_
quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on
such a small scale, or in the taking of _such things_ as will make
detection difficult. No doubt they steal now and then, and a gaping
marvel would it be if they did not. Why should they not follow in the
footsteps of their masters and mistresses? Dull scholars indeed! if,
after so many lessons from _proficients_ in the art, who drive the
business by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their
betters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at
a practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ business carried
on around them! Ignoble truly! never to feel the stirrings of high
impulse, prompting to imitate the eminent pattern set before them in the
daily vocation of "Honorables" and "Excellencies," and to emulate the
illustrious examples of Doctors of Divinity, and _Right_ and _Very
Reverends!_ Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his Notes on
Virginia, pp. 207-8, speaking of slaves, he says, "That disposition to
theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their
_situation_, and not to any special depravity of the moral sense. It is
a problem which I give the master to solve, whether the religious
precepts against the violation of property were not framed for HIM as
well as for his slave--and whether the slave may not as justifiably take
a _little_ from one who has taken ALL from him, as he may _slay_ one who
would slay him?"]


[Footnote C: The Nethinims, which name was afterwards given to the
Gibeonites on account of their being _set apart_ for the service of the
tabernacle, had their own houses and cities and "dwelt every one in his
own possession." Neh. xi. 3. 21; Ezra ii. 70; 1 Chron. ix. 2.]

Again. The Israelites often _hired_ servants from the strangers. Deut.
xxiv. 17.

Since then it is certain that they gave wages to a part of their
Canaanitish servants, thus recognizing their _right_ to a reward for
their labor, we infer that they did not rob the rest of their earnings.

If God gave them a license to make the strangers work for them without
pay--if this was good and acceptable in His sight, and _right and just
in itself_, they must have been great fools to have wasted their money
by paying wages when they could have saved it, by making the strangers
do all their work for nothing! Besides, by refusing to avail themselves
of this "Divine license," they despised the blessing and cast contempt
on the giver! But far be it from us to do the Israelites injustice;
perhaps they seized all the Canaanites they could lay their hands on,
and forced them to work without pay, but not being able to catch enough
to do their work, were obliged to offer wages in order to eke out the
supply!

The parable of our Lord, contained in Mat. xviii. 23-34, not only
derives its significance from the fact, that servants can both _own_ and
_owe_ and _earn_ property, over which they had the control, but would be
made a medley of contradictions on any other supposition.--1. Their lord
at a set time proceeded to "take account" and "reckon" with his
servants; the phraseology itself showing that the relations between the
parties, were those of debt and credit. 2. As the reckoning went on, one
of his servants was found to _owe_ him ten thousand talents. From the
fact that the servant _owed_ this to his master, we naturally infer,
that he must have been at some time, and in some way, the responsible
_owner_ of that amount, or of its substantial equivalent. Not that he
had had that amount put into his hands to invest, or disburse, in his
master's name, merely as his _agent_, for in that case no claim of
_debt_ for value received would lie, but, that having sustained the
responsibilities of legal _proprietorship_, he was under the liabilities
resulting therefrom. 3. Not having on hand wherewith to pay, he says to
his master "have patience with me _and I will pay thee all_." If the
servant had been his master's _property_, his time and earnings belonged
to the master as a matter of course, hence the promise to earn and pay
over that amount, was virtually saying to his master, "I will take money
out of your pocket with which to pay my debt to you," thus adding insult
to injury. The promise of the servant to pay the debt on condition that
the time for payment should be postponed, not only proceeds upon the
fact that his time was his own, that he was constantly earning property
or in circumstances that enabled him to earn it, and that he was the
_proprietor_ of his earnings, but that his master had _full knowledge_
of that fact.--In a word, the supposition that the master was the
_owner_ of the servant, would annihilate all legal claim upon him for
value received, and that the servant was the _property_ of the master,
would absolve him from all obligations of debt, or rather would always
_forestall_ such obligations--for the relations of owner and creditor in
such case, would annihilate each other, as would those of _property_ and
_debtor_. The fact that the same servant was the creditor of one of his
fellow servants, who owed him a considerable sum, and that at last he
was imprisoned until he should pay all that was due to his master, are
additional corroborations of the same point.

IV. HEIRSHIP.--Servants frequently inherited their master's property;
especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family.
Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, Gen. xv. 23; Ziba, the servant of
Mephibosheth; Jarha, the servant of Sheshan, who married his daughter,
and thus became his heir, he having no sons, and the _husbandmen_ who
said of their master's son, "this is the HEIR, let us kill him, and the
INHERITANCE WILL BE OURS," are illustrations; also Prov. xxx. 23, an
_handmaid_ (or _maid-servant_,) that is _heir_ to her mistress; also
Prov. xvii. 2--"A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth
shame, and SHALL HAVE PART OF THE INHERITANCE AMONG THE BRETHREN." This
passage gives servants precedence as heirs, even over the wives and
daughters of their masters. Did masters hold by force, and plunder of
earnings, a class of persons, from which, in frequent contingencies,
they selected both heirs for their property, and husbands for their
daughters?

V. ALL WERE REQUIRED TO PRESENT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES. Deut. xvi. 16,
17; 2 Chron. xv. 9-11; Numb. ix. 13, 14. Beside this, "every man" from
twenty years old and above, was required to pay a tax of half a shekel
at the taking of the census; this is called "an offering unto the Lord
to make an atonement for their souls." Ex. xxx. 12-16. See also Ex.
xxxiv. 20. Servants must have had permanently the means of _acquiring_
property to meet these expenditures.

VI. SERVANTS WHO WENT OUT AT THE SEVENTH YEAR, WERE "FURNISHED
LIBERALLY." Deut. xv. 10-14. "Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of
thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine press, of that
wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, thou shalt give him."[A]
If it be said that the servants from the Strangers did not receive a
like bountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class
of _Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason,
_they did not go out in the seventh year,_ but continued until the
jubilee. If the fact that the Gentile servants did not receive such a
_gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_, it proves
that the most valued class of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs
also; a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators,
however unscrupulous.

[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as
follows--"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to say,
_'Loading, ye shall load him,'_ likewise every one of his family with as
much as he can take with him--abundant benefits. And if it be
avariciously asked, 'How much must I give him?' I say unto _you, not
less than thirty shekels,_ which is the valuation of a servant, as
declared in Ex. xxi. 32."--Maimonides, Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec.
3.]

VII. SERVANTS WERE BOUGHT. In other words, they received compensation in
advance.[A] Having shown, under a previous head, that servants _sold
themselves_, and of course received the compensation for themselves,
except in cases where parents hired out the time of their children till
they became of age,[B] a mere reference to the fact is all that is
required for the purposes of this argument. As all the strangers in the
land were required to pay an annual tribute to the government, the
Israelites might often "buy" them as family servants, by stipulating
with them to pay their annual tribute. This assumption of their
obligations to the government might cover the whole of the servant's
time of service, or a part of it, at the pleasure of the parties.

[Footnote A: But, says the objector, if servants received their pay in
advance, and if the Israelites were forbidden to surrender the fugitive
to his master, it would operate practically as a bounty offered to all
servants who would leave their master's service encouraging them to make
contracts, get their pay in advance and then run away, thus cheating
their masters out of their money as well as their own services.--We
answer, the prohibition, Deut xxiii. 15. 16, "Thou shalt not deliver
unto his master," &c., sets the servant free from his _authority_ and of
course, from all those liabilities of injury, to which _as his servant_,
he was subjected, but not from the obligation of legal contracts. If the
servant had received pay in advance, and had not rendered an equivalent
for this "value received," he was not absolved from his obligation to do
so, but he was absolved from all obligations to pay his master in _that
particular way_, that is, _by working for him as his servant_.]


[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and
boys at thirteen years.]

VIII. THE RIGHT OF SERVANTS TO COMPENSATION IS RECOGNISED IN Ex. xxi.
27. "And if he smite out his man-servant's, or his maid-servant's tooth,
he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." This regulation is
manifestly based upon the _right_ of the servant to the _use_ of himself
and all this powers, faculties and personal conveniences, and
consequently his just claim for remuneration, upon him, who should
however _unintentionally_, deprive him of the use even of the least of
them. If the servant had a right to his _tooth_ and the use _of_ it,
upon the same principle, he had a right to the rest of his body and the
use of it. If he had a right to the _fraction_, and if it was his to
hold, to use, and to have pay for; he had a right to the _sum total_,
and it was his to hold, to use, and to have pay for.

IX. WE FIND MASTERS AT ONE TIME HAVING A LARGE NUMBER OF SERVANTS, AND
AFTERWARDS NONE, WITH NO INTIMATION IN ANY CASE THAT THEY WERE SOLD. The
wages of servants would enable them to set up in business for
themselves. Jacob, after being Laban's servant for twenty-one years,
became thus an independent herdsman, and had many servants. Gen. xxx.
43; xxxii. 16. But all these servants had left him before he went down
into Egypt, having doubtless acquired enough to commence business for
themselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11; xlvi. 1-7, 32. The case of Ziba, the
servant of Mephibosheth, who had twenty servants, has been already
mentioned.

X. GOD'S TESTIMONY TO THE CHARACTER OF ABRAHAM. Gen. xviii. 19. "For I
know him that he will command his children and his household after him,
and they shall keep THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO JUSTICE AND JUDGMENT." God
here testifies that Abraham taught his servants "the way of the Lord."
What was the "way of the Lord" respecting the payment of wages where
service was rendered? "Wo unto him that useth this neighbor's service
WITHOUT WAGES!" Jer. xxii. 13. "Masters, give unto your servants that
which is JUST AND EQUAL." Col. iv. 1. "Render unto all their DUES." Rom.
xiii. 7. "The laborer is WORTHY of HIS HIRE." Luke x. 7. How did Abraham
teach his servants to "_do justice_" to others? By doing injustice to
_them_? Did he exhort them to "render to all their dues" by keeping back
_their own_? Did he teach them that "the laborer was worthy of his hire"
by robbing them of _theirs_? Did he beget in them a reverence for
honesty by pilfering all their time and labor? Did he teach them "not to
defraud" others "in any matter" by denying _them_ "what was just and
equal?" If each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not
become a very _Aristides_ in justice, then illustrious examples,
patriarchal dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway
against human perverseness!

XI. SPECIFIC PRECEPTS OF THE MOSAIC LAW ENFORCING GENERAL PRINCIPLES.
Out of many, we select the following: (1.) "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox
when he treadeth out the corn." Deut. xxv. 4. Here is a general
principle applied to a familiar case. The ox representing all domestic
animals. Isa. xxx. 24. A _particular_ kind of service, _all_ kinds; and
a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal
ministering to man in a _certain_ way,--a general principle of treatment
covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities of service. The object
of the law was; not merely to enjoin tenderness towards brutes, but to
inculcate the duty of rewarding those who serve us; and if such care be
enjoined, by God, both for the ample sustenance and present enjoyment of
_a brute_, what would be a meet return for the services of _man?_--MAN
with his varied wants, exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul says
expressly, that this principle lies at the bottom of the statute. 1 Cor.
ix. 9, 10, "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle
the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for
oxen? Or saith he it altogether for OUR sakes? that he that ploweth
should plow in HOPE, and that he that thresheth in hope should be
PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE." In the context, Paul innumerates the four grand
divisions of labor among the Jews in illustration of the principle that
the laborer, whatever may be the service he performs, is entitled to a
_reward_. The priests, Levites and all engaged in sacred things--the
military, those who tended flocks and herds, and those who cultivated
the soil. As the latter employment engaged the great body of the
Israelites, the Apostle amplifies his illustration under that head by
much detail--and enumerates the five great departments of agricultural
labor among the Jews--vine-dressing, plowing, sowing, reaping and
threshing, as the representatives of universal labor. In his epistle to
Timothy. 1 Tim. v. 18. Paul quotes again this precept of the Mosaic law,
and connects with it the declaration of our Lord. Luke x. 7. "The
laborer is worthy of his hire,"--as both inculcating the _same_
doctrine, that he who labors, whatever the employment, or whoever the
laborer, is entitled to a reward. The Apostle thus declares the
principle of right respecting the performance of service for others, and
the rule of duty towards those who perform it, to be the same under both
dispensations. (2.) "If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay
with thee, then thou shalt relieve him, YEA THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER or a
SOJOURNER that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or
increase, but fear thy God. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon
usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." Lev. xxv. 35-37. Now, we
ask, by what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this regulation can be
made to harmonize with the doctrine of WORK WITHOUT PAY? Did God declare
the poor stranger entitled to RELIEF, and in the same breath, authorize
them to "use his service without wages;" force him to work and ROB HIM
OF HIS EARNINGS?



IV.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS LEGAL PROPERTY?

This topic has been unavoidably somewhat anticipated, in the foregoing
discussion, but a variety of additional considerations remain to be
noticed.

I. SERVANTS WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO THE USES NOR LIABLE TO THE
CONTINGENCIES OF PROPERTY. 1 _They were never taken in payment for their
masters' debts_. Children were sometimes taken (without legal authority)
for the debts of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9; Isa. l. 1; Matt.
xviii. 25. Creditors took from debtors property of all kinds, to satisfy
their demands. Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; Prov. xxii. 27, household
furniture; Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions of the soil; Lev. xxv.
27-30, houses; Ex. xxii. 26, 27; Deut. xxiv. 10-13; Matt. v. 40,
clothing; but _servants_ were taken in _no instance_. 2. _Servants were
never given as pledges_. _Property_ of all sorts was pledged for value
received; household furniture, clothing, cattle, money, signets,
personal ornaments, &c., but no servants. 3. _Servants were not put into
the hands of others, or consigned to their keeping_. The precept giving
directions how to proceed in a case where property that has life is
delivered to another "to keep," and "it die or be hurt or driven away,"
enumerates oxen, asses, sheep or "any _beast_," but not "_servants_."
Ex. xxii. 10. 4. _All lost property was to be restored_. Oxen, asses,
sheep, raiment, and "all lost things," are specified--servants _not_.
Deut. xxii 1-3. Besides, the Israelites were forbidden to return the
runaway servant. Deut. xxiii, 15. 5. _Servants were not sold_. When by
flagrant misconduct, unfaithfulness or from whatever cause, they had
justly forfeited their privilege of membership in an Israelitish family,
they were not sold, but _expelled_ from the household. Luke xvi. 2-4; 2
Kings v. 20, 27; Gen. xxi. 14. 6 _The Israelites never received servants
as tribute_. At different times all the nations round about them were
their tributaries and paid them annually large amounts. They received
property of all kinds in payment of tribute. Gold, silver, brass, iron,
precious stone, and vessels, armor, spices, raiment, harness, horses,
mules, sheep, goats, &c., are in various places enumerated, but
_servants_, never. 7. _The Israelites never gave away their servants as
presents_. They made costly presents, of great variety. Lands, houses,
all kinds of domestic animals, beds, merchandize, family utensils,
precious metals, grain, honey, butter, cheese, fruits, oil, wine,
raiment, armor, &c., are among their recorded _gifts_. Giving presents
to superiors and persons of rank, was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27;
xvi. 20; 2 Chron. xvii. 5. Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to
the viceroy of Egypt, Gen. xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father,
Gen. xlv. 22, 23; Benhadad to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to
Tiglath Pilezer, 2 Kings vi. 8; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings
x. 13; Jeroboam to Ahijah, 1 Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv.
18, 19. Abigail the wife of Nabal to David, 1 Sam. xxv. 18. David to the
elders of Judah, 1 Sam. xxx. 26. Jehoshaphat to his sons, 2. Chron. xxi.
3. The Israelites to David, 1. Chron. xii. 39, 40. Shobi Machir and
Barzillai to David, 2 Sam. xvii. 28, 29. But no servants were given as
presents, though it was a prevailing fashion in the surrounding nations.
Gen. xii. 16, xx. 14. In the last passage we are told that Abimelech
king of the Philistines "took sheep and oxen and men servants and women
servants and gave them unto Abraham." Not long after this Abraham made
Abimelech a present, the same kind with that which he had received from
him except that he gave him _no servants_. "And Abraham took sheep and
oxen and gave them unto Abimelech." Gen. xxi. 27. It may be objected
that Laban "GAVE" handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives. Without
enlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent, suffice it to
say that the handmaids of wives were regarded as wives, though of
inferior dignity and authority. That Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is
proved by his curse upon Reuben, Gen. xlix. 4, and 1 Chron. v. 1; also
by the equality of their children with those of Rachel and Leah. But had
it been otherwise--had Laban given them as _articles of property_, then,
indeed, the example of this "good old slaveholder and patriarch," Saint
Laban, would have been a forecloser to all argument. Ah! we remember his
jealousy for _religion_--his holy indignation when he found that his
"GODS" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, and plunged over the
desert in hot pursuit seven days by forced marches; how he ransacked a
whole caravan, sifting the contents of every tent, little heeding such
small matters as domestic privacy, or female seclusion, for lo! the zeal
of his "IMAGES" had eaten him up! No wonder that slavery, in its
Bible-navigation, drifting dismantled before the free gusts, should scud
under the lee of such a pious worthy to haul up and refit; invoking his
protection, and the benediction, of his "GODS!" Again, it may be
objected that, servants were enumerated in inventories of property. If
that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ property. "Thou shall
not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shall not covet thy neighbor's
WIFE, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his
ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Ex. xx. 17. In inventories
of mere property, if servants are included, it is in such a way as to
show that they are not regarded as property. Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But when
the design is to show, not merely the wealth, but the _greatness_ and
_power_ of any one, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a
word, if _riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants;
if _greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2, 5. "And Abraham was
very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold." Yet we are told, in the
verse preceding, that he came up out of Egypt "with _all_ that he had."
"And Lot also had flocks, and herds, and tents." In the seventh verse
servants are mentioned, "And there was a strife between the HERDMEN of
Abraham's cattle and the HERDMEN of Lot's cattle." It is said of Isaac.
"And the man waxed _great_, and went forward, and grew until he became
_very great_. For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds,
and _great store of servants_." In immediate connection with this we
find Abimelech the king of the Philistines saying to him. "Thou art much
_mightier_ than we." Shortly after this avowal, Isaac is waited upon by
a deputation consisting of Abimelech, Phicol the chief captain of his
army, and Ahuzzath, who says to him "Let there be now an oath betwixt us
and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee, that thou wilt _do us no
hurt_." Gen. xxvi. 13, 14, 16, 26, 28, 29.--A plain concession of the
_power_ which Isaac had both for aggression and defence in his "great
store of _servants_;" that is, of willing and affectionate adherents to
him as a just and benevolent prince. When Hamor and Shechem speak to the
Hivites of the _riches_ of Abraham and his sons, they say, "Shall not
their _cattle_ and their _substance_ and _every beast of theirs_ be
ours?" Gen. xxxiv. 23. See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen. xxxiv. 23; Job.
xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; xxxii. 27-29; Job. i. 3-5; Deut. viii. 12-17;
Gen. xxiv. 35; xxvi. 13; xxx. 43. Jacob's wives say to him, "All the
_riches_ which God has taken from our father that is ours and our
children's." Then follows an inventory of property--"All his cattle,"
"all his goods," "the cattle of his getting." His numerous servants are
not included with his property. Comp. Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi.
16-18. When Jacob sent messengers to Esau, wishing to impress him with
an idea of his state and sway, he bade them tell him not only of his
RICHES, but of his GREATNESS; that he had "oxen, and asses, and flocks,
and men-servants, and maid-servants." Gen. xxxii. 4, 5. Yet in the
present which he sent, there were no servants; though he manifestly
selected the _most valuable_ kinds of property. Gen. xxxii. 14, 15; see
also Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7; xxxiv. 23. As flocks and herds were the staples
of wealth, a large number of servants presupposed large possessions of
cattle, which would require many herdsmen. When Jacob and his sons went
down into Egypt it is repeatedly asserted that they took _all that they
had_. "Their cattle and their goods which they had gotten in the land of
Canaan," "Their flocks and their herds" are mentioned, but no
_servants_. And as we have besides a full catalogue of the _household_,
we know that he took with him no servants. That Jacob _had_ many
servants before his migration into Egypt, we learn from Gen, xxx. 43;
xxxii. 5, 16, 19. That he was not the _proprietor_ of these servants as
his property is a probable inference from the fact that he did not take
them with him, since we are expressly told that he did take all his
_property_. Gen. xlv. 10; xlvi. 1, 32; xlvii. 1. When servants are
spoken of in connection with _mere property_, the terms used to express
the latter do not include the former. The Hebrew word _mikne_, is an
illustration. It is derived from _kana_, to procure, to buy, and its
meaning is, a _possession, wealth, riches_. It occurs more than forty
times in the Old Testament, and is applied always to _mere property_,
generally to domestic animals, but never to servants. In some instances,
servants are mentioned in distinction from the _mikne_. "And Abraham
took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their SUBSTANCE
that they had gathered; and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and
they went forth to go into the land of Canaan." Gen. xii. 5. Many will
have it, that these _souls_ were a part of Abraham's _substance_
(notwithstanding the pains here taken to separate them from it)--that
they were slaves taken with him in his migration as a part of his family
effects. Who but slaveholders, either actually or in heart, would
torture into the principle and practice of slavery, such a harmless
phrase as "_the souls that they had gotten?_" Until the African slave
trade breathed its haze into the eyes of the church and smote her with
palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery in, "The souls that they
had gotten." In the Targum of Onkelos[A] it is rendered, "The souls whom
they had brought to obey the law in Haran." In the Targum of Jonathan,
"The souls whom they had made proselytes in Haran." In the Targum of
Jerusalem, "The souls proselyted in Haran." Jarchi, the prince of Jewish
commentators, "The souls whom they had brought under the Divine wings."
Jerome, one of the most learned of the Christian fathers, "The persons
whom they had proselyted." The Persian version, the Vulgate, the Syriac,
the Arabic, and the Samaritan all render it, "All the wealth which they
had gathered, and the souls which they had made in Haran." Menochius, a
commentator who wrote before our present translation of the Bible,
renders it, "Quas de idolatraria converterant." "Those whom they had
converted from idolatry." Paulus Fagius,[B] "Quas instituerant in
religione." "Those whom they had established in religion." Luke Francke,
a German commentator who lived two centuries ago, "Quas legi
subjicerant."--"Those whom they had brought to obey the law." The same
distinction is made between _persons_ and property, in the enumeration
of Esau's household and the inventory of his effects. "And Esau took his
wives and his sons and his daughters, and all the _persons_ of his
house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his _substance_ which
he had got in the land of Canaan, and went into the country from the
face of his brother Jacob. For their _riches_ were more than that they
might dwell together; and the land could not bear them because of their
_cattle_." Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7.

[Footnote A: The Targums are Chaldee paraphrases of parts of the Old
Testament. The Targum of Onkelos is, for the most part, a very accurate
and faithful translation of the original, and was probably made at about
the commencement of the Christian era. The Targum of Jonathan Ben
Uzziel, bears about the same date. The Targum of Jerusalem was probably
about five hundred years later. The Israelites, during their captivity
in Babylon, lost, as a body, their own language. These translations into
the Chaldee, the language which they acquired in Babylon, were thus
called for by the necessity of the case.]


[Footnote B: This eminent Hebrew scholar was invited to England to
superintend the translation of the Bible into English, under the
patronage of Henry the Eighth. He had hardly commenced the work when he
died. This was nearly a century before the date of our present
translation.]

II. THE CONDITION AND SOCIAL ESTIMATION OF SERVANTS MAKE THE DOCTRINE
THAT THEY WERE COMMODITIES, AN ABSURDITY. As the head of a Jewish family
possessed the same power over his wife, children, and grandchildren (if
they were in his family) as over his servants, if the latter were
articles of property, the former were equally such. If there were
nothing else in the Mosaic Institutes or history establishing the social
equality of the servants with their masters and their master's wives and
children, those precepts which required that they should be guests at
all the public feasts, and equal participants in the family and social
rejoicings, would be quite sufficient to settle the question. Deut. xii.
12, 18; xvi. 10, 11, 13, 14. Ex. xii. 43, 44. St. Paul's testimony in
Gal. iv. 1, shows the condition of servants: "Now I say unto you, that
the heir, so long as he is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT,
though he be lord of all." That the interests of Abraham's servants were
identified with those of their master's family, and that the utmost
confidence was reposed in them, is shown in their being armed. Gen. xiv.
14, 15. When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the young Princess
Rebecca did not disdain to say to him. "Drink, MY LORD," as "she hasted
and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink." Laban, the
brother of Rebecca, "ungirded his camels, and brought him water to wash
his feet, and the men's feet that were with him!" In the arrangements of
Jacob's household on his journey from Padanaram to Canaan, we find his
two maid servants treated in the same manner and provided with the same
accommodations as Rachel and Leah. Each of them had a separate tent
appropriated to her use. Gen. xxxi. 33. The social equality of servants
with their masters and other members of their master's families, is an
obvious deduction from Ex. xxi. 7, 10, from which we learn that the sale
of a young Jewish female as a servant, was also _betrothed as a wife_,
either to her master, or to one of his sons. In 1 Sam. ix. is an account
of a festival in the city of Zuph, at which Samuel presided. None but
those bidden, sat down at the feast, and only "about thirty persons"
were invited. Quite a select party!--the elite of the city. Saul and his
servant had just arrived at Zuph, and _both_ of them, at Samuel's
solicitation, accompany him as invited guests. "And Samuel took Saul and
his SERVANT, and brought THEM into the PARLOR (!) and made THEM sit in
the CHIEFEST SEATS among those that were bidden." A _servant_ invited by
the chief judge, ruler, and prophet in Israel, to dine publicly with a
select party, in company with his master, who was at the same time
anointed King of Israel! and this servant introduced by Samuel into the
PARLOR, and assigned, with his master, to the _chiefest seat_ at the
table! This was "_one_ of the servants" of Kish, Saul's father; not the
steward or the chief of them--not at all a _picked_ man, but "_one_ of
the servants;" _any_ one that could be most easily spared, as no
endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking after
asses. David seems to have been for a time in all respects a servant in
Saul's family. He "_stood before him_." "And Saul sent to Jesse, saying,
let David, I pray thee, _stand before me_." He was Saul's personal
servant, went on his errands, played on the harp for his amusement, bore
his armor for him, and when he wished to visit his parents, asked
permission of Jonathan, Saul's son. Saul also calls him "my servant." 1
Sam. xvi. 21-23; xviii. 5; xx. 5, 6; xxii. 8. Yet David sat with the
king at meat, married his daughter, and lived on terms of the closest
intimacy with the heir apparent of the throne. Abimelech, who was first
elected king of Shechem, and afterwards reigned over all Israel, _was
the son of a_ MAID-SERVANT. His mother's family seems to have been of
much note in the city of Shechem, where her brothers manifestly held
great sway. Judg. ix. 1-6, 18. Jarha, an Egyptian, the servant of
Sheshan, married his daughter. Tobiah, "the servant" and an Ammonite
married the daughter of Shecaniah one of the chief men among the Jews in
Jerusalem and was the intimate associate of Sanballat the governor of
the Samaritans. We find Elah, the King of Israel, at a festive
entertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with
whom he seems to have been on terms of familiarity. 1 Kings xvi. 8, 9.
See also the intercourse between Gideon and his servants. Judg. vi. 27,
and vii. 10, 11. The Levite of Mount Ephraim and his servant. Judg. xx.
3, 9, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22. King Saul and his servant Doeg, one of his
herdmen. 1 Sam. xx. 1, 7; xxii. 9, 18, 22. King David and Ziba, the
servant of Mephibosheth. 2 Sam. xvi. 1-4. Jonathan and his servant. 1
Sam. xiv. 1-14. Elisha and his servant, Gehazi. 2 Kings iv. v. vi. Also
between Joram king of Israel and the servant of Elisha. 2 Kings viii. 4,
5, and between Naaman "the Captain of the host of the king of Syria" and
the same person. 2 Kings v. 21-23. The fact stated under a previous head
that servants were always invited guests at public and social festivals,
is in perfect keeping with the foregoing exemplifications of the
prevalent estimation in which servants were held by the Israelites.

Probably no one of the Old Testament patriarchs had more servants than
Job; "This man was the greatest man of all the men of the east." Job, i.
3. We are not left in the dark as to the condition of his servants.
After asserting his integrity, his strict justice, honesty, and equity,
in his dealings with his fellow men, and declaring "I delivered the
poor," "I was eyes to the blind and feet was I to the lame," "I was a
father to the poor, and the cause which I knew not I searched out," * *
* he says "If I did despise the cause of my man-servant or my
maid-servant when they CONTENDED with me * * * then let mine arm fall
from the shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone." Job.
xxix. 12, 15, 16; xxxi. 13, 22. The language employed in this passage is
the phraseology applied in judicial proceedings to those who implead one
another, and whether it be understood literally or figuratively, shows
that whatever difference existed between Job and his servants in other
respects, so far as _rights_ are concerned, they were on equal ground
with him, and that in the matter of daily intercourse, there was not the
least restraint on their _free speech_ in calling in question all his
transactions with them, and that the relations and claims of both
parties were adjudicated on the principles of equity and reciprocal
right. "If I _despised_ the cause of my man-servant," &c. In other
words, if I treated it lightly, as though servants were not men, had not
rights, and had not a claim for just dues and just estimation as human
beings. "When they _contended_ with me," that is, when they plead their
rights, claimed what was due to them, or questioned the justice of any
of my dealings with them.

In the context Job virtually affirms as the ground of his just and
equitable treatment of his servants, that they had the same rights as he
had, and were, as human beings, entitled to equal consideration with
himself. By what language could he more forcibly utter his conviction of
the oneness of their common origin and of the identity of their common
nature, necessities, attribute and rights? As soon as he has said, "If I
did despise the cause of my man-servant," &c., he follows it up with
"What then shall I do when God raiseth up? and when he visiteth, what
shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb, make _him_? and
did not one fashion us in the womb." In the next verse Job glories in
the fact that he has not "_withheld from the poor their desire_." Is it
the "desire" of the poor to be _compelled_ by the rich to work for them,
and without _pay_?

III. THE CASE OF THE GIBEONITES. The condition of the inhabitants of
Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Hebrew
commonwealth, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and
truly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from
it. Milton's devils made desperate snatches at fruit that turned to
ashes on their lips. The spirit of slavery raves under tormenting
gnawings, and casts about in blind phrenzy for something to ease, or
even to mock them. But for this, it would never have clutched at the
Gibeonites, for even the incantations of the demon cauldron could not
extract from their case enough to tantalize starvation's self. But to
the question. What was the condition of the Gibeonites under the
Israelites? 1. _It was voluntary_. Their own proposition to Joshua was
to become servants. Josh. ix. 8, 11. It was accepted, but the kind of
service which they should perform, was not specified until their gross
imposition came to light; they were then assigned to menial offices in
the Tabernacle. 2. _They were not domestic servants in the families of
the Israelites_. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated
their own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the
functions of a _distinct_, though not independent community. They were
subject to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. So far from being
distributed among the Israelites and their internal organization as a
distinct people abolished, they remained a separate, and, in some
respects, an independent community for many centuries. When attacked by
the Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aid--it
was rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in
their cities. Josh. x. 6-18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them,
and God sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. David inquired of
the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the
atonement?" At their demand, he delivered up to them seven of Saul's
descendants. 2 Sam. xxi. 1-9. The whole transaction was a formal
recognition of the Gibeonites as a distinct people. There is no
intimation that they served either families or individuals of the
Israelites, but only the "house of God," or the Tabernacle. This was
established first at Gilgal, a days' journey from their cities; and then
at Shiloh, nearly two days' journey from them; where it continued about
350 years. During this period the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient
cities and territory. Only a few, comparatively, could have been absent
at any one time in attendance on the Tabernacle. Wherever allusion is
made to them in the history, the main body are spoken of as _at home_.
It is preposterous to suppose that all the inhabitants of these four
cities could find employment at the Tabernacle. One of them "was a great
city, as one of the royal cities;" so large, that a confederacy of five
kings, apparently the most powerful in the land, was deemed necessary
for its destruction. It is probable that the men were divided into
classes, ministering in rotation--each class a few days or weeks at a
time. As the priests whose assistants they were, served by courses in
rotation a week at a time; it is not improbable that their periods of
service were so arranged as to correspond. This service was their
_national tribute_ to the Israelites, for the privilege of residence and
protection under their government. No service seems to have been
required of the _females_. As these Gibeonites were Canaanites, and as
they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by impudent imposition and
lying, we might assuredly expect that they would reduce _them_ to the
condition of chattels, if there was _any_ case in which God permitted
them to do so.

IV. EGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. Throughout the Mosaic system, God warns
the Israelites against holding their servants in such a condition as
they were held in by the Egyptians. How often are they pointed back to
the grindings of their prison-house! What motives to the exercise of
justice and kindness towards their servants, are held out to their fears
in threatened judgments; to their hopes in promised good; and to all
within them that could feel, by those oft repeated words of tenderness
and terror! "For ye were bondmen in the land of Egypt"--waking anew the
memory of tears and anguish, and of the wrath that avenged them. But
what was the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt? Of what rights were
they plundered and what did they retain?

1. _They were not dispersed among the families of Egypt,[A] but formed a
separate community_. Gen. xlvi. 34. Ex. viii. 22, 24; ix. 26; x. 23; xi.
7; iv. 29; ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5; vi. 14. 2. _They had the exclusive
possession of the land of Goshen,[B] "the best part of the land" of
Egypt_. Gen. xlv. 18; xlvii. 6, 11, 27; Ex. viii. 22; ix. 26; xii. 4.
Goshen must have been at a considerable distance from those parts of
Egypt inhabited by the Egyptians; so far at least as to prevent their
contact with the Israelites, since the reason assigned for locating them
in Goshen was, that shepherds were "an abomination to the Egyptians;"
besides, their employments would naturally lead them out of the settled
parts of Egypt to find a free range of pasturage for their immense
flocks and herds. 3. _They lived in permanent dwellings_. These were
_houses_, not _tents_. In Ex. xii. 7, 22, the two side _posts_, and the
upper door _posts_, and the lintel of the houses are mentioned. Each
family seems to have occupied a house _by itself_. Acts vii. 20. Ex.
xii. 4--and judging from the regulation about the eating of the
Passover, they could hardly have been small ones, Ex. xii. 4; probably
contained separate apartments, as the entertainment of sojourners seems
to have been a common usage. Ex. iii. 23; and also places for
concealment. Ex. ii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well
apparelled. Ex. xii. 11. 4. _They owned "flocks and herds," and "very
much cattle_." Ex. xii. 4, 6, 32, 37, 38. From the fact that "_every
man_" was commanded to kill either a lamb or a kid, one year old, for
the Passover, before the people left Egypt, we infer that even the
poorest of the Israelites owned a flock either of sheep or goats.
Further, the immense multitude of their flocks and herds may be judged
of from the expostulation of Moses with Jehovah. Num. xii. 21, 22. "The
people among whom I am are six hundred thousand footmen, and thou hast
said I will give them flesh that they may eat a whole month; shall the
flocks and the herds be slain for them to _suffice_ them." As these six
hundred thousand were only the _men_ "from twenty years old and upward,
that were able to go forth to war," Ex. i. 45, 46; the whole number of
the Israelites could not have been less than three millions and a half.
Flocks and herds to "suffice" all these for food, might surely be called
"very much cattle." 5. _They had their own form of government_, and
preserved their tribe and family divisions, and their internal
organization throughout, though still a province of Egypt, and
_tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1; xii. 19, 21; vi. 14, 25; v. 19; iii. 16,
18. 6. _They had in a considerable measure, the disposal of their own
time._ Ex. iii. 16, 18; xii. 6; ii. 9; and iv. 27, 29-31. _They seem to
have practised the fine arts_. Ex. xxxii. 4; xxxv. 22, 35. 7. _They were
all armed_. Ex. xxxii. 27. 8. _They held their possessions
independently, and the Egyptians seem to have regarded them as
inviolable_. No intimation is given that the Egyptians dispossessed them
of their habitations, or took away their flocks, or herds, or crops, or
implements of agriculture, or any article of property. 9. _All the
females seem to have known something of domestic refinements_. They were
familiar with instruments of music, and skilled in the working of fine
fabrics. Ex. xv. 20; xxxv. 25, 26; and both males and females were able
to read and write. Deut. xi. 18-20; xvii. 19; xxvii. 3. 10. _Service
seems to have been exacted from none but adult males_. Nothing is said
from which the bond service of females could be inferred; the hiding of
Moses three months by his mother, and the payment of wages to her by
Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a supposition. Ex. ii. 29. 11.
_Their food was abundant and of great variety_. So far from being fed
upon a fixed allowance of a single article, and hastily prepared, "they
sat by the flesh-pots," and "did eat bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3; and
their bread was prepared with leaven. Ex. xii. 15, 39. They ate "the
fish freely, the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the
onions, and the garlic." Num. xi. 4, 5; xx. 5. Probably but a small
portion of the people were in the service of the Egyptians at any one
time. The extent and variety of their own possessions, together with
such a cultivation of their crops as would provide them with bread, and
such care of their immense flocks and herds, as would secure their
profitable increase, must have kept at home the main body of the nation.
During the plague of darkness, God informs us that "ALL the children of
Israel had light in their dwellings." We infer that they were _there_ to
enjoy it. See also Ex. ix. 26. It seems improbable that the making of
brick, the only service named during the latter part of their sojourn in
Egypt, could have furnished permanent employment for the bulk of the
nation. See also Ex. iv. 29-31. Besides, when Eastern nations employed
tributaries, it was as now, in the use of the levy, requiring them to
furnish a given quota, drafted off periodically, so that comparatively
but a small portion of the nation would be absent _at any one time_. The
adult males of the Israelites were probably divided into companies,
which relieved each other at stated intervals of weeks or months. It
might have been during one of these periodical furloughs from service
that Aaron performed the journey to Horeb. Ex. iv. 27. At the least
calculation this journey must have consumed _eight weeks_. Probably
one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor was required of the
Israelites in common with the Egyptians. Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of
taking it from their _crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_) they
exacted it of them in brick making; and labor might have been exacted
only from the _poorer_ Israelites, the wealthy being able to pay their
tribute in money. The fact that all the elders of Israel seem to have
controlled their own time, (See Ex. iv. 29; iii. 16; v. 20,) favors the
supposition. Ex. iv. 27, 31. Contrast this bondage of Egypt with
American slavery. Have our slaves "flocks and herds even very much
cattle?" Do they live in commodious houses of their own, "sit by the
flesh-pots," "eat fish freely," and "eat bread to the full"? Do they
live in a separate community, in their distinct tribes, under their own
rulers, in the exclusive occupation of an extensive tract of country for
the culture of their crops, and for rearing immense herds of their own
cattle--and all these held inviolable by their masters? Are our female
slaves free from exactions of labor and liabilities of outrage? or when
employed, are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish woman by the
king's daughter? Have they the disposal of their own time, and the means
for cultivating social refinements, for practising the fine arts, and
for personal improvement? THE ISRAELITES UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT,
ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. True, "all the service wherein
they made them serve was with rigor." But what was this when compared
with the incessant toil of American slaves; the robbery of all their
time and earnings, and even the "power to own any thing, or acquire any
thing?" a "quart of corn a-day," the legal allowance of food![C] their
_only_ clothing for one half the year, "_one_ shirt and _one_ pair of
pantaloons!"[D]_two hours and a half_ only, for rest and refreshment in
the twenty-four![E]--their dwellings, _hovels_, unfit for human
residence, with but one apartment, where both sexes and all ages herd
promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the field.[F] Add to this,
the ignorance, and degradation;[G] the daily sunderings of kindred, the
revelries of lust, the lacerations and baptisms of blood, sanctioned by
law, and patronized by public sentiment. What was the bondage of Egypt
when compared with this? And yet for her oppression of the poor, God
smote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she passed
away in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, knew her no
more. Ah! "I have seen the afflictions of my people, and I have heard
their groanings, and am come down to deliver them." HE DID COME, and
Egypt sank a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over her. If such was
God's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, of how much sorer
punishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy, who cloak with
religion a system, in comparison with which the bondage of Egypt
dwindles to nothing? Let those believe who can, that God commissioned
his people to rob others of _all_ their rights, while he denounced
against them wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_
oppression of Egypt--which robbed its victims of only the least and
cheapest of their rights, and left the females unplundered even of
these. What! Is God divided against himself? When He had just turned
Egypt into a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied
dead, and his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of
her torment went upwards because she had "ROBBED THE POOR," did He
license the VICTIMS of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As _Lawgiver_,
did he _create_ a system tenfold more grinding than that for which he
had just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and overwhelmed his princes and his
hosts, till "hell was moved to meet them at their coming?"

[Footnote C: See law of North Carolina, Haywood's Manual 524-5. To show
that slaveholders are not better than their laws. We give a few
testimonies. Rev. Thomas Clay, of Georgia, (a slaveholder,) in an
address before the Georgia presbytery, in 1834, speaking of the slave's
allowance of food, says:--"The quantity allowed by custom is a _peck of
corn a week._" The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser of May 30,
1788, says, "a _single peck of corn a week, or the like measure of
rice_, is the ordinary quantity of provision for a _hard-working_ slave;
to which a small quantity of meat is occasionally, though _rarely_,
added."

The Gradual Emancipation Society of North Carolina, in their Report for
1836, signed Moses Swaim, President, and William Swaim, Secretary, says,
in describing the condition of slaves in the Eastern part of that State,
"The master puts the unfortunate wretches upon short allowances,
scarcely sufficient for their sustenance, so that a _great part_ of them
go _half naked_ and _half starved_ much of the time." See Minutes of the
American Convention, convened in Baltimore, Oct. 25, 1826.

Rev. John Rankin, a native of Tennessee, and for many years a preacher
in slave states, says of the food of slaves, "It _often_ happens that
what will _barely keep them alive_, is all that a cruel avarice will
allow them. Hence, in some instances, their allowance has been reduced
to a _single pint of corn each_, during the day and night. And some have
no better allowance than a small portion of cotton seed; while perhaps
they are not permitted to taste meat so much as once in the course of
seven years. _Thousands of them are pressed with the gnawings of cruel
hunger during their whole lives._" Rankin's Letters on Slavery, pp. 57,
58.

Hon. Robert J. Turnbull, of Charleston, S.C., a slaveholder, says, "The
subsistence of the slaves consists, from March until August, of corn
ground into grits, or meal, made into what is called _hominy_, or baked
into corn bread. The other six months, they are fed upon the sweet
potatoe. Meat, when given, is only by way of _indulgence or favor_."
_See "Refutation of the Calumnies circulated against the Southern and
Western States," by a South Carolinian. Charleston_, 1822.

Asa A. Stone, a theological student, residing at Natchez, Mississippi,
wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Evangelist in 1835, in
which he says, "On almost every plantation, the hands suffer more or
less from hunger at some seasons of almost every year. There is always a
_good deal of suffering_ from hunger. On many plantations, and
particularly in Louisiana, the slaves are in a condition of _almost
utter famishment_ during a great portion of the year."

At the commencement of his letter, Mr. S. says, "Intending, as I do,
that my statements shall be relied on, and knowing that, should you
think fit to publish this communication, they will come to this country,
where their correctness may be tested by comparison with real life, I
make them with the utmost care and precaution."

President Edwards, the younger, in a sermon preached half a century ago,
at New Haven, Conn., says, speaking of the allowance of food given to
slaves--"They are supplied with barely enough to keep them from
starving."

In the debate on the Missouri question in the U.S. Congress, 1819-20,
the admission of Missouri to the Union, as a slave state, was urged,
among other grounds as a measure of humanity to the slaves of the south.
Mr. Smyth, a member of Congress, from Virginia, and a large slaveholder,
said, "The plan of our opponents seems to be to confine the slave
population to the southern states, to the countries where sugar, cotton,
and tobacco are cultivated. But, sir, by confining the slaves to a part
of the country where crops are raised for exportation, and the bread and
meat are purchased, _you doom them to scarcity and hunger_. Is it not
obvious that the way to render their situation more comfortable is to
allow them to be taken where there is not the same motive to force the
slave to INCESSANT TOIL that there is in the country where cotton,
sugar, and tobacco are raised for exportation. It is proposed to hem in
the blacks _where they are_ HARD WORKED and ILL FED, that they may be
rendered unproductive and the race be prevented from increasing.  *  *
*  The proposed measure would be EXTREME CRUELTY to the blacks.  *  *  *
You would  *  *  * doom them to SCARCITY and HARD LABOR."--[Speech of
Mr. Smyth, of Va., Jan. 28, 1820.]--See National Intelligencer. ]


[Footnote D: See law of Louisiana, Martin's Digest, 6, 10. Mr. Bouldin,
a Virginia slaveholder, in a speech in Congress, Feb. 16, 1835, (see
National Intelligencer of that date,) said "_he knew_ that many negroes
had died from exposure to weather." Mr. B. adds, "they are clad in a
flimsy fabric that will turn neither wind nor water." Rev. John Rankin
says, in his Letters on slavery, page 57, "In every slaveholding state,
_many slaves suffer extremely_, both while they labor and while they
sleep, _for want of clothing_ to keep them warm. Often they are driven
through frost and snow without either stocking or shoe, until the path
they tread is died with their blood. And when they return to their
miserable huts at night, they find not there the means of comfortable
rest; but _on the cold ground they must lie without covering, and shiver
while they slumber_." ]


[Footnote E: See law of Louisiana, act of July 7, 1806, Martin's Digest,
6, 10-12. The law of South Carolina permits the master to _compel_ his
slaves to work fifteen hours in the twenty-four, in summer, and fourteen
in the winter--which would be in winter, from daybreak in the morning
until _four hours_ after sunset!--See 2 Brevard's Digest, 243. The
preamble of this law commences thus: "Whereas, _many_ owners of slaves
_do confine them so closely to hard labor that they have not sufficient
time for natural rest:_ be it therefore enacted," &c. In a work entitled
"Travels in Louisiana in 1802," translated from the French, by John
Davis, is the following testimony under this head:--

"The labor of Slaves in Louisiana is _not_ severe, unless it be at the
rolling of sugars, an interval of from two to three months, then they
work _both night and day_. Abridged of their sleep, they scarce retire
to rest during the whole period." See page 81. On the 87th page of the
same work, the writer says, _"Both in summer and winter_ the slaves must
be _in the field_ by the _first dawn of day."_ And yet he says, "the
labor of the slave is _not severe_, except at the rolling of sugars!"
The work abounds in eulogies of slavery.

In the "History of South Carolina and Georgia," vol. 1, p. 120, is the
following: "_So laborious_ is the task of raising, beating, and cleaning
rice, that had it been possible to obtain European servants in
sufficient numbers, _thousands and tens of thousands_ MUST HAVE
PERISHED."

In an article on the agriculture of Louisiana, published in the second
number of the "Western Review" is the following:--"The work is admitted
to be severe for the hands, (slaves) requiring, when the process of
making sugar is commenced, TO BE PRESSED NIGHT AND DAY."

Mr. Philemon Bliss, of Ohio, in his letters from Florida, in 1835, says,
"The negroes commence labor by daylight in the morning, and excepting
the plowboys, who must feed and rest their horses, do not leave the
field till dark in the evening."

Mr. Stone, in his letter from Natchez, an extract of which was given
above, says, "It is a general rule on all regular plantations, that the
slaves rise in season in the morning, to _be in the field as soon as it
is light enough for them to see to work_, and remain there until it is
_so dark that they cannot see_. This is the case at all seasons of the
year."

President Edwards, in the sermon already extracted from, says, "The
slaves are kept at hard labor from _five o'clock in the morning till
nine at night_, excepting time to eat twice during the day."

Hon. R.J. Turnbull, a South Carolina slaveholder, already quoted,
speaking of the harvesting of cotton, says: _"All the pregnant women_
even, on the plantation, and weak and _sickly_ negroes incapable of
other labor, are then _in requisition_." * * * See "Refutation of the
Calumnies circulated against the Southern and Western States," by a
South Carolinian. ]


[Footnote F: A late number of the "Western Medical Reformer" contains a
dissertation by a Kentucky physician, on _Cachexia Africana_, or African
consumption, in which the writer says--

"This form of disease deserves more attention from the medical
profession than it has heretofore elicited. Among the causes may be
named the mode and manner in which the negroes live. They are _crowded_
together in a _small hut_, sometimes having an imperfect, and sometimes
no floor--and seldom raised from the ground, illy ventilated, and
surrounded with filth. Their diet and clothing, are also causes which
might be enumerated as exciting agents. They live on a coarse, crude and
unwholesome diet, and are imperfectly clothed, both summer and winter;
sleeping upon filthy and frequently damp beds."

Hon. R.J. Turnbull, of South Carolina, whose testimony on another point
has been given above, says of the slaves, that they live in "_clay
cabins_, with clay chimneys," &c. Mr. Clay, a Georgia slaveholder, from
whom an extract has been given already, says, speaking of the dwellings
of the slaves, "Too many individuals of both sexes are crowded into one
house, and the proper separation of apartments _cannot_ be observed.
That the slaves are insensible to the evils arising from it, does not in
the least lessen the unhappy consequences." Clay's Address before the
Presbytery of Georgia.--P. 13. ]


[Footnote G: Rev. C.C. Jones, late of Georgia, now Professor in the
Theological Seminary at Columbia, South Carolina, made a report before
the presbytery of Georgia, in 1833, on the moral condition of the slave
population, which report was published under the direction of the
presbytery. In that report Mr. Jones says, "They, the slaves, are shut
out from our sympathies and efforts as immortal beings, and are educated
and disciplined as creatures of profit, and of profit only, for this
world." In a sermon preached by Mr. Jones, before two associations of
planters, in Georgia, in 1831, speaking of the slaves he says, "They are
a nation of HEATHEN in our very midst." "What have we done for our poor
negroes? With shame we must confess that we have done NOTHING!" "How can
you pray for Christ's kingdom to come while you are neglecting a people
perishing for lack of vision around your very doors." "We withhold the
Bible from our servants and keep them in ignorance of it, while we
_will_ not use the means to have it read and explained to them." Jones'
Sermon, pp. 7, 9.

An official report of the Presbyterian Synod of South Carolina and
Georgia, adopted at its session in Columbia, S.C., and published in the
Charleston Observer of March 22, 1834, speaking of the slaves, says,
"There are over _two millions_ of _human beings_, in the condition of
HEATHEN, and, in some respects, _in a worse condition_!" * * * "From
long continued and close observation, we believe that their moral and
religious condition is such, as that they may justly be considered the
_heathen_ of this Christian country, and will _bear comparison with
heathen in any country in the world_." * * * "The negroes are destitute
of the privileges of the gospel, and _ever will be under the present
state of things."_ Report, &c., p. 4.

A writer in the Church Advocate, published in Lexington, Ky., says, "The
poor negroes are left in the ways of spiritual darkness, no efforts are
being made for their enlightenment, no seed is being sown, nothing but a
moral wilderness is seen, over which the soul sickens--the heart of
Christian sympathy bleeds. Here nothing is presented but a moral waste,
as _extensive as our influence_, as appalling as the valley of death."

The following is an extract of a letter from Bishop Andrew of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, to Messrs. Garrit and Maffit, editors of the
"Western Methodist," then published at Nashville, Tennessee.

"_Augusta, Jan. 29, 1835._

"The Christians of the South owe a heavy debt to slaves on their
plantations, and the ministers of Christ especially are debtors to the
whole slave population. I fear a cry goes up to heaven on this subject
against us; and how, I ask, shall the scores who have left the ministry
of the Word, that they may make corn and cotton, and buy and sell, and
get gain, meet this cry at the bar of God? and what shall the hundreds
of money-making and money-loving masters, who have grown rich by the
toil and sweat of their slaves, and _left their souls to perish_, say
when they go with them to the judgment of the great day?"

"The Kentucky Union for the moral and religious improvement of the
colored race,"--an association composed of some of the most influential
ministers and laymen of Kentucky, says in a general circular to the
religious public, "To the female character among the black population,
we cannot allude but with feelings of the bitterest shame. A similar
condition of moral pollution, and utter disregard of a pure and virtuous
reputation, is to be found only _without the pale of Christendom_. That
such a state of society should exist in a Christian nation, without
calling forth any particular attention to its existence, though ever
before our eyes and in our families, is a moral phenomenon at once
unaccountable and disgraceful."

Rev. James A. Thome, a native of Kentucky, and still residing there,
said in a speech in New York, May 1834, speaking of licentiousness among
the slaves, "I would not have you fail to understand that this is a
_general_ evil. Sir, what I now say, I say from deliberate conviction of
its truth; that the slave states are Sodoms, and almost every village
family is a brothel. (In this, I refer to the inmates of the kitchen,
and not to the whites.)"

A writer in the "Western Luminary," published in Lexington, Ky., made
the following declaration to the same point in the number of that paper
for May 7, 1835: "There is one topic to which I will allude, which will
serve to establish the heathenism of this population. I allude to the
UNIVERSAL LICENTIOUSNESS which prevails. _Chastity is no virtue among
them_--its violation neither injures female character in their own
estimation, or that of their master or mistress--no instruction is ever
given, _no censure pronounced_. I speak not of the world. I SPEAK OF
CHRISTIAN FAMILIES GENERALLY."

Rev. Mr. Converse, long a resident of Virginia, and agent of the
Colonization Society, said, in a sermon before the Vt. C.S.--"Almost
nothing is done to instruct the slaves in the principles and duties of
the Christian religion. * * * The majority are emphatically _heathens_.
* * Pious masters (with some honorable exceptions) are criminally
negligent of giving religious instruction to their slaves. *  *  *  They
can and do instruct their own children, and _perhaps_ their house
servants; while those called "field hands" live, and labor, and die,
without being told by their _pious_ masters (?) that Jesus Christ died
to save sinners."

The page is already so loaded with references that we forbear. For
testimony from the mouths of slaveholders to the terrible lacerations
and other nameless outrages inflicted on the slaves, the reader is
referred to the number of the Anti-Slavery Record for Jan. 1837. ]

We now proceed to examine the various objections which will doubtless be
set in array against all the foregoing conclusions.



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

The advocates of slavery find themselves at their wit's end in pressing
the Bible into their service. Every movement shows them hard pushed.
Their ever-varying shifts, their forced constructions and blind
guesswork, proclaim both their _cause_ desperate, and themselves.
Meanwhile their invocations for help to "those good old slaveholders and
patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,"[A] sent up without ceasing from
the midst of their convulsions, avail as little as did the screams and
lacerations of the prophets of Baal to bring an answer of fire. The
Bible defences thrown around slavery by the professed ministers of the
Gospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and historical facts it
were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity, ignorance, or blasphemy,
predominates, in the compound; each strives so lustily for the mastery,
it may be set down a drawn battle. How often has it been bruited that
the color of the negro is the _Cain-mark_, propagated downward. Cain's
posterity started an opposition to the ark, forsooth, and rode out the
flood with flying streamers! How could miracle be more worthily
employed, or better vindicate the ways of God to man than by pointing
such an argument, and filling out for slaveholders a Divine title-deed!

[Footnote A: The Presbytery of Harmony, South Carolina, at their meeting
in Wainsborough, S.C., Oct. 28, 1836, appointed a special committee to
report on slavery. The following resolution is a part of the report
adopted by the Presbytery. "Resolved, That slavery has existed from the
days of those GOOD OLD SLAVEHOLDERS AND PATRIARCHS, Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, who are now in the kingdom of Heaven."

Abraham receives abundant honor at the hands of slave-holding divines.
Not because he was the "father of the faithful," forsook home and
country for the truth's sake, was the most eminent preacher and
practiser of righteousness in his day; nay, verily, for all this he gets
faint praise; but then he had "SERVANTS BOUGHT WITH MONEY!!!" This is
the finishing touch of his character, and its effect on slaveholders is
electrical. Prose fledges into poetry, cold compliments warm into
praise, eulogy rarifies into panegyric and goes off in rhapsody. In
their ecstasies over Abraham, Isaac's paramount claims to their homage
are lamentably lost sight of. It is quite unaccountable, that in their
manifold oglings over Abraham's "servants bought with money," no
slaveholder is ever caught casting loving side-glances at Gen. xxvii.
29, 37, where Isaac, addressing Jacob, says, "Be _lord_ over thy
brethren and let thy mother's sons _bow down_ to thee." And afterwards,
addressing Esau, he says, speaking of the birth-right immunities
confirmed to Jacob, "Behold I have made him thy _Lord_ and all his
brethren have I GIVEN TO HIM FOR SERVANTS!"

Here is a charter for slaveholding, under the sign manual of that "good
old slaveholder and patriarch, Isaac." Yea, more--a "Divine Warrant" for
a father holding his _children_ as slaves and bequeathing them as
property to his heirs! Better still, it proves that the favorite
practice amongst our slaveholders of bequeathing their _colored_
children to those of a different hue, was a "Divine institution," for
Isaac "_gave_" Esau, who was "_red_ all over," to Jacob, "_as a
servant_." Now gentlemen, "honor to whom honor." Let Isaac no longer be
stinted of the glory that is his due as the great prototype of that
"peculiar domestic institution," of which you are eminent patrons, that
nice discrimination, by which a father, in his will, makes part of his
children _property_, and the rest, their _proprietors_, whenever the
propriety of such a disposition is indicated, as in the case of Jacob
and Esau, by the decisive tokens of COLOR and HAIR, (for, to show that
Esau was Jacob's _rightful_ property after he was "given to him" by
Isaac "for a servant," the difference in _hair_ as well as color, is
expressly stated by inspiration!)

One prominent feature of patriarchal example has been quite overlooked
by slaveholders. We mean the special care of Isaac to inform Jacob that
those "given to him as servants" were "HIS BRETHREN," (twice repeated.)
The deep veneration of slaveholders for every thing patriarchal, clears
them from all suspicion of _designedly_ neglecting this authoritative
precedent, and their admirable zeal to perpetuate patriarchal fashions,
proves this seeming neglect, a mere _oversight_: and is an
all-sufficient guarantee that henceforward they will religiously
illustrate in their own practice, the beauty of this hitherto neglected
patriarchal usage. True, it would be an odd codicil to a will, for a
slaveholder, after bequeathing to _some_ of his children, all his
slaves, to add a supplement, informing them that such and such and such
of them were their _brothers and sisters_. Doubtless it would be at
first a sore trial also, but what _pious_ slaveholder would not be
sustained under it by the reflection that he was humbly following in the
footsteps of his illustrious patriarchal predecessors!

Great reformers must make great sacrifices, and if the world is to be
brought back to the purity of patriarchal times, upon whom will the ends
of the earth come, to whom will all trembling hearts and failing eyes
spontaneously turn as leaders to conduct the forlorn hope through the
wilderness to that promised land, if not to slaveholders, those
disinterested pioneers whose self-denying labors have founded far and
wide the "patriarchal institution" of _concubinage_, and through evil
report and good report, have faithfully stamped their own image and
superscription, in variegated hues, upon the faces of a swarming progeny
from generation to generation. ]

OBJECTION I. "_Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto
his brethren._" Gen. ix. 25.

This prophecy of Noah is the _vade mecum_ of slaveholders, and they
never venture abroad without it; it is a pocket-piece for sudden
occasion, a keepsake to dote over, a charm to spell-bind opposition, and
a magnet to draw to their standard "whatsoever worketh abomination or
maketh a lie." But "cursed be Canaan" is a poor drug to ease a throbbing
conscience--a mocking lullaby to unquiet tossings. Those who justify
negro slavery by the curse on Canaan, _assume_ as usual all the points
in debate. 1. That _slavery_ was prophesied, rather than mere _service_
to others, and _individual_ bondage rather than _national_ subjection
and tribute. 2. That the _prediction_ of crime justifies it; or at least
absolves those whose crimes fulfil it. How piously the Pharaohs might
have quoted the prophecy, "_Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that
is not theirs, and they shall afflict them four hundred years._" And
then, what saints were those that crucified the Lord of glory! 3. That
the Africans are descended from Canaan. Africa was peopled from Egypt
and Ethiopia, which countries were settled by Mizraim and Cush. For the
location and boundaries of Canaan's posterity, see Gen. x. 15-19. So a
prophecy of evil to one people, is quoted to justify its infliction upon
another. Perhaps it may be argued that Canaan includes all Ham's
posterity. If so, the prophecy is yet unfulfilled. The other sons of Ham
settled Egypt and Assyria, and, conjointly with Shem, Persia, and
afterward, to some extent, the Grecian and Roman empires. The history of
these nations gives no verification of the prophecy. Whereas, the
history of Canaan's descendants for more than three thousand years, is a
record of its fulfillment. First, they were put to tribute by the
Israelites; then by the Medes and Persians; then by the Macedonians,
Grecians and Romans, successively; and finally, were subjected by the
Ottoman dynasty, where they yet remain. Thus Canaan has been for ages
the servant mainly of Shem and Japhet, and secondarily of the other sons
of Ham. It may still be objected, that though Canaan alone is _named_,
yet the 22d and 24th verses show the posterity of Ham in general to be
meant. "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father,
and told his two brethren without." "And Noah awoke from his wine, and
knew what his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said," &c. It is argued
that this "_younger_ son" cannot be Canaan, as he was the _grandson_ of
Noah, and therefore it must be Ham. We answer, whoever that "_younger
son_" was, Canaan alone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word
_Ben_, signifies son, grandson, or _any one_ of the posterity of an
individual.[A] "_Know ye Laban, the_ SON (grandson) _of Nahor_?" Gen.
xxix. 5. "_Mephibosheth the_ SON (grandson) _of Saul_." 2 Sam. xix. 24;
2 Sam. ix. 6. "_The driving of Jehu the_ SON (grandson) _of Nimshi_." 2
Kings ix. 20. See also Ruth iv. 17; 2 Sam. xxi. 6; Gen. xxxi. 55. Shall
we forbid the inspired writer to use the same word when speaking of
Noah's grandson? Further, Ham was not the "_younger_ son." The order of
enumeration makes him the _second_ son. If it be said that Bible usage
varies, the order of birth not always being observed in enumerations;
the reply is, that, enumeration in that order, is the _rule_, in any
other order the _exception_. Besides, if a younger member of a family
takes precedence of older ones in the family record, it is a mark of
pre-eminence, either in endowments, or providential instrumentality.
Abraham, though sixty years younger than his eldest brother, stands
first in the family genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history shows him
pre-eminent; besides, the Hebrew word _Hakkatan_ rendered "the
_younger_," means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isa. lx.
22. "A LITTLE ONE _shall become a thousand_." Isa. xxii. 24. "_All
vessels of_ SMALL _quantity_." Ps. cxv. 13. "_He will bless them that
fear the Lord both_ SMALL _and great_." Ex. xviii, 22. "_But every_
SMALL _matter they shall judge_." It would be a literal rendering of
Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus, "when Noah knew what his little
son,"[B] or grandson (_Beno Hakkatan_) "had done unto him, he said
cursed be Canaan," &c. Further, even if the Africans were the
descendants of Canaan, the assumption that their enslavement fulfils
this prophecy, lacks even plausibility, for, only a _fraction_ of the
inhabitants of Africa have at any time been the slaves of other nations.
If the objector say in reply, that a large majority of the Africans have
always been slaves _at home_, we answer: _It is false in point of fact_,
though zealously bruited often to serve a turn; and _if it were true_,
how does it help the argument? The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan, a
servant of servants shall he be _unto his_ BRETHREN.," not unto
_himself!_

[Footnote A: So _av_, the Hebrew word for father, signifies any
ancestor, however remote. 2 Chron. xvii. 3; xxviii. 1; xxxiv. 2; Dan. v.
2.]


[Footnote B: The French follows the same analogy; _grandson_ being
_petit fils_ (little son.)]

OBJECTION II.--"_If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and
he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if
he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his
money._" Ex. xxi. 20, 21. What was the design of this regulation? Was it
to grant masters an indulgence to beat servants with impunity, and an
assurance, that if they beat them to death, the offence should not be
_capital_? This is substantially what commentators tell us. What Deity
do such men worship? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human
hecatombs, and snuffing carnage for incense? Did He who thundered from
Sinai's flames, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL," offer a bounty on _murder_?
Whoever analyzes the Mosaic system, will often find a moot court in
session, trying law points, settling definitions, or laying down rules
of evidence. Num. xxxv. 10-22; Deut. xix. 4-6; Lev. xxiv. 19-22; Ex.
xxi. 18, 19, are some of the cases stated, with tests furnished the
judges by which to detect _the intent_, in actions brought before them.
Their ignorance of judicial proceedings, laws of evidence, &c., made
such instructions necessary. The detail gone into, in the verses quoted,
is manifestly to enable them to get at the _motive_ and find out whether
the master _designed_ to kill. 1. "If a man smite his servant with a
_rod_."--The instrument used, gives a clue to the _intent_. See Num.
xxxv. 16-18. A _rod_, not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any
other death-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to
_kill_ would be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a
_rod_ for its weapon. But if the servant "_die under his hand_," then
the unfitness of the instrument, is point blank against him; for,
striking with a _rod_ so as to cause death, presupposed very many blows
and great violence, and this kept up till the death-gasp, showed an
_intent to kill_. Hence "He shall _surely_ be punished." But if he
continued a day or two, the _length of time that he lived_, the _kind_
of instrument used, and the master's pecuniary interest in his _life_,
("he is his _money_,") all made a strong case of presumptive evidence,
showing that the master did not _design_ to kill. Further, the word
_nakam_, here rendered _punished_, occurs thirty-five times in the Old
Testament, and in almost every place is translated "_avenge_," in a few,
"_to take vengeance_," or "_to revenge_," and in this instance ALONE,
"_punish_." As it stands in our translation, the pronoun preceding it,
refers to the _master_, whereas it should refer to the _crime_, and the
word rendered _punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. The
meaning is this: If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and
he die under his hand, IT (the death) shall surely be avenged, or
literally, _by avenging it shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of
the servant shall be _avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the
next verse, "If he continue a day or two," his death is not to be
avenged by the _death_ of the _master_, as in that case the crime was to
be adjudged _manslaughter_, and not _murder_. In the following verse,
another case of personal injury is stated, for which the injurer is to
pay _a sum of money_; and yet our translators employ the same
phraseology in both places! One, an instance of deliberate, wanton,
killing by piecemeal; the other, an accidental, and comparatively slight
injury--of the inflicter, in both cases, they say the same thing! Now,
just the discrimination to be looked for where GOD legislates, is marked
in the original. In the case of the servant wilfully murdered, He says,
"It (the death) shall surely be _avenged_," that is, the life of the
wrong doer shall expiate the crime. The same word is used in the Old
Testament, when the greatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the
perpetrators to _destruction_. In the case of the unintentional injury,
in the following verse, God says, "He shall surely be _fined_,
(_anash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges determine." The simple meaning
of the word _anash_, is to lay a fine. It is used in Deut. xxii. 19:
"They shall _amerce_ him in one hundred shekels," and in 2 Chron. xxxvi.
3: "He condemned (_mulcted_) the land in a hundred talents of silver and
a talent of gold." That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was neither
imprisonment, nor stripes, nor a fine but that it was _taking the
master's life_ we infer, 1. From the _use_ of the word _nakam_. See Gen.
iv. 24; Josh. x. 13; Judg. xv. 7; xvi. 28; 1 Sam. xiv. 24; xviii. 25;
xxv. 31; 2 Sam. iv. 8; Judg. v. 2; 1 Sam. xxv. 26-33. 2. From the
express statute, Lev. xxiv. 17: "He that killeth ANY man shall surely be
put to death." Also, Num. xxxv. 30, 31: "Whoso killeth ANY person, the
murderer shall be put to death. Moreover, ye shall take NO SATISFACTION
for the life of a murderer which is guilty of death, but he shall surely
be put to death." 3. The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, "Death
by the sword shall surely be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem,
"Vengeance shall be taken for him to the _uttermost_." Jarchi, the same.
The Samaritan version: "He shall die the death." Again, the clause "for
he is his money," is quoted to prove that the servant is his master's
property, and therefore, if he died, the master was not to be punished.
The assumption is, that the phrase, "HE IS HIS MONEY," proves not only
that the servant is _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an
_article of property_. If the advocates of slavery insist upon taking
this principle of interpretation into the Bible, and turning it loose,
let them stand and draw in self-defence. If they endorse for it at one
point, they must stand sponsors all around the circle. It will be too
late to cry for quarter when its stroke clears the table, and tilts them
among the sweepings beneath. The Bible abounds with such expressions as
the following: "This (bread) _is_ my body;" "all they (the Israelites)
_are_ brass and tin;" this (water) _is_ the blood of the men who went in
jeopardy of their lives;" "the Lord God _is_ a sun;" "the seven good
ears _are_ seven years;" "the tree of the field _is_ man's life;" "God
_is_ a consuming fire;" "he _is_ his money," &c. A passion for the exact
_literalities_ of the Bible is too amiable, not to be gratified in this
case. The words in the original are (_Káspo-hu_,) "his _silver_ is he."
The objector's principle of interpretation is a philosopher's stone! Its
miracle touch transmutes five feet eight inches of flesh and bones into
_solid silver_! Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble
withal--reasoning against _"forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and,
Deut. xxiii. 15, quite outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase,
"_He is his money_," is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since,
if the master had killed him, it would have taken money out of his
pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the
fact of his living sometime after the injury_, (if the master _meant_ to
kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it.) all together make a
strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master from _intent to
kill_. But let us look at the objector's _inferences_. One is, that as
the master might dispose of his _property_ as he pleased, he was not to
be punished, if he destroyed it. Whether the servant died under the
master's hand, or after a day or two, he was _equally_ his property, and
the objector admits that in the _first_ case the master is to be "surely
punished" for destroying _his own property_! The other inference is,
that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the master of
_intent to kill_, the loss of the servant would be a sufficient
punishment for inflicting the injury which caused his death. This
inference makes the Mosaic law false to its own principles. A _pecuniary
loss_ was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the _life_ of
another. In such case, the law spurned money, whatever the sum. God
would not cheapen human life, by balancing it with such a weight. "Ye
shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer, but he shall
surely be put to death." Num. xxxv. 31. Even in excusable homicide,
where an axe slipped from the helve and killed a man, no sum of money
availed to release from confinement in the city of refuge, until the
death of the High Priest. Num. xxxv. 32. The doctrine that the loss of
the servant would be a penalty _adequate_ to the desert of the master,
admits his _guilt_ and his desert of _some_ punishment, and it
prescribes a kind of punishment, rejected by the law, in all cases where
man took the life of man, whether with or without intent to kill. In
short, the objector annuls an integral part of the system--makes a _new_
law, and coolly metes out such penalty as he thinks fit. Divine
legislation revised and improved! The master who struck out his
servant's tooth, whether intentionally or not, was required to set him
free. The _pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though he had
killed him. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so that he
dies of his wounds; another accidentally strikes out his servant's
tooth,--_the pecuniary loss of both masters is the same_. If the loss of
the servant's services is punishment sufficient for the crime of killing
him, would God command the same punishment for the accidental knocking
out of a _tooth_? Indeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertently_,
the loss of the servant's services was only a part of the
punishment--mere reparation to the _individual_ for injury done; the
main punishment, that strictly _judicial_, was reparation to the
_community_. To set the servant _free_, and thus proclaim his injury,
his right to redress, and the measure of it--answered not the ends of
_public_ justice. The law made an example of the offender, that "those
that remain might hear and fear." "If a man cause a blemish in his
neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for
breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Ye shall have one manner of law as
well for the STRANGER as for one of your own country." Lev. xxiv. 19,
20, 22. Finally, if a master smote out _his_ servant's tooth, the law
smote out his tooth--thus redressing the _public_ wrong; and it
cancelled the servant's obligation to the master, thus giving some
compensation for the injury done, and exempting him from perilous
liabilities in future.



OBJECTION III. "_Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have,
shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy
bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do
sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are
with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your
possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children
after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen
forever._" Lev. xxv. 44-46.

The _points_ in these verses, urged as proof, that the Mosaic system
sanctioned slavery, are 1. The word "BONDMEN." 2. "BUY." 3. "INHERITANCE
AND POSSESSION." 4. "FOREVER."

We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is derivable from these
terms.

1. "BONDMEN." The fact that servants from the heathen are called
"_bondmen_," while others are called "_servants_," is quoted as proof
that the former were slaves. As the caprices of King James' translators
were not inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The word
here rendered bondmen is uniformly rendered servants elsewhere. The
Hebrew word "_ebedh_," the plural of which is here translated
"_bondmen_," is often applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_ (bondman,
slave?) whom I uphold." Isa. xlii. 1. "Behold my _servant_ (Christ)
shall deal prudently." Isa. lii. 13. "And he said it is a light thing
that thou (Christ) shouldst be my _servant_." Isa. xlix. 6. "To a
_servant_ of rulers." Isa. xlix. 7. "By his knowledge shall my righteous
_servant_ (Christ) justify many." Is. liii. 11. "Behold I will bring
forth my _servant_ the BRANCH." Zech. iii. 8. In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, it
is applied to King Rehoboam. "And they spake unto him, saying if thou
wilt be a _servant_ unto this people, then they will be thy _servants_
forever." In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, to the king and all the nation.
The word is used to designate those who perform service for _individuals
or families_, about thirty-five times in the Old Testament. To designate
_tributaries_ about twenty-five times. To designate the _subjects of
government_, about thirty-three times. To designate the worshippers both
of the true God, and of false gods, about seventy times. It is also used
in salutations and courteous addresses nearly one hundred times. In
fine, the word is applied to all persons doing service for others, and
that _merely to designate them as the performers of such service_,
whatever it might be, or whatever the ground on which it might be
rendered. To argue from the fact, of this word being used to designate
domestic servants, that they were made servants by _force_, worked
without pay, and held as articles of property, is such a gross
assumption and absurdity as to make formal refutation ridiculous. We
repeat what has been shown above, that the word rendered bondmen in Lev.
xxv. 44, is used to point out persons rendering service for others,
totally irrespective of the principle on which that service was
rendered; as is manifest from the fact that it is applied
indiscriminately to tributaries, to domestics, to all the subjects of
governments, to magistrates, to all governmental officers, to younger
sons--defining their relation to the first born, who is called _lord_
and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, and to the Messiah. To argue from
the meaning of the word _ebedh_ as used in the Old Testament, that those
to whom it was applied rendered service against their will, and without
pay, does violence to the scripture use of the term, sets at nought all
rules of interpretation, and outrages common sense. If _any_ inference
as to the meaning of the term is to be drawn from the condition and
relations of the various classes of persons, to whom it is applied, the
only legitimate one would seem to be, that the term designates a person
who renders service to another in return for something of value received
from him. The same remark applies to the Hebrew verb _abadh_, to serve,
answering to the noun _ebedh_ (servant). It is used in the Old Testament
to describe the _serving_ of tributaries, of worshippers, of domestics,
of Levites, of sons to a father, of younger brothers to the elder, of
subjects to a ruler, of hirelings, of soldiers, of public officers to
the government, of a host to his guests, &c. Of these it is used to
describe the serving of _worshippers_ more than forty times, of
_tributaries_, about thirty five, and of servants or domestics, about
_ten_.

If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, if
Abraham had thousands, and if they abounded under the Mosaic system, why
had their language no word that _meant slave_? That language must be
wofully poverty-stricken, which has no signs to represent the most
common and familiar objects and conditions. To represent by the same
word, and without figure, property, and the owner of that property, is a
solecism. Ziba was an "_ebedh_," yet he "_owned_" (!) twenty _ebedhs_!
In our language, we have both _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we
have both the _things_, and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a
sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but
our dictionaries give us none. Why? Because there is no such _thing_.
But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word _ebedh_
if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. Their _national_
servants or tributaries, are spoken of frequently, but domestics
servants so rarely, that no necessity existed, even if they were slaves,
for coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their being domestics,
under _heathen laws and usages_, proclaimed their liabilities; their
_locality_ made a _specific_ term unnecessary. But if the Israelites had
not only _servants_, but a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning
slave_, would have been indispensible for every day convenience.
Further, the laws of the Mosaic system were so many sentinels on the
outposts to warn off foreign practices. The border ground of Canaan, was
quarantine ground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse in usages
between the without and the within.

2. "BUY." The _buying_ of servants, is discussed at length. pp. 17-23.
To that discussion the reader is referred. We will add in this place but
a single consideration. This regulation requiring the Israelites to
_"buy"_ servants of the heathen, prohibited their taking them without
buying. _Buying_ supposes two parties: a _price_ demanded by one and
paid by the other, and consequently, the _consent_ of both buyer and
seller, to the transaction. Of course the command to the Israelites to
_buy_ servants of the heathen, prohibited their getting them unless they
first got _somebody's_ consent to the transaction, and paid to
_somebody_ a fair equivalent. Now, who were these _somebodies_? This at
least is plain, they were not _Israelites_, but heathen. "Of _them_
shall ye buy." Who then were these _somebodies_, whose right was so
paramount, that _their_ consent must be got and the price paid must go
into _their_ pockets? Were they the persons themselves who became
servants, or some _other_ persons. "Some _other_ persons to be sure,"
says the objector, "the countrymen or the neighbors of those who become
servants." Ah! this then is the import of the Divine command to the
Israelites.

"When you go among the heathen round about to get a man to work for you,
I straightly charge you to go first to his _neighbors_, get _their_
consent that you may have him, settle the terms with _them_, and pay to
them a fair equivalent. If it is not _their_ choice to let him go, I
charge you not to take him on your peril. If _they_ consent, and you pay
_them_ the full value of his labor, then you may go and catch the man
and drag him home with you, and make him work for you, and I will bless
you in the work of your hands and you shall eat of the fat of the land.
As to the man himself, his choice is nothing, and you need give him
nothing for his work: but take care and pay his _neighbors_ well for
him, and respect _their_ free choice in taking him, for to deprive a
heathen man by force and without pay of the _use of himself_ is well
pleasing in my sight, but to deprive his heathen neighbors of the use of
him is that abominable thing which my soul hateth."

3. "FOREVER." This is quoted to prove that servants were to serve during
their life time, and their posterity from generation to generation.[A]
No such idea is contained in the passage. The word "forever," instead of
defining the length of _individual_ service, proclaims the permanence of
the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that their
_permanent domestics_ should be of the _Strangers_, and not of the
Israelites; it declares the duration of that general provision. As if
God had said, "You shall _always_ get your _permanent_ laborers from the
nations round about you; your servants shall _always_ be of that class
of persons." As it stands in the original, it is plain--"_Forever of
them shall ye serve yourselves_." This is the literal rendering.

[Footnote A: One would think that the explicit testimony of our Lord
should for ever forestall all cavil on this point. "_The servant abideth
not in the house_ FOR EVER, but the Son, abideth ever." John viii. 35.]

That "_forever_" refers to the permanent relations of a _community_,
rather than to the services of _individuals_, is a fair inference from
the form of the expression, "Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the
_heathen_. OF THEM shall ye buy." "They shall be your possession." "THEY
shall be your bondmen forever." "But over your brethren the CHILDREN OF
ISRAEL," &c. To say nothing of the uncertainty of _these individuals_
surviving those _after_ whom they are to live, the language used applies
more naturally to a _body_ of people, than to _individual_ servants.
Besides _perpetual_ service cannot be argued from the term _forever_.
The ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter limit it absolutely by
the jubilee. "Then thou shalt cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound
* * throughout ALL your land." "And ye shall proclaim liberty throughout
all the land unto ALL the inhabitants thereof." It may be objected that
"inhabitants" here means _Israelitish_ inhabitants alone. The command
is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL _the inhabitants
thereof_." Besides, in the sixth verse, there is an enumeration of the
different classes of the inhabitants, in which servants and Strangers
are included; and in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the
sabbatical year, the Strangers are included in the precepts,
prohibitions, and promises. Again: the year of jubilee was ushered in by
the day of atonement. What did these institutions show forth? The day of
atonement prefigured the atonement of Christ, and the year of jubilee,
the gospel jubilee. And did they prefigure an atonement and a jubilee to
_Jews_ only? Were they types of sins remitted, and of salvation
proclaimed to the nation of Israel alone? Is there no redemption for us
Gentiles in these ends of the earth, and is our hope presumption and
impiety? Did that old partition wall survive the shock that made earth
quake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and rent the temple
veil? and did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder direr perdition
from its frowning battlements on all without? No! The God of OUR
salvation lives. "Good tidings of great joy shall be to ALL people." One
shout shall swell from all the ransomed, "Thou hast redeemed us unto God
by thy blood out of EVERY kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation."

To deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to the servants from
the _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_.[A] It not only eclipses
the glory of the Gospel, but strikes out its sun. The refusal to release
servants at the jubilee falsified and disannulled a grand leading type
of the atonement, and was a libel on the doctrine of Christ's
redemption. But even if _forever_ did refer to _individual_ service, we
have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee. The same
word defines the length of time which _Jewish_ servants served who did
not go out at the end of their six years' term. And all admit that they
went out at the jubilee. Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17. The 23d verse of
the same chapter is quoted to prove that "_forever_" in the 46th verse
extends beyond the jubilee. "The land shall not be sold FOREVER, for the
land is mine"--since it would hardly be used in different senses in the
same general connection. As _forever_, in the 46th verse, respects the
_general arrangement_, and not _individual service_ the objection does
not touch the argument. Besides, in the 46th verse, the word used is
_Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that may be. Whereas
in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning, a _cutting off_, or _to
be cut off_; and the import of it is, that the owner of an inheritance
shall not forfeit his _proprietorship_ of it; though it may for a time
pass from his control into the hands of his creditors or others, yet the
owner shall be permitted to _redeem_ it, and even if that be not done,
it shall not be "_cut off_," but shall revert to him at the jubilee.

[Footnote A: So far from the Strangers not being released by the
proclamation of liberty on the morning of the jubilee, they were the
only persons who were, as a body, released by it. The rule regulating
the service of Hebrew servants was, "Six years shall he serve, and in
the seventh year he shall go out free." The _free holders_ who had
"fallen into decay," and had in consequence mortgaged their inheritances
to their more prosperous neighbors, and become in some sort their
servants, were released by the jubilee, and again resumed their
inheritances. This was the only class of Jewish servants (and it could
not have been numerous,) which was released by the jubilee; all others
went out at the close of their six years' term.]

3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." "Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE
for your children after you to inherit them for a POSSESSION. This, as
has been already remarked refers to the _nations_, and not to the
_individual_ servants procured from the senations. The holding of
servants as a _possession_ is discussed at large pp. 47-64. To what is
there advanced we here subjoin a few brief considerations. We have
already shown, that servants could not he held as a _property_
possession, and inheritance; that they became such of their _own
accord_, were paid wages, released from their regular labor nearly _half
the days in each year_, thoroughly _instructed_ and _protected_ in all
their personal, social, and religious rights, equally with their
masters. All remaining, after these ample reservations, would be small
temptation, either to the lust of power or of lucre; a profitable
"possession" and "inheritance," truly! What if our American slaves were
all placed in _just such a condition_! Alas, for that soft, melodious
circumlocution, "OUR PECULIAR species of property!" Verily, emphasis
would be cadence, and euphony and irony meet together! What eager
snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of connection,
principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by
other passages--and all to eke out such a sense as sanctifies existing
usages, thus making God pander for lust. The words _nahal_ and _nahala_,
inherit and inheritance, by no means necessarily signify _articles of
property_. "The people answered the king and said, "we have none
_inheritance_ in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they mean
gravely to disclaim the holding of their king as an article of
_property_? "Children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps.
cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine _inheritance_."
Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children,
does he make them _articles of property_? Are forgiveness, and
chattel-making, synonymes? "_I_ am their _inheritance_." Ezek. xliv. 28.
"I shall give thee the heathen for thine _inheritance_." Ps. ii. 18. See
also Deut. iv. 20; Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov.
xiv. 18.

The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY-"_possession_," has
been already discussed, pp. 47-64, we need add in this place but a word.
As an illustration of the condition of servants from the heathen that
were the "possession" of Israelitish families, and of the way in which
they became servants, the reader is referred to Isa. xiv. 1, 2. "For the
Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them
in their own land; and the strangers will be _joined_ with them, and
_they shall CLEAVE to the house of Jacob_. And the people shall take
them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel shall
_possess_ them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids; and
they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall
rule over the oppressors."

We learn from these verses, 1st. That these servants which were to be
"_possessed_" by the Israelites, were to be "joined with them," i.e.,
become proselytes to their religion. 2d. That they should "CLEAVE to the
house of Jacob," i.e., that they would forsake their own people
voluntarily, attach themselves to the Israelites as servants, and of
their own free choice leave home and friends, to accompany them on their
return, and to take up their permanent abode with them, in the same
manner that Ruth accompanied Naomi from Moab to the land of Israel, and
that the "souls gotten" by Abraham in Padanaram, accompanied him when he
left it and went to Canaan. "And the house of Israel shall _possess_
them for servants," i.e. shall _have_ them for servants.

In the passage under consideration, "they shall be your _possession_,"
the original word translated "possession" is _ahuzza_. The same word is
used in Gen. xlvii. 11. "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren,
and gave them a _possession_ in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlvii. 11. In
what sense was Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites? Answer, in the
sense of _having it to live in_, not in the sense of having it as
_owners_. In what sense were the Israelites to _possess_ these nations,
and _take them_ as an _inheritance for their children_? Answer, they
possessed them as a permanent source of supply for domestic or household
servants. And this relation to these nations was to go down to posterity
as a standing regulation, having the certainty and regularity of a
descent by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be given
thus: "Thy permanent domestics, which thou shalt have, shall be of the
nations that are round about you, of _them_ shall ye buy male and female
domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn
among you, of _them_ shall ye buy, and of their families that are with
you, which they begat in your land, and _they_ shall be your permanent
resource." "And ye shall take them as a _perpetual_ source of supply to
whom your children after you shall resort for servants. ALWAYS, _of
them_ shall ye serve yourselves." The design of the passage is manifest
from its structure. So far from being a permission to purchase slaves,
it was a prohibition to employ Israelites for a certain term and in a
certain grade of service, and to point out the _class_ of persons from
which they were to get their supply of servants, and the _way_ in which
they were to get them.[A]

[Footnote A: Rabbi Leeser, who translated from the German the work
entitled "Instruction in the Mosaic Religion" by Professor Jholson of
the Jewish seminary at Frankfort-on-the-Main, in his comment on these
verses, says, "It must be observed that it was prohibited to SUBJECT _a
Stranger to slavery_. The _buying_ of slaves _alone_ is permitted, but
not stealing them."

Now whatever we call that condition in which servants were, whether
servitude or slavery, and whatever we call the persons in that
condition, whether servants or _slaves_, we have at all events, the
testimony that the Israelites were prohibited to _subject_ a Stranger to
that condition, or in other words, the free choice of the servant was
not to be compelled. ]



OBJECTION IV. "_If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and
be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a BOND-SERVANT
but as an HIRED-SERVANT, and as a sojourner shall he be with thee, and
shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee_." Lev. xxv. 39, 40.

As only _one_ class is called "_hired_," it is inferred that servants of
the other class were _not paid_ for their labor. That God, while
thundering anathemas against those who "used their neighbor's service
without wages," granted a special indulgence to his chosen people to
force others to work, and rob them of earnings, provided always, in
selecting their victims, they spared "the gentlemen of property and
standing," and pounced only upon the strangers and the common people.
The inference that "_hired_" is synonymous with _paid_, and that those
servants not _called_ "hired," were _not paid_ for their labor, is a
mere assumption. The meaning of the English verb to _hire_, is to
procure for a _temporary_ use at a certain price--to engage a person to
temporary service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew word
"_saukar_." It is not used when the procurement of _permanent_ service
is spoken of. Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who
constituted a stationary part of the family, have been designated by the
same term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinctions in
this matter, are familiar as table-talk. In many families the domestics
perform only the _regular_ work. Whatever is occasional merely, as the
washing of a family, is done by persons hired expressly for the purpose.
The familiar distinction between the two classes, is "servants," and
"hired help," (not _paid_ help.) _Both_ classes are _paid_. One is
permanent, and the other occasional and temporary, and _therefore_ in
this case called "hired."[A] A variety of particulars are recorded
distinguishing, _hired_ from _bought_ servants. 1. Hired servants were
paid daily at the close of their work. Lev. xix. 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15;
Job. vii. 2; Matt. xx. 8. "_Bought_" servants were paid in advance, (a
reason for their being called _bought_,) and those that went out at the
seventh year received a _gratuity_. Deut. xv. 12, 13. 2. The "hired"
were paid _in money_, the "bought" received their _gratuity_, at least,
in grain, cattle, and the product of the vintage. Deut. xv. 14. 3. The
"hired" _lived_ in their own families, the "bought" were a part of their
masters' families. 4. The "hired" supported their families out of their
wages; the "bought" and their families were supported by the master
_beside_ their wages. 5. Hired servants were expected to work more
_constantly_, and to have more _working hours_ in the day than the
bought servants. This we infer from the fact, that "a hireling's day,"
was a sort of proverbial phrase, meaning a _full_ day. No subtraction of
time being made from it. So _a hireling's year_ signifies an entire year
without abatement. Job. vii. 1; xiv. 6; Isa. xvi. 14; xxi. 16.

[Footnote A: To suppose a servant robbed of his earnings because he is
not called a _hired_ servant, is profound induction! If I employ a man
at twelve dollars a month to work my farm, he is my "_hired_" man, but
if _I give him such a portion of the crop_, or in other words, if he
works my farm "_on shares_," every farmer knows that he is no longer
called a "_hired_" man. Yet he works the same farm, in the same way, at
the same times, and with the same teams and tools; and does the same
amount of work in the year, and perhaps clears twenty dollars a month,
instead of twelve. Now as he is no longer called "hired," and as he
still works my farm, suppose my neighbors sagely infer, that since he is
not my "_hired_" laborer, I _rob_ him of his earnings, and with all the
gravity of owls, pronounce their oracular decision, and hoot it abroad.
My neighbors are deep divers! like some theological professors, they go
not only to the bottom but come up covered with the tokens.]

The "bought" servants, were, _as a class, superior to the hired_--were
more trust-worthy, were held in higher estimation, had greater
privileges, and occupied a more elevated station in society. 1. They
were intimately incorporated with the family of the master, were guests
at family festivals, and social solemnities, from which hired servants
were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10, 11; Ex. xii. 43, 45. 2. Their interests
were far more identified with those of their masters' family. They were
often, actually or prospectively, heirs of their masters' estates, as in
the case of Eliezer, of Ziba, and the sons of Bilhah, and Zilpah. When
there were no sons, or when they were unworthy, bought servants were
made heirs. Prov. xvii. 2. We find traces of this usage in the New
Testament. "But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among
themselves saying, this is the _heir_, come let us kill him, _that the
inheritance may be ours_." Luke xx. 14. In no instance does a _hired_
servant inherit his master's estate. 3. Marriages took place between
servants and their master's daughters. "Sheshan had a _servant_, an
Egyptian, whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha
his servant to wife." 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35. There is no instance of a
_hired_ servant forming such an alliance. 4. Bought servants and their
descendants were treated with the same affection and respect as the
other members of the family.[A] The treatment of Abraham's servants.
Gen. xxiv. and xviii. 1-7; the intercourse between Gideon and Phurah
Judg. vii. 10, 11; Saul and his servant, 1 Sam. ix. 5, 22; Jonathan and
his servant, 1 Sam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and Gehazi are illustrations.
The tenderness exercised towards home-born servants or the children of
_handmaids_, and the strength of the tie that bound them to the family,
are employed by the Psalmist to illustrate the regard of God for him,
his care over him, and his own endearing relation to him, when in the
last extremity he prays, "Save the son of thy _handmaid_." Ps. lxxxvi.
16. So also in Ps. cxvi. 16. Oh Lord, truly I am thy servant; I am thy
servant, and the son of thy _handmaid_. Also, Jer. ii. 14. Is Israel a
servant? Is he a _home-born_?[B] WHY IS HE SPOILED? No such tie seems to
have existed between _hired_ servants and their masters. Their
untrustworthiness was proverbial. John x. 12, 13. They were reckoned at
but half the value of bought servants. Deut. xv. 18. None but the
_lowest class_ of the people engaged as hired servants, and the kinds of
labor assigned to them required little knowledge and skill. No persons
seem to have become hired servants except such as were forced to it from
extreme poverty. The hired servant is called "poor and needy," and the
reason assigned by God why he should be paid as soon as he had finished
his work is, "For _he is poor_, and setteth his heart upon it." Deut.
xxiv. 14, 15. See also, 1 Sam. ii. 5. Various passages show the low
repute and trifling character of the class from which they were hired.
Judg. ix. 4; 1 Sam. ii. 5. The superior condition of bought servants is
manifest in the high trust confided to them, and in their dignity and
authority in the household. In no instance is a _hired_ servant thus
distinguished. The _bought_ servant is manifestly the master's
representative in the family, sometimes with plenipotentiary powers over
adult children, even negotiating marriage for them. Abraham adjured his
servant, not to take a wife for Isaac of the daughters of the
Canaanites. The servant himself selected the individual. Servants
exercised discretionary power in the management of their masters'
estates, "And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master,
_for all the goods of his master were in his hand_." Gen. xxiv. 10. The
reason assigned is not that such was Abraham's direction, but that the
servant had discretionary control. Servants had also discretionary power
in the _disposal of property_. Gen. xxiv. 22, 30, 53. The condition of
Ziba in the house of Mephibosheth, is a case in point. So is Prov. xvii.
2. Distinct traces of this estimation are to be found in the New
Testament, Matt. xxiv. 45; Luke xii. 42, 44. So in the parable of the
talents, the master seems to have set up each of his servants in trade
with a large capital. The unjust steward had large _discretionary_
power, was "accused of wasting his master's goods," and manifestly
regulated with his debtors the _terms_ of settlement. Luke xvi. 4-8.
Such trusts were never reposed in _hired_ servants.

[Footnote A: "For the _purchased servant_ who is an Israelite, or
proselyte, shall fare as his master. The master shall not eat fine
bread, and his servant bread of bran. Nor yet drink old wine, and give
his servant new: nor sleep on soft pillows, and bedding, and his servant
on straw. I say unto you, that he that gets a _purchased_ servant does
well to make him as his friend, or he will prove to his employer as if
he got himself a master."--Maimonides, in Mishna Kiddushim. Chap. 1,
Sec. 2.]


[Footnote B: Our translators in rendering it "Is he a home-born SLAVE,"
were wise beyond what is written.]

The inferior condition of _hired_ servants, is illustrated in the
parable of the prodigal son. When he came to himself, the memory of his
home, and of the abundance enjoyed by even the _lowest_ class of
servants in his father's household, while he was perishing with hunger
among the swine and husks, so filled him with anguish at the contrast,
that he exclaimed, "How many _hired_ servants of my father, have bread
enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger." His proud heart broke.
"I will arise," he cried, "and go to my father;" and then to assure his
father of the depth of his humility, resolved to add; "Make me as one of
thy _hired_ servants." If _hired_ servants were the _superior_ class--to
bespeak the situation, savored little of that sense of unworthiness that
seeks the dust with hidden face, and cries "unclean." Unhumbled nature
_climbs_; or if it falls, clings fast, where first it may. Humility
sinks of its own weight, and in the lowest deep, digs lower. The design
of the parable was to illustrate on the one hand, the joy of God, as he
beholds afar off, the returning sinner "seeking an injured father's
face," who runs to clasp and bless him with an unchiding welcome; and on
the other, the contrition of the penitent, turning homeward with tears
from his wanderings, his stricken spirit breaking with its ill-desert he
sobs aloud, "The lowest place, _the lowest place_, I can abide no
other." Or in those inimitable words, "Father I have sinned against
Heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son;
make me as one of thy HIRED servants." The supposition that _hired_
servants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of
winning beauty and pathos.

It is manifest to every careful student of the Bible, that _one_ class
of servants, was on terms of equality with the children and other
members of the family. Hence the force of Paul's declaration, Gal. iv.
1, "Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child,
DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, though he be lord of all." If this
were the _hired_ class, the prodigal was a sorry specimen of humility.
Would our Lord have put such language upon the lips of one held up by
himself, as a model of gospel humility, to illustrate its deep sense of
all ill-desert? If this is _humility_, put it on stilts, and set it a
strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in aping it.

Israelites and Strangers belonged indiscriminately to _each_ class of
the servants, the _bought_ and the _hired_. That those in the former
class, whether Jews or Strangers, rose to honors and authority in the
family circle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been
shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges,
merely _political_, the hired servants from the _Israelites_, were more
favored than even the bought servants from the _Strangers_. No one from
the Strangers, however wealthy or highly endowed, was eligible to the
highest office, nor could he own the soil. This last disability seems to
have been one reason for the different periods of service required of
the two classes of bought servants. The Israelite was to serve six
years--the Stranger until the jubilee. As the Strangers could not own
the soil, nor houses, except within walled towns, they would naturally
attach themselves to Israelitish families. Those who were wealthy, or
skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming servants would need
servants for their own use, and as inducements for the Strangers to
become servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of their
own nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers would
naturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants. Lev. xxv. 47. In a
word, such was the political condition of the Strangers, that the Jewish
polity offered a virtual bounty, to such as would become permanent
servants, and thus secure those privileges already enumerated, and for
their children in the second generation a permanent inheritance. Ezek.
xlvii. 21-23. None but the monied aristocracy would be likely to decline
such offers. On the other hand, the Israelites, owning all the soil, and
an inheritance of land being a sacred possession, to hold it free of
incumbrance was with every Israelite, a delicate point, both of family
honor and personal character. 1 Kings xxi. 3. Hence, to forego the
control of one's inheritance, after the division of the paternal domain,
or to be kept out of it after having acceded to it, was a burden
grievous to be borne. To mitigate as much as possible such a calamity,
the law released the Israelitish servant at the end of six[A] years; as,
during that time--if of the first class--the partition of the
patrimonial land might have taken place or, if of the second, enough
money might have been earned to disencumber his estate, and thus he
might assume his station as a lord of the soil. If neither contingency
had occurred, then after another six years the opportunity was again
offered, and so on, until the jubilee. So while strong motives urged the
Israelite to discontinue his service as soon as the exigency had passed
which made him a servant, every consideration impelled the _Stranger_ to
_prolong_ his term of service;[B] and the same kindness which dictated
the law of six years' service for the Israelite, assigned as the general
rule, a much longer period to the Gentile servant, who had every
inducement to protract the term. It should be borne in mind, that adult
Jews ordinarily became servants, only as a temporary expedient to
relieve themselves from embarrassment, and ceased to be such when that
object was effected. The poverty that forced them to it was a calamity,
and their service was either a means of relief, or a measure of
prevention; not pursued as a permanent business, but resorted to on
emergencies--a sort of episode in the main scope of their lives. Whereas
with the Stranger, it was a _permanent employment_, pursued both as a
_means_ of bettering their own condition, and that of their posterity,
and as an _end_ for its own sake, conferring on them privileges, and a
social estimation not otherwise attainable.

[Footnote A: Another reason for protracting the service until the
seventh year, seems to have been the coincidence of that period with
other arrangements, in the Jewish economy. Its pecuniary
responsibilities, social relations, and general internal structure, were
_graduated_ upon a septennial scale. Besides, as those Israelites who
had become servants through poverty, would not sell themselves, till
other expedients to recruit their finances had failed--(Lev. xxv.
35)--their _becoming servants_ proclaimed such a state of their affairs,
as demanded the labor of a _course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]


[Footnote B: The Stranger had the same inducements to prefer a long term
of service that those have who cannot own land, to prefer a long
_lease_.]

We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are
called by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_,) 1. They
followed it as a _permanent business_. 2. Their term of service was
_much longer_ than that of the other class. 3. As a class, they
doubtless greatly outnumbered the Israelitish servants. 4. All the
Strangers that dwelt in the land were _tributaries_, required to pay an
annual tax to the government, either in money, or in public service,
(called a _"tribute of bond-service;"_) in other words, all the
Strangers were _national servants_, to the Israelites, and the same
Hebrew word used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates
_national_ servants or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, 14; 2 Chron.
viii. 7-9; Deut, xx. 11; 2 Sam. x. 19; 1 Kings ix. 21, 22; 1 Kings iv.
21; Gen. xxvii. 29. The same word is applied to the Israelites, when
they paid tribute to other nations. 2 Kings xvii. 3.; Judg. iii. 8, 14;
Gen. xlix. 15. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought
servants, was in their _kinds_ of service. The servants from the
Strangers were properly the _domestics_, or household servants, employed
in all family work, in offices of personal attendance, and in such
mechanical labor, as was required by increasing wants and needed
repairs. The Jewish bought servants seem almost exclusively
_agricultural_. Besides being better fitted for it by previous habits,
agriculture, and the tending of cattle, were regarded by the Israelites
as the most honorable of all occupations. After Saul was elected king,
and escorted to Gibeah, the next report of him is, "_And behold Saul
came after the herd out of the field_." 1 Sam. xi. 5. Elisha "was
plowing with twelve yoke of oxen." 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah "loved
husbandry." 2 Chron. xxvi. 10. Gideon _was "threshing wheat"_ when
called to lead the host against the Midianites. Judg. vi. 11. The
superior honorableness of agriculture is shown, in that it was protected
and supported by the fundamental law of the theocracy--God indicating it
as the chief prop of the government. The Israelites were like permanent
fixtures on their soil, so did they cling to it. To be agriculturists on
their own patrimonial inheritances, was with them the grand claim to
honorable estimation. When Ahab proposed to Naboth that he should sell
him his vineyard, king though he was, he might well have anticipated
from an Israelitish freeholder, just such an indignant burst as that
which his proposal drew forth, "And Naboth said to Ahab, the Lord forbid
it me that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee." 1
Kings xxi. 2, 3. Agriculture being pre-eminently a _Jewish_ employment,
to assign a native Israelite to other employments as a business, was to
break up his habits, do violence to cherished predilections, and put him
to a kind of labor in which he had no skill, and which he deemed
degrading.[C] In short, it was in the earlier ages of the Mosaic system,
practically to _unjew_ him, a hardship and a rigor grievous to be borne,
as it annihilated a visible distinction between the descendants of
Abraham and the Strangers. _To guard this and another fundamental
distinction_, God instituted the regulation, "If thy brother that
dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not
compel him to serve as a bond-servant." In other words, thou shalt not
put him to servant's work--to the business, and into the condition of
domestics. In the Persian version it is translated, "Thou shalt not
assign to him the work of _servitude_." In the Septuagint, "He shall not
serve thee with the service of a _domestic_." In the Syriac, "Thou shalt
not employ him after the manner of servants." In the Samaritan, "Thou
shalt not require him to serve in the service of a servant." In the
Targum of Onkelos, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a
household servant." In the Targum of Jonathan, "Thou shalt not cause him
to serve according to the usages of the servitude of servants."[D] The
meaning of the passage is, _thou shalt not assign him to the same grade,
nor put him to the same service, with permanent domestics._ The
remainder of the regulation is--_"But as an hired servant and as a
sojourner shall he be with thee."_ Hired servants were not incorporated
into the families of their masters; they still retained their own family
organization, without the surrender of any domestic privilege, honor, or
authority; and this, even though they resided under the same roof with
their master. The same substantially may be said of the sojourner though
he was not the owner of the land which he cultivated, and of course had
not the control of an inheritance, yet he was not in a condition that
implied subjection to him whose land he tilled, or that demanded the
surrender of any _right_, or exacted from him any homage, or stamped him
with any inferiority; unless, it be supposed that a degree of
inferiority would naturally attach to a state of _dependence_ however
qualified. While bought servants were associated with their master's
families at meals, at the Passover, and at other family festivals, hired
servants and sojourners were not. Ex. xii. 44, 45; Lev. xxii. 10, 11.
Hired servants were not subject to the authority of their masters in any
such sense as the master's wife, children, and bought servants. Hence
the only form of oppressing hired servants spoken of in the Scriptures
as practicable to masters, is that of _keeping back their wages._ To
have taken away such privileges in the case under consideration, would
have been pre-eminent "_rigor_;" for it was not a servant born in the
house of a master, nor a minor, whose minority had been sold by the
father, neither was it one who had not yet acceded to his inheritance,
nor finally, one who had received the _assignment_ of his inheritance,
but was working off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its
possession and control. But it was that of _the head of a family_, who
had known better days, now reduced to poverty, forced to relinquish the
loved inheritance of his fathers, with the competence and respectful
consideration its possession secured to him, and to be indebted to a
neighbor for shelter, sustenance, and employment. So sad a reverse,
might well claim sympathy; but one consolation cheers him in the house
of his pilgrimage; he is an _Israelite--Abraham is his father_ and now
in his calamity he clings closer than ever, to the distinction conferred
by his birth-right. To rob him of this, were "the unkindest cut of all."
To have assigned him to a grade of service filled only by those whose
permanent business was serving, would have been to "rule over him with"
peculiar "rigor." "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a
bond-servant," or literally, _thou shalt not serve thyself with him,
with the service of a servant_, guaranties his political privileges, and
a kind and grade of service comporting with his character and relations
as an Israelite. And "as a _hired_ servant, and as a sojourner shall he
be with thee," secures to him his family organization, the respect and
authority due to its head, and the general consideration resulting from
such a station. Being already in possession of his inheritance, and the
head of a household, the law so arranged the conditions of his service
as to _alleviate_ as much as possible the calamity which had reduced him
from independence and authority, to penury and subjection. The import of
the command which concludes this topic in the forty-third verse, ("Thou
shalt not rule over him with rigor,") is manifestly this, you shall not
disregard those differences in previous associations, station,
authority, and political privileges, upon which this regulation is
based; for to hold this class of servants _irrespective_ of these
distinctions, and annihilating them, is to "rule with rigor." The same
command is repeated in the forty-sixth verse, and applied to the
distinction between servants of Jewish, and those of Gentile extraction,
and forbids the overlooking of distinctive Jewish peculiarities, the
disregard of which would be _rigorous_ in the extreme.[E] The
construction commonly put upon the phrase "rule with rigor," and the
inference drawn from it, have an air vastly oracular. It is interpreted
to mean, "you shall not make him a chattel, and strip him of legal
protection, nor force him to work without pay." The inference is like
unto it, viz., since the command forbade such outrages upon the
Israelites, it permitted and commissioned their infliction upon the
Strangers. Such impious and shallow smattering captivates scoffers and
libertines; its flippancy and blasphemy, and the strong scent of its
loose-reined license works like a charm upon them. What boots it to
reason against such rampant affinities! In Ex. i. 13, it is said that
the Egyptians, "made the children of Israel to _serve_ with rigor." This
rigor is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted and the _mode_ of
the exaction. The expression "serve with rigor," is never applied to the
service of servants under the Mosaic system. The phrase, "thou shall not
RULE over him with rigor," does not prohibit unreasonable exactions of
labor, nor inflictions of cruelty. Such were provided against otherwise.
But it forbids confounding the distinctions between a Jew and a
Stranger, by assigning the former to the same grade of service, for the
same term of time and under the same political disabilities as the
latter.

[Footnote C: The Babylonish captivity seems to have greatly modified
Jewish usage in this respect. Before that event, their cities were
comparatively small, and few were engaged in mechanical or mercantile
employments. Afterward their cities enlarged apace and trades
multiplied.]


[Footnote D: Jarchi's comment on "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as
a bond-servant" is, "The Hebrew servant is not to be required to do any
thing which is accounted degrading--such as all offices of personal
attendance, as loosing his master's shoe-latchet, bringing him water to
wash his hands and feet, waiting on him at table, dressing him, carrying
things to and from the bath. The Hebrew servant is to work with his
master as a son or brother, in the business of his farm, or other labor,
until his legal release."]


[Footnote E: The disabilities of the Strangers, which were distinctions,
based on a different national descent, and important to the preservation
of nation characteristics, and a national worship, did not at all affect
their _social_ estimation. They were regarded according to their
character and worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin,
employments and political condition.]



We are now prepared to review at a glance, the condition of the
different classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each.

In the possession of all fundamental rights, all classes of servants
were on an absolute equality, all were equally protected by law in their
persons, character, property and social relations; all were voluntary,
all were compensated for their labor, and released from it nearly one
half of the days in each year; all were furnished with stated
instruction; none in either class were in any sense articles of
property, all were regarded as _men_, with the rights, interests, hopes
and destinies of _men_. In all these respects, _all_ classes of servants
among the Israelites, formed but ONE CLASS. The _different_ classes, and
the differences in _each_ class, were, 1. _Hired Servants_. This class
consisted both of Israelites and Strangers. Their employments were
different. The _Israelite_ was an agricultural servant. The Stranger was
a _domestic_ and _personal_ servant, and in some instances _mechanical_;
both were occasional and temporary. Both lived in their own families,
their wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work was done.
2. _Bought Servants_, (including those "born in the house.") This class
also, consisted of Israelites and Strangers, the same difference in
their kinds of employment as noticed before. Both were paid in
advance,[A] and neither was temporary. The Israelitish servant, with the
exception of the _freeholder_, completed his term in six years. The
Stranger was a permanent servant, continuing until the jubilee. A marked
distinction obtained also between different classes of _Jewish_ bought
servants. Ordinarily, they were merged in their master's family, and,
like his wife and children, subject to his authority; (and, like them,
protected by law from its abuse.) But the _freeholder_ was an exception;
his family relations and authority remained unaffected, nor was he
subjected as an inferior to the control of his master, though dependent
on him for employment.

[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, doubtless lessened the price of
the purchase; the servant thus having the use of the money, and the
master assuming all the risks of life, and health for labor; at the
expiration of the six years' contract, the master having suffered no
loss from the risk incurred at the making of it, was obliged by law to
release the servant with a liberal gratuity. The reason assigned for
this is, "he hath been worth a double hired servant unto thee in serving
thee six years," as if it had been said, as you have experienced no loss
from the risks of life, and ability to labor, incurred in the purchase,
and which lessened the price, and as, by being your servant for six
years, he has saved you the time and trouble of looking up and hiring
laborers on emergencies, therefore, "thou shalt furnish him liberally,"
&c. This gratuity at the close of the service shews the _principle_ of
the relation; _equivalent_ for value received. ]

It should be kept in mind, that _both_ classes of servants, the
Israelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal, natural and
religious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed
by those of their own people who were _not_ servants. They also shared
in common with them the political disabilities which appertained to all
Strangers, whether servants of Jewish masters, or masters of Jewish
servants. Further, the disabilities of the servants from the Strangers
were exclusively _political_ and _national_. 1. They, in common with all
Strangers, could not own the soil. 2. They were ineligible to civil
offices. 3. They were assigned to employments less honorable than those
in which Israelitish servants engaged; agriculture being regarded as
fundamental to the existence of the state, other employments were in
less repute, and deemed _unjewish_.

Finally, the Strangers, whether servants or masters, were all protected
equally with the descendants of Abraham. In respect to political
privileges, their condition was much like that of unnaturalized
foreigners in the United States; whatever their wealth or intelligence,
or moral principle, or love for our institutions, they can neither go to
the ballot-box, nor own the soil, nor be eligible to office. Let a
native American, be suddenly bereft of these privileges, and loaded with
the disabilities of an alien, and what to the foreigner would be a light
matter, to _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_. The recent condition
of the Jews and Catholics in England, is another illustration.
Rothschild, the late banker, though the richest private citizen in the
world, and perhaps master of scores of English servants, who sued for
the smallest crumbs of his favor, was, as a subject of the government,
inferior to the lowest among them. Suppose an Englishman of the
Established Church, were by law deprived of power to own the soil, of
eligibility to office and of the electoral franchise, would Englishmen
think it a misapplication of language, if it were said, the government
"rules over him with rigor?" And yet his person, property, reputation,
conscience, all his social relations, the disposal of his time, the
right of locomotion at pleasure, and of natural liberty in all respects,
are just as much protected by law as the Lord Chancellor's.



FINALLY.--As the Mosaic system was a great compound type, rife with
meaning in doctrine and duty; the practical power of the whole, depended
upon the exact observance of those distinctions and relations which
constituted its significancy. Hence, the care to preserve inviolate the
distinction between a _descendant of Abraham_ and a _Stranger_, even
when the Stranger was a proselyte, had gone through the initiatory
ordinances, entered the congregation, and become incorporated with the
Israelites by family alliance. The regulation laid down in Ex. xxi. 2-6,
is an illustration. In this case, the Israelitish servant, whose term
expired in six years, married one of his master's _permanent female
domestics_; but her marriage did not release her master from _his_ part
of the contract for her whole term of service, nor from his legal
obligation to support and educate her children. Neither did it do away
that distinction, which marked her national descent by a specific
_grade_ and _term_ of service, nor impair her obligation to fulfil _her_
part of the contract. Her relations as a permanent domestic grew out of
a distinction guarded with great care throughout the Mosaic system. To
render it void, would have been to divide the system against itself.
This God would not tolerate. Nor, on the other hand, would he permit the
master to throw off the responsibility of instructing her children, nor
the care and expense of their helpless infancy and rearing. He was bound
to support and educate them, and all her children born afterwards during
her term of service. The whole arrangement beautifully illustrates that
wise and tender regard for the interests of all the parties concerned,
which arrays the Mosaic system in robes of glory, and causes it to shine
as the sun in the kingdom of our Father.[B] By this law, the children
had secured to them a mother's tender care. If the husband loved his
wife and children, he could compel his master to keep him, whether he
had any occasion for his services or not. If he did not love them, to be
rid of him was a blessing; and in that case, the regulation would prove
an act for the relief of an afflicted family. It is not by any means to
be inferred, that the release of the servant in the seventh year, either
absolved him from the obligations of marriage, or shut him out from the
society of his family. He could doubtless procure a service at no great
distance from them, and might often do it, to get higher wages, or a
kind of employment better suited to his taste and skill. The great
number of days on which the law released servants from regular labor,
would enable him to spend much more time with his family, than can be
spent by most of the agents of our benevolent societies with _their_
families, or by many merchants, editors, artists, &c., whose daily
business is in New York, while their families reside from ten to one
hundred miles in the country.

[Footnote B: Whoever profoundly studies the Mosaic Institutes with a
teachable and reverential spirit, will feel the truth and power of that
solemn appeal and interrogatory of God to his people Israel, when he had
made an end of setting before them all his statutes and ordinances.
"What nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments SO
RIGHTEOUS, as _all_ this law which I set before you this day." Deut. iv.
8.]



We conclude this inquiry by touching upon an objection, which, though
not formally stated, has been already set aside by the tenor of the
foregoing argument. It is this,--"The slavery of the Canaanites by the
Israelites, was appointed by God as a commutation of the punishment of
death denounced against them for their sins."[A] If the absurdity of a
sentence consigning persons to death, and at the same time to perpetual
slavery, did not sufficiently laugh at itself; it would be small
self-denial, in a case so tempting, to make up the deficiency by a
general contribution. Only _one_ statute was ever given respecting the
disposition to be made of the inhabitants of Canaan. If the sentence of
death was pronounced against them, and afterwards _commuted_, when?
where? by whom? and in what terms was the commutation, and where is it
recorded? Grant, for argument's sake, that all the Canaanites were
sentenced to unconditional extermination; how can a right to _enslave_
them, be drawn from such premises? The punishment of death is one of the
highest recognitions of man's moral nature possible. It proclaims him
rational, accountable, guilty, deserving death for having done his
utmost to cheapen human life, when the proof of its priceless worth
lived in his own nature. But to make him a _slave_, cheapens to nothing
_universal human nature_, and instead of healing a wound, gives a
death-stab. What! repair an injury to rational being in the robbery of
one of its rights, not only by robbing it of all, but by annihilating
their _foundation_, the everlasting distinction between persons and
things? To make a man a chattel, is not the _punishment_, but the
_annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and, so far as it goes, of _all_
human beings. This commutation of the punishment of death, into
perpetual slavery, what a fortunate discovery! Alas! for the honor of
Deity, if commentators had not manned the forlorn hope, and by a timely
movement rescued the Divine character, at the very crisis of its fate,
from the perilous position in which inspiration had carelessly left it!
Here a question arises of sufficient importance for a separate
dissertation; but must for the present be disposed of in a few
paragraphs. WERE THE CANAANITES SENTENCED BY GOD TO INDIVIDUAL AND
UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION? As the limits of this inquiry forbid our
giving all the grounds of dissent from commonly received opinions, the
suggestions made, will be thrown out merely as QUERIES, rather than laid
down as _doctrines_. The directions as to the disposal of the
Canaanites, are mainly in the following passages, Ex. xxiii. 23-33;
xxxiv. 11; Deut. vii. 16-24; ix. 3; xxxi. 3-5. In these verses, the
Israelites are commanded to "destroy the Canaanites," to "drive out,"
"consume," "utterly overthrow," "put out," "dispossess them," &c. Did
these commands enjoin the unconditional and universal destruction of the
_individuals_, or merely of the _body politic_? The word _haram_, to
destroy, signifies _national_, as well as individual destruction; the
destruction of _political_ existence, equally with _personal_; of
governmental organization, equally with the lives of the subjects.
Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &c., to
mean _personal_ destruction, what meaning shall we give to the
expressions, "drive out before thee," "cast out before thee," "expel,"
"put out," "dispossess," &c., which are used in the same and in parallel
passages? In addition to those quoted above, see Josh. iii. 10; xvii.
18; xxiii. 5; xxiv. 18; Judg. i. 20, 29-35; vi. 9. "I will _destroy_ all
the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies
_turn their backs unto thee_." Ex. xxiii. 27. Here "_all their enemies_"
were to _turn their backs_, and "_all the people_" to be "_destroyed_."
Does this mean that God would let all their _enemies_ escape, but kill
their _friends_, or that he would _first_ kill "all the people" and THEN
make them "turn their backs," an army of runaway corpses? In Josh. xxiv.
8, God says, speaking of the Amorites, "I _destroyed_ them from before
you." In the 18th verse of the same chapter, it is said, "The Lord
_drave out_ from before us all the people, even the Amorites which dwelt
in the land." In Num. xxxii. 39, we are told that "the children of
Machir the son of Manasseh, went to Gilead, and took it, and
_dispossessed_ the Amorite which was in it." If these commands required
the destruction of all the _individuals,_ the Mosaic law was at war with
itself, for directions as to the treatment of native residents form a
large part of it. See Lev. xix. 34; xxv. 35, 36; xxiv. 22.; Ex. xxiii.
9; xxii. 21; Deut. i. 16, 17; x. 17, 19; xxvii. 19. We find, also, that
provision was made for them in the cities of refuge, Num. xxxv. 15,--the
gleanings of the harvest and vintage were theirs, Lev. xix. 9, 10;
xxiii. 22;--the blessings of the Sabbath, Ex. xx. 10;--the privilege of
offering sacrifices secured, Lev. xxii. 18; and stated religious
instruction provided for them. Deut. xxxi. 9, 12. Now does this same law
require the _individual extermination_ of those whose lives and
interests it thus protects? These laws were given to the Israelites,
long _before_ they entered Canaan; and they must have inferred from
them, that a multitude of the inhabitants of the land were to _continue
in it_, under their government. Again Joshua was selected as the leader
of Israel to execute God's threatenings upon Canaan. He had no
discretionary power. God's commands were his official instructions.
Going beyond them would have been usurpation; refusing to carry them
out, rebellion and treason. Saul was rejected from being king for
disobeying God's commands in a single instance. Now if God commanded the
individual destruction of all the Canaanites Joshua disobeyed him in
every instance. For at his death, the Israelites still "_dwelt among
them_," and each nation is mentioned by name. Judg. i. 27-36, and yet we
are told that Joshua "left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded
Moses;" and that he "took all that land." Josh. xi. 15-22. Also, that
"there _stood not a man_ of _all_ their enemies before them." Josh. xxi.
44. How can this be if the command to destroy, destroy utterly, &c.,
enjoined _individual_ extermination, and the command to drive out,
unconditional expulsion from the country, rather than their expulsion
from the _possession_ or _ownership_ of it, as the lords of the soil?
That the latter is the true sense to be attached to those terms, we
argue, further from the fact that the same terms are employed by God to
describe the punishment which he would inflict upon the Israelites if
they served other Gods. "Ye shall utterly perish," "be utterly
destroyed," "consumed," &c., are some of them.--See Deut. iv. 20; viii.
19, 20.[B] Josh. xxiii. 12, 13-16; 1. Sam. xii. 25. The Israelites _did_
serve other Gods, and Jehovah _did_ execute upon them his
threatenings--and thus himself _interpreted_ these threatenings. He
subverted their _government_, dispossessed them of their land, divested
them of national power, and made them _tributaries_, but did not
_exterminate_ them. He "destroyed them utterly" as an independent body
politic, but not as individuals. Multitudes of the Canaanites were
slain, but not a case can be found in which one was either killed or
expelled who _acquiesced_ in the transfer of the territory, and its
sovereignty, from the inhabitants of the land to the Israelites. Witness
the case of Rahab and her kindred, and that of the Gibeonites.[C] The
Canaanites knew of the miracles wrought for the Israelites; and that
their land had been transferred to them as a judgment for their sins.
Josh. ii. 9-11; ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of them were awed by these wonders,
and made no resistance. Others defied God and came out to battle. These
last occupied the fortified cities, were the most inveterate
heathen--the aristocracy of idolatry, the kings, the nobility and
gentry, the priests, with their crowds of satellites, and retainers that
aided in idolatrous rites, and the military forces, with the chief
profligates of both sexes. Many facts corroborate the general position.
Witness that command (Deut. xxiii. 15, 16,) which, not only prohibited
the surrender of the fugitive servant to his master, but required the
Israelites to receive him with kindness, permit him to dwell where he
pleased, and to protect and cherish him. Whenever any servant, even a
Canaanite, fled from his master to the Israelites, Jehovah, so far from
commanding them to _kill_ him, straitly charged them, "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."
Deut. xxiii. 16. The Canaanitish servant by thus fleeing to the
Israelites, submitted himself as a dutiful subject to their national
government, and pledged his allegiance. Suppose _all_ the Canaanites had
thus submitted themselves to the Jewish theocracy, and conformed to the
requirements of the Mosaic institutes, would not _all_ have been spared
upon the same principle that _one_ was? Again, look at the multitude of
_tributaries_ in the midst of Israel, and that too, after they had
"waxed strong," and the uttermost nations quaked at the terror of their
name--the Canaanites, Philistines and others, who became proselytes--as
the Nethenims, Uriah the Hittite--Rahab, who married one of the princes
of Judah--Jether, an Ishmaelite, who married Abigail the sister of David
and was the father of Amasa, the captain of the host of Israel. Comp. 1
Chron. ii. 17, with 2 Sam. xvii. 25.--Ittai--the six hundred Gittites,
David's body guard. 2. Sam xv. 18, 21. Obededom the Gittite, adopted
into the tribe of Levi. Comp. 2 Sam. vi. 10, 11, with 1 Chron. xv. 18,
and xxvi. 4, 5--Jaziz, and Obil. 1 Chron, xxvii. 30, 31. Jephunneh the
Kenezite, Josh. xiv. 6, and father of Caleb a ruler of the tribe of
Judah. Numb. xiii. 2, 6--the Kenites registered in the genealogies of
the tribe of Judah, Judg. i. 16; 1 Chron. ii. 55, and the one hundred
and fifty thousand Canaanites, employed by Solomon in the building of
the Temple.[D] Besides, the greatest miracle on record, was wrought to
save a portion of those very Canaanites, and for the destruction of
those who would exterminate them. Josh. x. 12-14. Further--the terms
employed in the directions regulating the disposal of the Canaanites,
such as "drive out," "put out," "cast out," "expel," "dispossess," &c.,
seem used interchangeably with "consume," "destroy," "overthrow," &c.,
and thus indicate the sense in which the latter words are used. As an
illustration of the meaning generally attached to these and similar
terms, we refer to the history of the Amalekites. "I will utterly put
out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." Ex. xvii. 14. "Thou
shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt
not forget it." Deut. xxv. 19. "Smite Amalek and _utterly destroy_ all
that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant
and suckling, ox and sheep." 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. "Saul smote the
Amalekites, and he took Agag the king of the Amalekites, alive and
UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THE PEOPLE with the edge of the sword." Verses 7,
8. In verse 20, Saul says, "I have brought Agag, the king of Amalek, and
have _utterly destroyed_ the Amalekites." In 1 Sam. xxx. 1, 2, we find
the Amalekites marching an army into Israel, and sweeping everything
before them--and this in about eighteen years after they had all been
"UTTERLY DESTROYED!" In 1 Kings ii. 15-17, is another illustration. We
are informed that Joab remained in Edom six months with all Israel,
"until he had _cut off every male_" in Edom. In the next verse we learn
that Hadad and "certain Edomites" were not slain. Deut. xx. 16, 17, will
probably be quoted against the preceding view. We argue that the command
in these verses, did not include all the individuals of the Canaanitish
nations, but only the inhabitants of the _cities_, (and even those
conditionally,) because, only the inhabitants of _cities_ are
specified--"of the _cities_ of these people thou shalt save alive
nothing that breatheth." Cities then, as now, were pest-houses of vice,
they reeked with abominations little practised in the country. On this
account, their influence would be far more perilous to the Israelites
than that of the country. Besides, they were the centres of
idolatry--there were the temples and altars, and idols, and priests,
without number. Even their buildings, streets, and public walks were so
many visibilities of idolatry. The reason assigned in the 18th verse for
exterminating them, strengthens the idea--"that they teach you not to do
after all the abominations which they have done unto their gods." This
would be a reason for exterminating all the nations and individuals
_around_ them, as all were idolaters; but God commanded them, in certain
cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact with _any_ of them would be
perilous--with the inhabitants of the _cities_ peculiarly, and of the
_Canaanitish_ cities pre-eminently so. The 10th and 11th verses contain
the general rule prescribing the method in which cities were to be
summoned to surrender. They were first to receive the offer of peace--if
it was accepted, the inhabitants became _tributaries_--but if they came
out against Israel in battle, the _men_ were to be killed, and the woman
and little ones saved alive. The 15th verse restricts this lenient
treatment to the inhabitants of the cities _afar off_. The 16th directs
as to the disposal of the inhabitants of the Canaanitish cities. They
were to save alive "nothing that breathed." The common mistake has been,
in supposing that the command in the 15th verse refers to the _whole
system of directions preceding,_ commencing with the 10th, whereas it
manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_ specified in the 12th, 13th,
and, 14th, making a distinction between those _Canaanitish_ cities that
_fought_, and the cities _afar off_ that fought--in one case destroying
the males and females, and in the other, the _males_ only. The offer of
peace, and the _conditional preservation_, were as really guarantied to
_Canaanitish_ cities as to others. Their inhabitants were not to be
exterminated unless they came out against Israel in battle. Whatever be
the import of the commands respecting the disposition to be made of the
Canaanites, all admit the fact that the Israelites did _not_ utterly
exterminate them. Now, if entire and unconditional extermination was the
command of God, it was _never_ obeyed by the Israelites, consequently
the truth of God stood pledged to consign _them_ to the same doom which
he had pronounced upon the Canaanites, but which they had refused to
visit upon them. "If ye will not drive out all the inhabitants of the
land from before you, then it shall come to pass that * * _I shall do
unto you as I thought to do unto them_." Num. xxxiii. 55, 56. As the
Israelites were not exterminated, we infer that God did not pronounce
_that_ doom upon them; and as he _did_ pronounce upon them the _same_
doom, whatever it was, which they should _refuse_ to visit upon the
Canaanites, it follows that the doom of unconditional _extermination_
was _not_ pronounced against the Canaanites. But let us settle this
question by the "law and the testimony." "There was not a city that made
peace with the children of Israel save the Hivites, the inhabitants of
Gibeon; all others they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden
their hearts, that they should COME OUT AGAINST ISRAEL IN BATTLE, that
he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but
that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses." Josh. xi. 19.
20. That is, if they had _not_ come out against Israel in battle, they
would have had "favor" shown them, and would not have been "_destroyed
utterly_." The great design was to _transfer the territory_ of the
Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute sovereignty
in every respect_; to annihilate their political organizations, civil
polity, and jurisprudence, and their system of religion, with all its
rights and appendages; and to substitute therefor, a pure theocracy,
administered by Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and
agents. In a word the people were to be _denationalized,_ their
political existence annihilated, their idol temples, altars, groves,
images, pictures, and heathen rites destroyed, and themselves put under
tribute. Those who resisted the execution of Jehovah's purpose were to
be killed, while those who quietly submitted to it were to be spared.
All had the choice of these alternatives, either free egress out of the
land;[E] or acquiescence in the decree, with life and residence as
tributaries, under the protection of the government; or resistance to
the execution of the decree, with death. "_And it shall come to pass, if
they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name,
the Lord liveth, as they taught my people to swear by Baal;_ THEN SHALL
THEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE."

[Footnote A: In the prophecy, Gen. ix. 25, the subjection of the
Canaanites as a conquered people rendering tribute to other nations, is
foretold by inspiration. The fulfilment of this prediction, seems to
have commenced in the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites as
tributaries. If the Israelites had exterminated them, as the objector
asserts they were commanded to do; the prediction would have been
_falsified_.]


[Footnote B: These two verses are so explicit we quote them entire--"And
it shall be if thou do at all forget the Lord they God and walk after
other Gods and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this
day that ye shall surely _perish_, as the nations which the Lord
destroyed before your face, _so_ shall ye perish." The following
passages are, if possible still more explicit--"The Lord shall send upon
thee cursing, vexation and rebuke in all that thou settest thine hand
unto for to do, until thou be _destroyed_, and until thou perish
quickly." "The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee until he
have _consumed_ thee." "They (the 'sword,' 'blasting,' &c.) shall pursue
thee until thou _perish_." "From heaven shall it come down upon thee
until thou be _destroyed_." "All these curses shall come upon thee till
thou be _destroyed_." "He shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck until
he have _destroyed_ thee." "The Lord shall bring a nation against thee,
a nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the
old, nor show favor to the young, * * until he have _destroyed_ thee."
All these, with other similar threatenings of _destruction_, are
contained in the twenty-eighth chapter of Deut. See verses 20-25, 45,
48, 51. In the _same_ chapter God declares that as a punishment for the
same transgressions, the Israelites shall "be _removed_ into all the
kingdoms of the earth," thus showing that the terms employed in the
other verses, "destroy," "perish," "perish quickly," "consume," &c.,
instead of signifying utter, personal destruction doubtless meant their
destruction as an independent nation. In Josh. xxiv. 8, 18, "destroyed"
and "drave out," are used synonymously.]


[Footnote C: Perhaps it will be objected, that the preservation of the
Gibeonites, and of Rahab and her kindred, was a violation of the command
of God. We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such intimation.
If God had straitly commanded them to _exterminate all the Canaanites_,
their pledge to save them alive, was neither a repeal of the statute,
nor absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ was
the import of the command, would God have permitted such an act to pass
without rebuke? Would he have established such a precedent when Israel
had hardly passed the threshold of Canaan, and was then striking the
first blow of a half century war? What if they _had_ passed their word
to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding than God's command?
So Saul seems to have passed _his_ word to Agag; yet Samuel hewed him in
pieces, because in saving his life, Saul had violated God's command.
When Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites in "his zeal for the children of
Israel and Judah," God sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it.
When David inquired of them what atonement he should make, they say,
"The man that devised against us, that we should be destroyed from
_remaining in any of the coast of Israel_, let seven of his sons be
delivered," &c. 2 Sam. xxi. 1-6.]


[Footnote D: If the Canaanites were devoted by God to unconditional
extermination, to have employed them in the erection of the
temple,--what was it but the climax of impiety? As well might they
pollute its altars with swine's flesh or make their sons pass through
the fire to Moloch.]


[Footnote E: Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had abandoned their
territory at the tidings of Israel's approach, did God's command require
the Israelites to chase them to ends of the earth, and hunt them out,
until every Canaanite was destroyed? It is too preposterous for belief,
and yet it follows legitimately from that construction, which interprets
the terms "consume," "destroy," "destroy utterly," &c. to mean
unconditional, individual extermination.]

[The original design of the preceding Inquiry embraced a much wider
range of topics. It was soon found, however, that to fill up the outline
would be to make a volume. Much of the foregoing has therefore been
thrown into a mere series of _indices_, to trains of thought and classes
of proof, which, however limited or imperfect, may perhaps, afford some
facilities to those who have little leisure for protracted
investigation.]





NO. 5.



THE


ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.


THE


POWER OF CONGRESS


OVER THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.


       *       *       *       *       *


REPRINTED FROM THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, WITH ADDITIONS BY THE AUTHOR.


       *       *       *       *       *



NEW-YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,

NO. 143 NASSAU-STREET.

1838.


       *       *       *       *       *


This periodical contains 3 1/2 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 6 cts.;
over 100, 10 cts.



POWER OF CONGRESS


OVER THE


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.



A civilized community presupposes a government of law. If that
government be a republic, its citizens are the sole _sources_, as well
as the _subjects_ of its power. Its constitution is their bill of
directions to their own agents--a grant authorizing the exercise of
certain powers, and prohibiting that of others. In the Constitution of
the United States, whatever else may be obscure, the clause granting
power to Congress over the Federal District may well defy
misconstruction. Art. 1, Sec. 6, Clause 18: "The Congress shall have
power to exercise exclusive legislation, _in all cases whatsoever_, over
such District." Congress may make laws for the District "in all
_cases_," not of all _kinds_; not all _laws_ whatsoever, but laws "in
all _cases_ whatsoever." The grant respects the _subjects_ of
legislation, _not_ the moral nature of the laws. The law-making power
every where is subject to _moral_ restrictions, whether limited by
constitutions or not. No legislature can authorize murder, nor make
honesty penal, nor virtue a crime, nor exact impossibilities. In these
and similar respects, the power of Congress is held in check by
principles, existing in the nature of things, not imposed by the
Constitution, but presupposed and assumed by it. The power of Congress
over the District is restricted only by those principles that limit
ordinary legislation, and, in some respects, it has even wider scope.

In common with the legislatures of the States, Congress cannot
constitutionally pass ex post facto laws in criminal cases, nor suspend
the writ of habeas corpus, nor pass a bill of attainder, nor abridge the
freedom of speech and of the press, nor invade the right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, nor enact
laws respecting an establishment of religion. These are general
limitations. Congress cannot do these things _any where_. The exact
import, therefore, of the clause "in all cases whatsoever," is, _on all
subjects within the appropriate sphere of legislation_. Some
legislatures are restrained by constitutions, from the exercise of
powers strictly within the proper sphere of legislation. Congressional
power over the District has no such restraint. It traverses the whole
field of legitimate legislation. All the power which any legislature has
within its own jurisdiction, Congress holds over the District of
Columbia.

It has been objected that the clause in question respects merely police
regulations, and that its sole design was to enable Congress to protect
itself against popular tumults. But if the convention that framed the
Constitution aimed to provide for a _single_ case only, why did they
provide for "_all_ cases whatsoever?" Besides, this clause was opposed
in many of the state conventions, because the grant of power was
extended to "_all_ cases whatsoever," instead of being restricted to
police regulations _alone_. In the Virginia Convention, George Mason,
the father of the Virginia Constitution, Patrick Henry, Mr. Grayson, and
others, assailed it on that ground. Mr. Mason said, "This clause gives
an unlimited authority in every possible case within the District. He
would willingly give them exclusive power as far as respected the police
and good government of the place, but he would give them no more." Mr.
Grayson exclaimed against so large a grant of power--said that control
over the _police_ was all-sufficient, and "that the Continental Congress
never had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases." Patrick Henry
said: "Shall we be told, when about to grant such illimitable authority,
that it will never be exercised? Is it consistent with any principle of
prudence or good policy, to grant _unlimited, unbounded authority_?" Mr.
Madison said in reply: "I did conceive that the clause under
consideration was one of those parts which would speak its own praise. I
cannot comprehend that the power of legislation over a small District,
will involve the dangers which he apprehends. When any power is given,
it's delegation necessarily involves authority to make laws to execute
it. * * * * The powers which are found necessary to be given, are
therefore delegated _generally_, and particular and minute specification
is left to the Legislature. * * * It is not within the limits of human
capacity to delineate on paper all those particular cases and
circumstances, in which legislation by the general legislature, would be
necessary." Governor Randolph said: "Holland has no ten miles square,
but she has the Hague where the deputies of the States assemble. But the
influence which it has given the province of Holland, to have the seat
of government within its territory, subject in some respects to its
control, has been injurious to the other provinces. The wisdom of the
convention is therefore manifest in granting to Congress exclusive
jurisdiction over the place of their session." (_See debates in the
Virginia Convention_, p. 320.) In the forty-third number of the
"Federalist," Mr. Madison says: "The indispensable necessity of
_complete_ authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence
with it."

Finally, that the grant in question is to be interpreted according to
the obvious import of its _terms_, and not in such a way as to restrict
it to _police_ regulations, is proved by the fact, that the State of
Virginia proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution at the
time of its adoption, providing that this clause "should be so construed
as to give power only over the _police and good government_ of said
District," _which amendment was rejected_. Fourteen other amendments,
proposed at the same time by Virginia, were _adopted_.

The former part, of the clause under consideration, "Congress shall have
power to exercise _exclusive_ legislation," gives sole jurisdiction, and
the latter part, "in all cases whatsoever," defines the _extent_ of it.
Since, then, Congress is the _sole_ legislature within the District, and
since its power is limited only by the checks common to all
legislatures, it follows that what the law-making power is intrinsically
competent to do _any_ where, Congress is competent to do in the District
of Columbia.



STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION AT ISSUE.

Having disposed of preliminaries, we proceed to argue the _real
question_ at issue. Is the law-making power competent to abolish slavery
when not restricted in that particular by constitutional provisions--or,
_Is the abolition of slavery within the appropriate sphere of
legislation?_

In every government, absolute sovereignty exists _somewhere_. In the
United States it exists primarily with the _people_, and _ultimate_
sovereignty _always_ exists with them. In each of the States, the
legislature possesses a _representative_ sovereignty, delegated by the
people through the Constitution--the people thus committing to the
legislature a portion of their sovereignty, and specifying in their
constitutions the amount and the conditions of the grant. That the
_people_ in any state where slavery exists, have the power to abolish
it, none will deny. If the legislature have not the power, it is because
_the people_ have reserved it to themselves. Had they lodged with the
legislature "power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever," they would have parted with their sovereignty over the
legislation of the State, and so far forth the legislature would have
become _the people_, clothed with all their functions, and as such
competent, _during the continuance of the grant_, to do whatever the
people might have done before the surrender of their power:
consequently, they would have the power to abolish slavery. The
sovereignty of the District of Columbia exists _somewhere_--where is it
lodged? The citizens of the District have no legislature of their own,
no representation in Congress, and no political power whatever. Maryland
and Virginia have surrendered to the United States their "full and
absolute right and entire sovereignty," and the people of the United
States have committed to Congress by the Constitution, the power to
"exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such
District."

Thus, the sovereignty of the District of Columbia, is shown to reside
solely in the Congress of the United States; and since the power of the
people of a state to abolish slavery within their own limits, results
from their entire sovereignty within the state, so the power of Congress
to abolish slavery in the District, results from its entire
_sovereignty_ within the District. If it be objected that Congress can
have no more power over the District, than was held by the legislatures
of Maryland and Virginia, we ask what clause in the constitution
graduates the power of Congress by the standard of a state legislature?
Was the United States constitution worked into its present shape under
the measuring line and square of Virginia and Maryland? and is its power
to be bevelled down till it can run in the grooves of state legislation?
There is a deal of prating about constitutional power over the District,
as though Congress were indebted for it to Maryland and Virginia. The
powers of those states, whether few or many, prodigies or nullities,
have nothing to do with the question. As well thrust in the powers of
the Grand Lama to join issue upon, or twist papal bulls into
constitutional tether, with which to curb congressional action. The
Constitution of the United States gives power to Congress, and takes it
away, and _it alone_. Maryland and Virginia adopted the Constitution
_before_ they ceded to the united States the territory of the District.
By their acts of cession, they abdicated their own sovereignty over the
District, and thus made room for that provided by the United States
constitution, which sovereignty was to commence as soon as a cession of
territory by states, and its acceptance by Congress furnished a sphere
for its exercise.

That the abolition of slavery is within the sphere of legislation, I
argue, _secondly_, from the fact, that _slavery as a legal system, is
the creature of legislation_. The law by _creating_ slavery, not only
affirmed its _existence_ to be within the sphere and under the control
of legislation, but equally, the _conditions_ and _terms_ of its
existence, and the _question_ whether or not it _should_ exist. Of
course legislation would not travel _out_ of its sphere, in abolishing
what is _within_ it, and what was recognised to be within it, by its own
act. Cannot legislatures repeal their own laws? If law can take from a
man his rights, it can give them back again. If it can say, "your body
belongs to your neighbor," it can say, "it belongs to _yourself_, and I
will sustain your right." If it can annul a man's right to himself, held
by express grant from his Maker, and can create for another an
artificial title to him, can it not annul the artificial title, and
leave the original owner to hold himself by his original title?

3. _The abolition of slavery has always been considered within the
appropriate sphere of legislation_. Almost every civilized nation has
abolished slavery by law. The history of legislation since the revival
of letters, is a record crowded with testimony to the universally
admitted competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery. It is so
manifestly an attribute not merely of absolute sovereignty, but even of
ordinary legislation, that the competency of a legislature to exercise
it, may well nigh be reckoned among the legal axioms of the civilized
world. Even the night of the dark ages was not dark enough to make this
invisible.

The Abolition decree of the great council of England was passed in 1102.
The memorable Irish decree, "that all the English slaves in the whole of
Ireland, be immediately emancipated and restored to their former
liberty," was issued in 1171. Slavery in England was abolished by a
general charter of emancipation in 1381. Passing over many instances of
the abolition of slavery by law, both during the middle ages and since
the reformation, we find them multiplying as we approach our own times.
In 1776 slavery was abolished in Prussia by special edict. In St.
Domingo, Cayenne, Guadaloupe and Martinique, in 1794, where more than
600,000 slaves were emancipated by the French government. In Java, 1811;
in Ceylon, 1815; in Buenos Ayres, 1816; in St. Helena, 1819; in
Colombia, 1821; by the Congress of Chili in 1821; in Cape Colony, 1823;
in Malacca, 1825; in the southern provinces of Birmah, in 1826; in
Bolivia, 1826; in Peru, Guatemala, and Monte Video, 1828, in Jamaica,
Barbadoes, Bermudas, Bahamas, the Mauritius, St. Christopher's, Nevis,
the Virgin Islands, Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica, St. Vincents,
Grenada, Berbice, Tobago, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Honduras, Demarara, and
the Cape of Good Hope, on the 1st of August, 1834. But waving details,
suffice it to say, that England, France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden,
Denmark, Austria, Prussia, and Germany, have all and often given their
testimony to the competency of the law to abolish slavery. In our own
country, the Legislature of Pennsylvania passed an act of abolition in
1780, Connecticut, in 1784; Rhode Island, 1784; New-York, 1799;
New-Jersey, in 1804; Vermont, by Constitution, in 1777; Massachusetts,
in 1780; and New Hampshire, in 1784.

When the competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery, has thus
been recognised every where and for ages, when it has been embodied in
the highest precedents, and celebrated in the thousand jubilees of
regenerated liberty, is it forsooth an achievement of modern discovery,
that such a power is a nullity?--that all these acts of abolition are
void, and that the millions disenthralled by them, are, either
themselves or their posterity, still legally in bondage?

4. _Legislative power has abolished slavery in its parts_. The law of
South Carolina prohibits the working of slaves more than fifteen hours
in the twenty-four. [_See__Brevard's Digest_, 253.] In other words, it
takes from the slaveholder his power over nine hours of the slave's time
daily; and if it can take nine hours it may take twenty-four--if
two-fifths, then five-fifths. The laws of Georgia prohibit the working
of slaves on the first day of the week; and if they can do it for the
first, they can for the six following. Laws embodying the same principle
have existed for ages in nearly all governments that have tolerated
slavery.

The law of North Carolina prohibits the "immoderate" correction of
slaves. If it has power to prohibit _immoderate_ correction, it can
prohibit _moderate_ correction--_all_ correction, which would be virtual
emancipation; for, take from the master the power to inflict pain, and
he is master no longer. Cease to ply the slave with the stimulus of
fear, and he is free. Laws similar to this exist in slaveholding
governments generally.

The Constitution of Mississippi gives the General Assembly power to make
laws "to oblige the owners of slaves to _treat them with humanity_." The
Constitution of Missouri has the same clause, and an additional one
making it the DUTY of the legislature to pass such laws as may be
necessary to secure the _humane_ treatment of the slaves. This grant of
power to those legislatures empowers them to decide what _is_ and what
is _not_ "humane treatment." Otherwise it gives no "power"--the clause
is mere waste paper, and flouts in the face of a mocked and befooled
legislature. A clause giving power to require "humane treatment" covers
all the _particulars_ of such treatment--gives power to exact it in all
_respects--requiring_ certain acts, and _prohibiting_ others--maiming,
branding, chaining together, allowing each but a quart of corn a day,[A]
and but "one shirt and one pair of pantaloons" in six
months[B]--separating families, destroying marriages, floggings for
learning the alphabet and reading the Bible--robbing them of their oath,
of jury trial, and of the right to worship God according to
conscience--the legislature has power to specify each of these
acts--declare that it is not "_humane_ treatment," and PROHIBIT it.--The
legislature may also believe that driving men and women into the field,
and forcing them to work without pay as long as they live, is not
"humane treatment," and being constitutionally bound "to _oblige_"
masters to practise "humane treatment"--they have the _power_ to
_prohibit such_ treatment, and are bound to do it.

[Footnote A: Law of North Carolina, Haywood's Manual, 524-5.]


[Footnote B: Law of Louisiana, Martin's Digest, 610.]

The law of Louisiana makes slaves real estate, prohibiting the holder,
if he be also a _land_ holder, to separate them from the soil.[C] If it
has power to prohibit the sale _without_ the soil, it can prohibit the
sale _with_ it; and if it can prohibit the _sale_ as property, it can
prohibit the _holding_ as property. Similar laws exist in the French,
Spanish, and Portuguese colonies.

[Footnote C: Virginia made slaves real estate by a law passed in 1705.
(_Beverly's Hist. of Va._, p. 98.) I do not find the precise time when
this law was repealed, probably when Virginia became the chief slave
breeder for the cotton-growing and sugar-planting country, and made
young men and women "from fifteen to twenty-five" the main staple
production of the State.]

The law of Louisiana requires the master to give his slaves a certain
amount of food and clothing, (_Martin's Digest_, 610.) If it can oblige
the master to give the slave _one_ thing, it can oblige him to give him
another: if food and clothing, then wages, liberty, his own body. Such
laws exist in most slaveholding governments.

By the slave laws of Connecticut, under which slaves are now held, (for
even Connecticut is still a slave State,) slaves might receive and hold
property, and prosecute suits in their own name as plaintiffs: [This
last was also the law of Virginia in 1795. See Tucker's "Dissertation on
Slavery," p. 73.] There were also laws making marriage contracts legal,
in certain contingencies, and punishing infringements of them,
["_Reeve's Law of Baron and Femme_," p. 310-1.] Each of the laws
enumerated above, does, _in principle_, abolish slavery; and all of them
together abolish it _in fact_. True, not as a _whole_, and at a
_stroke_, nor all in one place; but in its _parts_, by piecemeal, at
divers times and places; thus showing that the abolition of slavery is
within the boundary of _legislation_.

5._The competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery has been
recognized by all the slaveholding States, either directly or by
implication_. Some States recognize it in their _Constitutions_, by
giving the legislature power to emancipate such slaves as may "have
rendered the state some distinguished service," and others by express
prohibitory restrictions. The Constitutions of Mississippi, Arkansas,
and other States, restrict the power of the legislature in this respect.
Why this express prohibition, if the law-making power cannot abolish
slavery? A stately farce, indeed, formally to construct a special
clause, and with appropriate rites induct it into the Constitution, for
the express purpose of restricting a nonentity!--to take from the
lawmaking power what it _never had_, and what _cannot_ pertain to it!
The legislatures of those States have no power to abolish slavery,
simply because their Constitutions have expressly _taken away_ that
power. The people of Arkansas, Mississippi, &c., well knew the
competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery, and hence their
zeal to _restrict_ it. The fact that these and other States have
inhibited their legislatures from the exercise of this power, shows that
the abolition of slavery is acknowledged to be a proper subject of
legislation, when Constitutions impose no restrictions.

The slaveholding States have recognised this power in their _laws_. The
Virginia Legislature passed a law in 1786 to prevent the further
importation of Slaves, of which the following is an extract: "And be it
further enacted that every slave imported into this commonwealth
contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, shall upon such
importation become _free_." By a law of Virginia, passed Dec. 17, 1792,
a slave brought into the state and kept _there a year_, was _free_. The
Maryland Court of Appeals at the December term 1813 (see case of Stewart
_vs._ Oakes,) decided that a slave owned in Maryland, and sent by his
master into Virginia to work at different periods, making one year in
the whole, became _free_, being _emancipated_ by the law of Virginia
quoted above. North Carolina and Georgia in their acts of cession,
transferring to the United States the territory now constituting the
States of Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi, made it a condition of the
grant, that the provisions of the ordinance of '87, should be secured to
the inhabitants _with the exception of the sixth article which prohibits
slavery_; thus conceding, both the competency of law to abolish slavery,
and the power of Congress to do it, within its jurisdiction. Besides,
these acts show the prevalent belief at that time, in the slaveholding
States, that the general government had adopted a line of policy aiming
at the exclusion of slavery from the entire territory of the United
States, not included within the original States, and that this policy
would be pursued unless prevented by specific and formal stipulation.

Slaveholding states have asserted this power _in their judicial
decisions._ In numerous cases their highest courts have decided that if
the legal owner of slaves takes them into those States where slavery has
been abolished either by law or by the constitution, such removal
emancipates them, such law or constitution abolishing their slavery.
This principle is asserted in the decision of the Supreme Court of
Louisiana, in the case of Lunsford _vs._ Coquillon, 14 Martin's La.
Reps. 401. Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the case of Hunter
_vs._ Fulcher, 1 Leigh's Reps. 172. The same doctrine was laid down by
Judge Washington, of the United States Supreme Court, in the case of
Butler _vs._ Hopper, Washington's Circuit Court Reps. 508. This
principle was also decided by the Court of Appeals in Kentucky; case of
Rankin _vs._ Lydia, 2 Marshall's Reps. 407; see also, Wilson _vs._
Isbell, 5 Call's Reps. 425, Spotts _vs._ Gillespie, 6 Randolph's Reps.
566. The State _vs._ Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. 60, Marie Louise
_vs._ Mariot, 8 La. Reps. 475. In this case, which was tried in 1836,
the slave had been taken by her master to France and brought back; Judge
Mathews, of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, decided that "residence for
one moment" under the laws of France emancipated her.

6. _Eminent statesmen, themselves slaveholders, have conceded this
power_. Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, dated April 12, 1786,
says: "There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do,
to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery; but there is only
one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that
is by _legislative_ authority." In a letter to Lafayette, dated May 10,
1786, he says: "It (the abolition of slavery) certainly might, and
assuredly ought to be effected, and that too by _legislative_
authority." In a letter to John Fenton Mercer, dated Sept. 9, 1786, he
says: "It is among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which
slavery in this country may be abolished by _law_." In a letter to Sir
John Sinclair, he says: "There are in Pennsylvania, _laws_ for the
gradual abolition of slavery, which neither Maryland nor Virginia have
at present, but which nothing is more certain that that they _must
have_, and at a period not remote." Speaking of movements in the
Virginia Legislature in 1777, for the passage of a law emancipating the
slaves, Mr. Jefferson says: "The principles of the amendment were agreed
on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day; but it
was found that the public mind would not bear the proposition, yet the
day is not far distant, when _it must bear and adopt it_."--Jefferson's
Memoirs, v. 1, p. 35. It is well known that Jefferson, Pendleton, Mason,
Wythe and Lee, while acting as a committee of the Virginia House of
Delegates to revise the State Laws, prepared a plan for the gradual
emancipation of the slaves by law. These men were the great lights of
Virginia. Mason, the author of the Virginia Constitution; Pendleton, the
President of the memorable Virginia Convention in 1787, and President of
the Virginia Court of Appeals; Wythe was the Blackstone of the Virginia
bench, for a quarter of a century Chancellor of the State, the professor
of law in the University of William and Mary, and the preceptor of
Jefferson, Madison, and Chief Justice Marshall. He was author of the
celebrated remonstrance to the English House of Commons on the subject
of the stamp act. As to Jefferson, his _name_ is his biography.

Every slaveholding member of Congress from the States of Maryland,
Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, voted for the
celebrated ordinance of 1787, which _abolished_ the slavery then
existing in the Northwest Territory. Patrick Henry, in his well known
letter to Robert Pleasants, of Virginia, January 18, 1773, says: "I
believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to
_abolish_ this lamentable evil." William Pinkney, of Maryland, advocated
the abolition of slavery by law, in the legislature of that State, in
1789. Luther Martin urged the same measure both in the Federal
Convention, and in his report to the Legislature of Maryland. In 1796,
St. George Tucker, professor of law in the University of William and
Mary, and Judge of the General Court, published an elaborate
dissertation on slavery, addressed to the General Assembly of the State,
and urging upon them the abolition of slavery by _law_.

John Jay, while New-York was yet a slave State, and himself in law a
slaveholder, said in a letter from Spain, in 1786, "An excellent law
might be made out of the Pennsylvania one, for the gradual abolition of
slavery. Were I in your legislature, I would present a bill for the
purpose, drawn up with great care, and I would never cease moving it
till it became a law, or I ceased to be a member."

Daniel D. Tompkins, in a message to the Legislature of New-York, January
8, 1812, said: "To devise the means for the gradual and ultimate
_extermination_ from amongst us of slavery, is work worthy the
representatives of a polished and enlightened nation."

The Virginia Legislature asserted this power in 1832. At the close of a
month's debate, the following proceedings were had. I extract from an
editorial article of the Richmond Whig, of January 26, 1832.

"The report of the Select Committee, adverse to legislation on the
subject of Abolition, was in these words: _Resolved_, as the opinion of
this Committee, that it is INEXPEDIENT FOR THE PRESENT, to make any
legislative enactments for the abolition of Slavery." This Report Mr.
Preston moved to reverse, and thus to declare that it _was_ expedient,
_now_ to make Legislative enactments for the abolition of slavery. This
was meeting the question in its strongest form. It demanded action, and
immediate action. On this proposition the vote was 58 to 73. Many of the
most decided friends of abolition voted against the amendment; because
they thought public opinion not sufficiently prepared for it, and that
it might prejudice the cause to move too rapidly. The vote on Mr.
Witcher's motion to postpone the whole subject indefinitely, indicates
the true state of opinion in the House.--That was the test question, and
was so intended and proclaimed by its mover. That motion was
_negatived_, 71 to 60; showing a majority of 11, who by that vote,
declared their belief that "at the proper time, and in the proper mode,
Virginia ought to commence a system of gradual abolition."

8. _The Congress of the United States have asserted this power_. The
ordinance of '87, declaring that there should be "neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude," in the North Western territory, abolished the
slavery then existing there. The Supreme Court of Mississippi, in its
decision in the case of Harvey _vs._ Decker, Walker's Mi. Reps. 36,
declared that the ordinance emancipated the slaves then held there. In
this decision the question is argued ably and at great length. The
Supreme Court of Louisiana made the same decision in the case of Forsyth
_vs._ Nash, 4 Martin's La. Reps 385. The same doctrine was laid down by
Judge Porter, (late United States Senator from Louisiana,) in his
decision at the March term of the La. Supreme Court, 1830, in the case
of Merry _vs._ Chexnaider, 20 Martin's Reps. 699.

That the ordinance abolished the slavery then existing, is also shown by
the fact, that persons holding slaves in the territory petitioned for
the repeal of the article abolishing slavery, assigning that as a
reason. "The petition of the citizens of Randolph and St. Clair counties
in the Illinois country, stating that they were in possession of slaves,
and praying the repeal of that act (the 6th article of the ordinance of
'87) and the passage of a law legalizing slavery there." [Am. State
papers, Public Lands, v. 1. p. 69,] Congress passed this ordinance
before the United States Constitution was adopted, when it derived all
its authority from the articles of Confederation, which conferred powers
of legislation far more restricted than those conferred on Congress over
the District and Territories by the United States Constitution. Now, we
ask, how does the Constitution _abridge_ the powers which Congress
possessed under the articles of confederation?

The abolition of the slave trade by Congress, in 1808, is another
illustration of the competency of legislative power to abolish slavery.
The African slave trade has become such a mere _technic_, in common
parlance, that the fact of its being _proper slavery_ is overlooked. The
buying and selling, the transportation, and the horrors of the middle
passage, were mere _incidents_ of the slavery in which the victims were
held. Let things be called by their own names. When Congress abolished
the African slave trade, it abolished SLAVERY--supreme slavery--power
frantic with license, trampling a whole hemisphere scathed with its
fires, and running down with blood. True, Congress did not, in the
abolition of the slave trade, abolish _all_ the slavery within its
jurisdiction, but it did abolish all the slavery in _one part_ of its
jurisdiction. What has rifled it of power to abolish slavery in
_another_ part of its jurisdiction, especially in that part where it has
"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever?"

9. _The Constitution of the United States recognizes this power by the
most conclusive implication_. In Art. 1, sec. 3, clause 1, it prohibits
the abolition of the slave trade previous to 1808: thus implying the
power of Congress to do it at once, but for the restriction; and its
power to do it _unconditionally_, when that restriction ceased. Again:
In Art. 4, sec. 2, "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 said service or
labor." This clause was inserted, as all admit, to prevent the runaway
slave from being emancipated by the _laws_ of the free states. If these
laws had _no power_ to emancipate, why this constitutional guard to
prevent it?

The insertion of the clause, was the testimony of the eminent jurists
that framed the Constitution, to the existence of the _power_, and their
public proclamation, that the abolition of slavery was within the
appropriate sphere of legislation. The right of the owner to that which
is rightfully property, is founded on a principle of _universal law_,
and is recognised and protected by all civilized nations; property in
slaves is, by general consent, an _exception_; hence slaveholders
insisted upon the insertion of this clause in the United States
Constitution that they might secure by an _express provision_, that from
which protection is withheld, by the acknowledged principles of
universal law.[A] By demanding this provision, slaveholders consented
that their slaves should not be recognised as property by the United
States Constitution, and hence they found their claim, on the fact of
their being "_persons_, and _held_ to service."

[Footnote A: The fact, that under the articles of Confederation,
slaveholders, whose slaves had escaped into free states, had no legal
power to force them back,--that _now_ they have no power to recover, by
process of law, their slaves who escape to Canada, the South American
States, or to Europe--the case already cited in which the Supreme Court
of Louisiana decided, that residence "_for one moment_," under the laws
of France emancipated an American slave--the case of Fulton, _vs._
Lewis, 3 Har. and John's Reps., 56, where the slave of a St. Domingo
slaveholder, who brought him to Maryland in '93, was pronounced free by
the Maryland Court of Appeals--these, with other facts and cases "too
numerous to mention," are illustrations of the acknowledged truth here
asserted, that by the consent of the civilized world, and on the
principles of universal law, slaves are not "_property_," but
_self-proprietors_, and that whenever held as property under _law_, it
is only by _positive legislative acts_, forcibly setting aside the law
of nature, the common law, and the principles of universal justice and
right between man and man,--principles paramount to all law, and from
which alone law derives its intrinsic authoritative sanction.]

But waiving all concessions, whether of constitutions, laws, judicial
decisions, or common consent, I take the position that the power of
Congress to abolish slavery in the District, follows from the fact, that
as the sole legislature there, it has unquestionable power _to adopt the
Common Law, as the legal system within its exclusive jurisdiction_. This
has been done, with certain restrictions, in most of the States, either
by legislative acts or by constitutional implication. THE COMMON LAW
KNOWS NO SLAVES. Its principles annihilate slavery wherever they touch
it. It is a universal, unconditional, abolition act. Wherever slavery is
a legal system, it is so only by _statute_ law, and in violation of
common law. The declaration of Lord Chief Justice Holt, that "by the
common law, no man can have property in another," is an acknowledged
axiom, and based upon the well known common law definition of property.
"The subjects of dominion or property are _things_, as
contra-distinguished from _persons_." Let Congress adopt the common law
in the District of Columbia, and slavery there is at once abolished.
Congress may well be at home in common law legislation, for the common
law is the grand element of the United States Constitution. All its
_fundamental_ provisions are instinct with its spirit; and its
existence, principles and paramount authority, are presupposed and
assumed throughout the whole. The preamble of the Constitution plants
the standard of the Common Law immovably in its foreground. "We, the
people of the United States, in order to ESTABLISH JUSTICE, &c., do
ordain and establish this Constitution;" thus proclaiming _devotion to
justice_, as the controlling motive in the organization of the
Government, and its secure establishment the chief object of its aims.
By this most solemn recognition, the common law, that grand legal
embodiment of "_justice_" and fundamental right was made the groundwork
of the Constitution, and intrenched behind its strongest munitions. The
second clause of Sec. 9, Art. 1; Sec. 4, Art. 2, and the last clause of
Sec. 2, Art. 3, with Articles 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the Amendments, are
also express recognitions of the common law as the presiding Genius of
the Constitution.

By adopting the common law within its exclusive jurisdiction Congress
would carry out the principles of our glorious Declaration, and follow
the highest precedents in our national history and jurisprudence. It is
a political maxim as old as civil legislation, that laws should be
strictly homogeneous with the principles of the government whose will
they express, embodying and carrying them out--being indeed the
_principles themselves_, in preceptive form--representatives alike of
the nature and the power of the Government--standing illustrations of
its genius and spirit, while they proclaim and enforce its authority.
Who needs be told that slavery is in antagonism to the principles of the
Declaration, and the spirit of the Constitution, and that these and the
principles of the common law gravitate toward each other with
irrepressible affinities, and mingle into one? The common law came
hither with our pilgrim fathers; it was their birthright, their panoply,
their glory, and their song of rejoicing in the house of their
pilgrimage. It covered them in the day of their calamity, and their
trust was under the shadow of its wings. From the first settlement of
the country, the genius of our institutions and our national spirit have
claimed it as a common possession, and exulted in it with a common
pride. A century ago, Governor Pownall, one of the most eminent
constitutional jurists of colonial times, said of the common law, "In
all the colonies the common law is received as the foundation and main
body of their law." In the Declaration of Rights, made by the
Continental Congress at its first session in '74, there was the
following resolution: "Resolved, That the respective colonies are
entitled to the common law of England, and especially to the great and
inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage
according to the course of that law." Soon after the organization of the
general government, Chief Justice Ellsworth, in one of his decisions on
the bench of the United States Supreme Court, said: "The common law of
this country remains the same as it was before the revolution." Chief
Justice Marshall, in his decision in the case of Livingston _vs._
Jefferson, said: "When our ancestors migrated to America, they brought
with them the common law of their native country, so far as it was
applicable to their new situation and I do not conceive that the
revolution in any degree changed the relations of man to man, or the law
which regulates them. In breaking our political connection with the
parent state, we did not break our connection with each other."
[_See__Hall's Law Journal, new series._] Mr. Duponceau, in his
"Dissertation on the Jurisdiction of Courts in the United States," says,
"I consider the common law of England the _jus commune_ of the United
States. I think I can lay it down as a correct principle, that the
common law of England, as it was at the time of the declaration of
Independence, still continues to be the national law of this country, so
far as it is applicable to our present state, and subject to the
modifications it has received here in the course of nearly half a
century." Chief Justice Taylor of North Carolina, in his decision in the
case of the State _vs._ Reed, in 1823, Hawkes' N.C. Reps. 454, says, "a
law of _paramount obligation to the statute_ was violated by the
offence--COMMON LAW, founded upon the law of nature, and confirmed by
revelation." The legislation of the United States abounds in
recognitions of the principles of the common law, asserting their
paramount binding power. Sparing details, of which our national state
papers are full, we illustrate by a single instance. It was made a
condition of the admission of Louisiana into the Union, that the right
of trial by jury should be secured to all her citizens,--the United
States government thus employing its power to enlarge the jurisdiction
of the common law in this its great representative.

Having shown that the abolition of slavery is within the competency of
the law-making power, when unrestricted by constitutional provisions,
and that the legislation of Congress over the District _is_ thus
unrestricted, its power to abolish slavery there is established.

Besides this general ground, the power of Congress to abolish slavery in
the District may be based upon another equally tenable. We argue it from
the fact, that slavery exists there _now_ by an act of Congress. In the
act of 16th July, 1790, Congress accepted portions of territory offered
by the states of Maryland and Virginia, and enacted that the laws, as
they then were, should continue in force, "until Congress shall
otherwise by law provide;" thus making the slave codes of Maryland and
Virginia its own. Under these laws, adopted by Congress, and in effect
re-enacted and made laws of the District, the slaves there are now held.

Is Congress so impotent in its own "exclusive jurisdiction" that it
_cannot_ "otherwise by law provide?" If it can say, what _shall_ be
considered property, it can say what shall _not_ be considered property.
Suppose a legislature enacts, that marriage contracts shall be mere
bills of sale, making a husband the proprietor of his wife, as his _bona
fide_ property; and suppose husbands should herd their wives in droves
for the market as beasts of burden, or for the brothel as victims of
lust, and then prate about their inviolable legal property, and deny the
power of the legislature, which stamped them property, to undo its own
wrong, and secure to wives by law the rights of human beings. Would such
cant about "legal rights" be heeded where reason and justice held sway,
and where law, based upon fundamental morality, received homage? If a
frantic legislature pronounces woman a chattel, has it no power, with
returning reason, to take back the blasphemy? Is the impious edict
irrepealable? Be it, that with legal forms it has stamped wives "wares."
Can no legislation blot out the brand? Must the handwriting of Deity on
human nature be expunged for ever? Has law no power to stay the erasing
pen, and tear off the scrawled label that covers up the IMAGE OF GOD? We
now proceed to show that



THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN, TILL
RECENTLY, UNIVERSALLY CONCEDED.

1. It has been assumed by Congress itself. The following record stands
on the journals of the House of Representatives for 1804, p. 225: "On
motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following
resolution: 'Resolved, That from and after the 4th day of July, 1805,
all blacks and people of color that shall be born within the District of
Columbia, or whose mothers shall be the property of any person residing
within said District, shall be free, the males at the age of ----, and
the females at the age of ----. The main question being taken that the
House do agree to said motion as originally proposed, it was negatived
by a majority of 46.'" Though the motion was lost, it was on the ground
of its alleged _inexpediency_ alone, and not because Congress lacked the
constitutional power. In the debate which preceded the vote, the _power_
of Congress was conceded. In March, 1816, the House of Representatives
passed the following resolution:--"Resolved, That a committee be
appointed to inquire into the existence of an inhuman and illegal
traffic in slaves, carried on in and through the District of Columbia,
and to report whether any and what measures are necessary for _putting a
stop to the same_."

On the 9th of January, 1829, the House of Representatives passed the
following resolution by a vote of 114 to 66: "Resolved, That the
Committee on the District of Columbia be instructed to inquire into the
_expediency_ of providing by _law_ for the gradual abolition of slavery
within the District, in such manner that the interests of no individual
shall be injured thereby." Among those who voted in the affirmative were
Messrs. Barney of Md., Armstrong of Va., A.H. Shepperd of N.C., Blair of
Tenn., Chilton and Lyon of Ky., Johns of Delaware, and others from slave
states.

2. It has been conceded directly, or impliedly, by all the committees on
the District of Columbia that have reported on the subject. In a report
of the committee on the District, Jan. 11, 1837, by their chairman, Mr.
Powell of Virginia, there is the following declaration "The Congress of
the United States, has by the constitution exclusive jurisdiction over
the District, and has power upon this subject, (_slavery_) as upon all
other subjects of legislation, to exercise _unlimited discretion_."
Reps. of Comms. 2d Session, 19th Cong. v. I. No. 43. In February, 1829,
the committee on the District, Mr. Alexander of Virginia, Chairman, in
their report pursuant to Mr. Miner's resolutions, recognize a contingent
abolition proceeding upon the consent of the people. In December, 1831,
the committee on the District, Mr. Doddridge of Virginia, Chairman,
reported, "That until the adjoining states act on the subject (slavery)
it would be (not _unconstitutional_ but) unwise and impolitic, if not
unjust, for Congress to interfere." In April, 1836, a special committee
on abolition memorials reported the following resolutions by their
Chairman, Mr. Pinckney of South Carolina: "Resolved, that Congress
possesses no constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the
institution of slavery in any of the states of this confederacy."

"Resolved, That Congress _ought not to interfere_ in any way with
slavery in the District of Columbia." "Ought not to interfere,"
carefully avoiding the phraseology of the first resolution, and thus in
effect conceding the constitutional power. In a widely circulated
"Address to the electors of the Charleston District," Mr. Pinckney is
thus denounced by his own constituents: "He has proposed a resolution
which is received by the plain common sense of the whole country as a
concession that Congress has authority to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia."

3. It has been conceded by the _citizens of the District_. A petition
for the gradual abolition of slavery in the District, signed by nearly
eleven hundred of its citizens, was presented to Congress, March 24,
1837. Among the signers to this petition, were Chief Justice Cranch,
Judge Van Ness, Judge Morsel, Prof. J.M. Staughton, Rev. Dr. Balch, Rev.
Dr. Keith, John M. Munroe, and a large number of the most influential
inhabitants of the District. Mr. Dickson, of New York, asserted on the
floor of Congress in 1835, that the signers of this petition owned more
than half of the property in the District. The accuracy of this
statement has never been questioned.

This power has been conceded by _grand juries of the District_. The
grand jury of the county of Alexandria, at the March term 1802,
presented the domestic slave trade as a grievance, and said, "We
consider these grievances demanding _legislative_ redress." Jan. 19,
1829, Mr. Alexander, of Virginia, presented a representation of the
grand jury in the city of Washington, remonstrating against "any measure
for the abolition of slavery within said District, unless accompanied by
measures for the removal of the emancipated from the same;" thus, not
only conceding the power to emancipate slaves, but affirming an
additional power, that of _excluding them when free_. See Journal H.R.
1828-9, p. 174.

4. This power has been conceded _by State Legislatures_. In 1828 the
Legislature of Pennsylvania instructed their Senators in Congress "to
procure, if practicable, the passage of a law to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia." Jan. 28, 1829, the House of Assembly of New York
passed a resolution, that their "Senators in Congress be instructed to
make every possible exertion to effect the passage of a law for the
abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia." In February, 1837,
the Senate of Massachusetts "Resolved, That Congress having exclusive
legislation in the District of Columbia, possess the right to abolish
slavery and the slave trade therein, and that the early exercise of such
right is demanded by the enlightened sentiment of the civilized world,
by the principles of the revolution, and by humanity." The House of
Representatives passed the following resolution at the same session:
"Resolved, That Congress having exclusive legislation in the District of
Columbia, possess the right to abolish slavery in said District, and
that its exercise should only be restrained by a regard to the public
good."

November 1, 1837, the Legislature of Vermont, "Resolved, that Congress
have the full power by the constitution to abolish slavery and the slave
trade in the District of Columbia, and in the territories." The
Legislature of Vermont passed in substance the same resolution, at its
session in 1836.

May 30, 1836, a committee of the Pennsylvania Legislature reported the
following resolution: "Resolved, That Congress does possess the
constitutional power, and it is expedient to abolish slavery and the
slave trade within the District of Columbia."

In January, 1836, the Legislature of South Carolina "Resolved, That we
should consider the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia as
a violation of the rights of the citizens of that District derived from
the _implied_ conditions on which that territory was ceded to the
General Government." Instead of denying the constitutional power, they
virtually admit its existence, by striving to smother it under an
_implication_. In February, 1836, the Legislature of North Carolina
"Resolved, That, although by the Constitution all legislative power over
the District of Columbia is vested in the Congress of the United States,
yet we would deprecate any legislative action on the part of that body
towards liberating the slaves of that District, as a breach of faith
towards those States by whom the territory was originally ceded, and
will regard such interference as the first step towards a general
emancipation of the slaves of the South." Here is a full concession of
the _power_, February 2, 1836, the Virginia Legislature passed
unanimously the following resolution: "Resolved, by the General Assembly
of Virginia, that the following article be proposed to the several
states of this Union, and to Congress, as an amendment of the
Constitution of the United States: 'The powers of Congress shall not be
so construed as to authorize the passage of any law for the emancipation
of slaves in the District of Columbia, without the consent of the
individual proprietors thereof, unless by the sanction of the
Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland, and under such conditions as they
shall by law prescribe.'"

Fifty years after the formation of the United States constitution the
states are solemnly called upon by the Virginia Legislature, to amend
that instrument by a clause asserting that, in the grant to Congress of
"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District, the
"case" of slavery is not included!! What could have dictated such a
resolution but the conviction that the power to abolish slavery is an
irresistible interference from the constitution _as it is_. The fact
that the same legislature passed afterward a resolution, though by no
means unanimously, that Congress does not possess the power, abates not
a tittle of the testimony in the first resolution. March 23d, 1824, "Mr.
Brown presented the resolutions of the General Assembly of Ohio,
recommending to Congress the consideration of a system for the gradual
emancipation of persons of color held in servitude in the United
States." On the same day, "Mr. Noble, of Indiana, communicated a
resolution from the legislature of that state, respecting the gradual
emancipation of slaves within the United States." Journal of the United
States Senate, for 1824-5, p. 231.

The Ohio and Indiana resolutions, by taking for granted the _general_
power of Congress over the subject of slavery, do virtually assert its
_special_ power within its _exclusive_ jurisdiction.

5. The power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, has been
conceded by bodies of citizens in the slave states. The petition of
eleven hundred citizens of the District of Columbia, in 1827, has been
already mentioned. "March 5, 1830, Mr. Washington presented a memorial
of inhabitants of the county of Frederick, in the state of Maryland,
praying that provision may be made for the gradual abolition of slavery
in the District of Columbia." Journal H.R. 1829-30, p. 358.

March 30, 1828. Mr. A.H. Shepperd, of North Carolina, presented a
memorial of citizens of that state, "praying Congress to take measures
fur the entire abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia."
Journal H.R. 1829-30, p. 379.

January 14, 1822. Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, presented a memorial of
citizens of that state, praying "that provision may be made, whereby all
slaves which may hereafter be born in the District of Columbia, shall be
free at a certain period of their lives." Journal H.R. 1821-22, p. 142.

December 13, 1824. Mr. Saunders of North Carolina, presented a memorial
of citizens of that state, praying "that measures may be taken for the
gradual abolition of slavery in the United States." Journal H.R.
1824-25, p. 27.

December 16, 1828. "Mr. Barnard presented the memorial of the American
Convention for promoting the abolition of slavery, held in Baltimore,
praying that slavery may be abolished in the District of Columbia."
Journal U.S. Senate, 1828-29, p. 24.

6. Distinguished statesmen and jurists in the slaveholding states, have
conceded the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District. The
testimony of Messrs. Doddridge, Powell, and Alexander, of Virginia,
Chief Justice Cranch, and Judges Morsell and Van Ness, of the District,
has already been given. In the debate in Congress on the memorial of the
Society of Friends, in 1790, Mr. Madison, in speaking of the territories
of the United States, explicitly declared, from his own knowledge of the
views of the members of the convention that framed the constitution, as
well as from the obvious import of its terms, that in the territories
"Congress have certainly the power to regulate the subject of slavery."
Congress can have no more power over the territories than that of
"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever," consequently, according
to Mr. Madison, "it has certainly the power to regulate the subject of
slavery in the" _District_. In March, 1816, John Randolph introduced a
resolution for putting a stop to the domestic slave trade within the
District. December 12, 1827, Mr. Barney, of Maryland, presented a
memorial for abolition in the District, and moved that it be printed.
Mr. McDuffie, of South Carolina, objected to the printing, but
"expressly admitted the right of Congress to grant to the people of the
District any measures which they might deem necessary to free themselves
from the deplorable evil."--(See letter of Mr. Claiborne, of
Mississippi, to his constituents, published in the Washington Globe, May
9, 1836.) The sentiments of Henry Clay on the subject are well known. In
a speech before the U.S. Senate, in 1836, he declared the power of
Congress to abolish slavery in the District "unquestionable." Messrs.
Blair, of Tennessee, Chilton, Lyon, and Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky,
A.H. Shepperd, of North Carolina, Messrs. Armstrong and Smyth, of
Virginia, Messrs. Dorsey, Archer, and Barney, of Maryland, and Johns, of
Delaware, with numerous others from slave states, have asserted the
power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District. In the speech of
Mr. Smyth, of Virginia, on the Missouri question, January 28, 1820, he
says on this point: "If the future freedom of the blacks is your real
object, and not a mere pretence, why do you not begin _here_? Within the
ten miles square, you have _undoubted power_ to exercise exclusive
legislation. _Produce a bill to emancipate the slaves in the District of
Columbia_, or, if you prefer it, to emancipate those born hereafter."

To this may be added the testimony of the present Vice President of the
United States, Hon. Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky. In a speech before
the United States' Senate, February 1, 1820, (National Intelligencer,
April 29, 1820,) he says: "Congress has the express power stipulated by
the Constitution, to exercise exclusive legislation over this District
of ten miles square. Here slavery is sanctioned by law. In the District
of Columbia, containing a population of 30,000 souls, and probably as
many slaves as the whole territory of Missouri, THE POWER OF PROVIDING
FOR THEIR EMANCIPATION RESTS WITH CONGRESS ALONE. Why, then, let me ask,
Mr. President, why all this sensibility--this commiseration--this
heart-rending sympathy for the slaves of Missouri, and this cold
insensibility, this eternal apathy, towards the slaves in the District
of Columbia?"

It is quite unnecessary to add, that the most distinguished northern
statesmen of both political parties, have always affirmed the power of
Congress to abolish slavery in the District. President Van Buren in his
letter of March 6, 1836, to a committee of gentlemen in North Carolina,
says, "I would not, from the light now before me, feel myself safe in
pronouncing that Congress does not possess the power of abolishing
slavery in the District of Columbia." This declaration of the President
is consistent with his avowed sentiments touching the Missouri question,
on which he coincided with such men as Daniel D. Tompkins, De Witt
Clinton, and others, whose names are a host.[A] It is consistent also,
with his recommendation in his late message on the 5th of last month, in
which, speaking of the District, he strongly urges upon Congress "a
thorough and careful revision of its local government," speaks of the
"entire dependence" of the people of the District "upon Congress,"
recommends that a "uniform system of local government" be adopted, and
adds, that "although it was selected as the seat of the General
Government, the site of its public edifices, the depository of its
archives, and the residence of officers intrusted with large amounts of
public property, and the management of public business, yet it never has
been subjected to, or received, that _special_ and _comprehensive_
legislation which these circumstances peculiarly demanded."

[Footnote A: Mr. Van Buren, when a member of the Senate of New-York,
voted for the following preamble and resolutions, which passed
unanimously:--Jan. 28th, 1820. "Whereas, the inhibiting the further
extension of slavery in the United States, is a subject of deep concern
to the people of this state: and whereas, we consider slavery as an evil
much to be deplored, and that _every constitutional barrier should be
interposed to prevent its further extension_: and that the constitution
of the United States _clearly gives congress the right_ to require new
states, not comprised within the original boundary of the United States,
to _make the prohibition of slavery_ a condition of their admission into
the Union: Therefore,

"Resolved, That our Senators be instructed, and our members of Congress
be requested, to oppose the admission as a state into the Union, of any
territory not comprised as aforesaid, without making _the prohibition of
slavery_ therein an indispensable condition of admission." ]

The tenor of Senator Tallmadge's speech on the right of petition, in the
last Congress, and of Mr. Webster's on the reception of abolition
memorials, may be taken as universal exponents of the sentiments of
northern statesmen as to the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia.

After presenting this array of evidence, _direct testimony_ to show that
the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, has always
till recently been _universally conceded_, is perhaps quite superfluous.
We subjoin; however, the following:

The Vice-President of the United States in his speech on the Missouri
question, quoted above, after contending that the restriction of slavery
in Missouri would be unconstitutional, adds, "But I am at a loss to
conceive why gentlemen should arouse all their sympathies upon this
occasion, when they permit them to lie dormant upon the same subject, in
relation to other sections of country, in which THEIR POWER COULD NOT BE
QUESTIONED." Then follows immediately the assertion of congressional
power to abolish slavery in the District, as already quoted. In the
speech of Mr. Smyth, of Va., also quoted above, he declares the power of
Congress to abolish slavery in the District to be "UNDOUBTED."

Mr. Sutherland, of Pennsylvania, in a speech in the House of
Representatives, on the motion to print Mr. Pinckney's Report, is thus
reported in the Washington Globe, of May 9th, '36. "He replied to the
remark that the report conceded that Congress had a right to legislate
upon the subject in the District of Columbia, and said that SUCH A RIGHT
HAD NEVER BEEN, TILL RECENTLY, DENIED."

The American Quarterly Review, published at Philadelphia, with a large
circulation and list of contributors in the slave states, holds the
following language in the September No. 1833, p. 55: "Under this
'exclusive jurisdiction,' granted by the constitution, Congress has
power to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of
Columbia. It would hardly be necessary to state this as a distinct
proposition, had it not been occasionally questioned. The truth of the
assertion, however, is too obvious to admit of argument--and we believe
HAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY PERSONS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE
CONSTITUTION."

Finally--an explicit, and unexpected admission, that an "_over-whelming
majority_" of the _present_ Congress concede the power to abolish
slavery in the District, has just been made by a member of Congress from
South Carolina, in a letter published in the Charleston Mercury of Dec.
27, well known as the mouth-piece of Mr. Calhoun. The following is an
extract:

"The time has arrived when we must have new guarantees under the
constitution, or the union must be dissolved. _Our views of the
constitution are not those of the majority. An overwhelming majority
think that by the constitution, Congress may abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia--may abolish the slave trade between the States;
that is, it may prohibit their being carried out of the State in which
they are--and prohibit it in all the territories, Florida among them.
They think_, NOT WITHOUT STRONG REASONS, _that the power of Congress
extends to all of these subjects_."

In another letter, the same correspondent says:

"_The fact is, it is vain to attempt_, AS THE CONSTITUTION IS NOW, _to
keep the question of slavery out of the halls of Congress_,--until, by
some decisive action, WE COMPEL SILENCE, or _alter the constitution_,
agitation and insult is our eternal fate in the confederacy."



OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS CONSIDERED.

We now proceed to notice briefly the main arguments that have been
employed in Congress and elsewhere against the power of Congress to
abolish slavery in the District. One of the most plausible, is that "the
conditions on which Maryland and Virginia ceded the District to the
United States, would be violated, if Congress should abolish slavery
there." The reply to this is, that Congress had no power to _accept_ a
cession coupled with conditions restricting the power given it by the
constitution. Nothing short of a convention of the states, and an
alteration of the constitution, abridging its grant of power, could have
empowered Congress to accept a territory on any other conditions than
that of exercising "exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever,"
over it.

To show the futility of the objection, here follow the acts of cession.
The cession of Maryland was made in November, 1788, and is as follows:
"An act to cede to Congress a district of ten miles square in this state
for the seat of the government of the United States."

"Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, that the
representatives of this state in the House of Representatives of the
Congress of the United States, appointed to assemble at New-York, on the
first Wednesday of March next, be, and they are hereby authorized and
required on the behalf of this state, to cede to the Congress of the
United States, any district in this state, not exceeding ten miles
square, which the Congress may fix upon, and accept for the seat of
government of the United States." Laws of Maryland, vol. 2, chap. 46.

The cession from Virginia was made by act of the Legislature of that
State on the 3d of December, 1788, in the following words:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That a tract of country, not
exceeding ten miles square, or any lesser quantity, to be located within
the limits of the State, and in any part thereof, as Congress may, by
law, direct, shall be, and the same is hereby for ever ceded and
relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, in
full and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil, as
of persons residing or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and
effect of the eighth section of the first article of the government of
the constitution of the United States."

But were there no provisos to these acts? The Maryland act had _none_.
That part of the District therefore, which includes the cities of
Washington and Georgetown, can lay claim to nothing with which to ward
off the power of Congress. The Virginia act had this proviso: "Sect. 2.
Provided, that nothing herein contained, shall be construed to vest in
the United States any right of property in the _soil_, or to affect the
rights of individuals _therein_, otherwise than the same shall or may be
transferred by such individuals to the United States."

This specification touching the soil was merely definitive and
explanatory of that clause in the act of cession, "_full and absolute
right._" Instead of restraining the power of Congress on _slavery_ and
other subjects, it even gives it wider scope; for exceptions to _parts_
of a rule, give double confirmation to those parts not embraced in the
exceptions. If it was the _design_ of the proviso to restrict
congressional action on the subject of _slavery_, why is the _soil
alone_ specified? As legal instruments are not paragons of economy in
words, might not "John Doe," out of his abundance, and without spoiling
his style, have afforded an additional word--at least a hint--that
slavery was _meant_, though nothing was _said_ about it? The subject
must have been too "delicate," even for the most distant allusion! The
mystery of silence is solved!!

But again, Maryland and Virginia, in their acts of cession, declare them
to be "in pursuance of" that clause of the constitution which gives to
Congress "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over" the ten
miles square--thus, instead of _restricting_ that clause, both States
gave an express and decided confirmation of it. Now, their acts of
cession either accorded with that clause of the constitution, or they
conflicted with it. If they conflicted with it, _accepting_ the cessions
was a violation of the constitution. If they accorded, the objector has
already had his answer. The fact that Congress accepted the cessions,
proves that in its view their _terms_ did not conflict with the
constitutional grant of "power to exercise exclusive legislation in all
cases whatsoever over such District." The inquiry whether these acts of
cession were consistent or inconsistent with the United States
constitution, is totally irrelevant to the question at issue. What saith
the CONSTITUTION? That is the question. Not, what saith Virginia, or
Maryland, or--equally to the point--John Bull! If Maryland and Virginia
had been the authorized interpreters of the constitution for the Union,
these acts of cession could hardly have been magnified more than they
were by Messrs. Garland and Wise in the last Congress. A true
understanding of the constitution can be had, forsooth, only by holding
it up in the light of Maryland and Virginia legislation!

We are told, again, that those States would not have ceded the District
if they had supposed the constitution gave Congress power to abolish
slavery in it.

This comes with an ill grace from Maryland and Virginia. They _knew_ the
constitution. They were parties to it. They had sifted it, clause by
clause, in their State conventions. They had weighed its words in the
balance--they had tested them as by fire; and finally, after long
pondering, they _adopted_ the constitution. And _afterward_, self-moved,
they ceded the ten miles square, and declared the cession made "in
pursuance of" that oft-cited clause, "Congress shall have power to
exercise exclusive legalisation in all cases whatsoever over such
District," &c. And now verily "they would not have ceded if they had
_supposed_!" &c. Cede it they _did_, and "in full and absolute right
both of soil and persons." Congress accepted the cession--state power
over the District ceased, and congressional power over it commenced--and
now, the sole question to be settled is, _the amount of power over the
District, lodged in Congress by the constitution_. The constitution--the
CONSTITUTION--that is the point. Maryland and Virginia "suppositions"
must be potent suppositions, to abrogate a clause in the United States
Constitution! That clause either gives Congress power to abolish slavery
in the District, or it does _not_--and that point is to be settled, not
by state "suppositions," nor state usages, nor state legislation, but
_by the terms of the clause themselves_.

Southern members of Congress, in the recent discussions, have conceded
the power of a contingent abolition in the District, by suspending it
upon the consent of the people. Such a doctrine from _declaimers_ like
Messrs. Alford, of Georgia, and Walker, of Mississippi, would excite no
surprise; but that it should be honored with the endorsement of such men
as Mr. Rives and Mr. Calhoun, is quite unaccountable. Are attributes of
_sovereignty_ mere creatures of _contingency_? Is delegated _authority_
mere conditional _permission_? Is a _constitutional power_ to be
exercised by those who hold it, only by popular _sufferance_? Must it
lie helpless at the pool of public sentiment, waiting the gracious
troubling of its waters? Is it a lifeless corpse, save only when popular
"consent" deigns to put breath into its nostrils? Besides, if the
consent of the people of the District be necessary, the consent of the
_whole_ people must be had--not that of a majority, however large.
Majorities, to be authoritative, must be _legal_--and a legal majority
without legislative power, right of representation, or even the
electoral franchise, would be an anomaly. In the District of Columbia,
such a thing as a majority in a legal sense is unknown to law. To talk
of the power of a majority, or the will of a majority there, is mere
mouthing. A majority? Then it has an authoritative will--and an organ to
make it known--and an executive to carry it into effect--Where are they?
We repeat it--if the consent of the people of the District be necessary,
the consent of _every one_ is necessary--and _universal_ consent will
come only with the Greek Kalends and a "perpetual motion." A single
individual might thus perpetuate slavery in defiance of the expressed
will of a whole people. The most common form of this fallacy is given by
Mr. Wise, of Virginia, in his speech, February 16, 1835, in which he
denied the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, unless
the inhabitants owning slaves petitioned for it!! Southern members of
Congress at the present session ring changes almost daily upon the same
fallacy. What! pray Congress _to use_ a power which it _has not_? "It is
required of a man according to what he _hath_," saith the Scripture. I
commend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would that he had got his
_logic_ of him! If Congress does not possess the power, why taunt it
with its weakness, by asking its exercise? Why mock it by demanding
impossibilities? Petitioning, according to Mr. Wise, is, in matters of
legislation, omnipotence itself; the very source of all constitutional
power; for, _asking_ Congress to do what it _cannot_ do, gives it the
power--to pray the exercise of a power that is _not, creates_ it. A
beautiful theory! Let us work it both ways. If to petition for the
exercise of a power that is _not_, creates it--to petition against the
exercise of a power that _is_, annihilates it. As southern gentlemen are
partial to summary processes, pray, sirs, try the virtue of your own
recipe on "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever;" a better
subject for experiment and test of the prescription could not be had.
But if the petitions of the citizens of the District give Congress the
_right_ to abolish slavery, they impose the _duty_; if they confer
constitutional authority, they create constitutional obligation. If
Congress _may_ abolish because of an expression of their will, it _must_
abolish at the bidding of that will. If the people of the District are a
_source of power_ to Congress, their _expressed will_ has the force of a
constitutional provision, and has the same binding power upon the
National Legislature. To make Congress dependent on the District for
authority, is to make it a _subject_ of its authority, restraining the
exercise of its own discretion, and sinking it into a mere organ of the
District's will. We proceed to another objection.

"The southern states would not have ratified the constitution, if they
had supposed that it gave this power." It is a sufficient answer to this
objection, that the northern states would not have ratified it, if they
had supposed that it _withheld_ the power. If "suppositions" are to take
the place of the constitution--coming from both sides, they neutralize
each other. To argue a constitutional question by _guessing_ at the
"suppositions" that might have been made by the parties to it, would
find small favor in a court of law. But even a desperate shift is some
easement when sorely pushed. If this question is to be settled by
"suppositions," suppositions shall be forth coming, and that without
stint.

First, then, I affirm that the North ratified the constitution,
"supposing" that slavery had begun to wax old, and would speedily vanish
away, and especially that the abolition of the slave trade, which by the
constitution was to be surrendered to Congress after twenty years, would
cast it headlong.

Would the North have adopted the constitution, giving three-fifths of
the "slave property" a representation, if it has "supposed" that the
slaves would have increased from half a million to two millions and a
half by 1838--and that the census of 1840 would give to the slave
states, 30 representatives of "slave property?"

If they had "supposed" that this representation would have controlled
the legislation of the government, and carried against the North every
question vital to its interests, would Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin
Franklin, Roger Sherman, Elbridge Gerry, William Livingston, John
Langdon, and Rufus King have been such madmen, as to sign the
constitution, and the Northern States such suicides as to ratify it?
Every self-preserving instinct would have shrieked at such an infatuate
immolation. At the adoption of the United States constitution, slavery
was regarded as a fast waning system. This conviction was universal.
Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Grayson, St. George Tucker,
Madison, Wythe, Pendleton, Lee, Blair, Mason, Page, Parker, Edmund
Randolph, Iredell, Spaight, Ramsey, William Pinckney, Luther Martin,
James McHenry, Samuel Chase, and nearly all the illustrious names south
of the Potomac, proclaimed it before the sun, that the days of slavery
were beginning to be numbered. A reason urged in the convention that
formed the United States constitution, why the word slave should not be
used in it, was, that _when slavery should cease_ there might remain
upon the National Charter no record that it had even been. (See speech
of Mr. Burrill, of R.I., on the Missouri question.)

I now proceed to show by testimony, that at the date of the United
States constitution, and for several years before and after that period,
slavery was rapidly on the wane; that the American Revolution with the
great events preceding accompanying, and following it, had wrought an
immense and almost universal change in the public sentiment of the
nation of the subject, powerfully impelling it toward the entire
abolition of the system--and that it was the _general belief_ that
measures for its abolition throughout the Union, would be commenced by
the individual States generally before the lapse of many years. A great
mass of testimony establishing this position is at hand and might be
presented, but narrow space, little time, the patience of readers, and
the importance of speedy publication, counsel brevity. Let the following
proofs suffice. First, a few dates as points of observation.

The first _general_ Congress met in 1774. The revolutionary war
commenced in '75. Independence was declared in '76. The articles of
confederacy were adopted by the thirteen states in '78. Independence
acknowledged in '83. The convention for forming the U.S. constitution
was held in '87, the state conventions for considering it in '87, and
'88. The first Congress under the constitution in '89.

Dr. Rush, of Pennsylvania, one of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence, in a letter to the celebrated Granville Sharpe, May 1,
1773, says: "A spirit of humanity and religion begins to awaken in
several of the colonies in favor of the poor negroes. The clergy begin
to bear a public testimony against this violation of the laws of nature
and christianity. Great events have been brought about by small
beginnings. _Anthony Benezet stood alone a few years ago in opposing
negro slavery in Philadelphia_, and NOW THREE-FOURTHS OF THE PROVINCE AS
WELL AS OF THE CITY CRY OUT AGAINST IT."--(Stuart's Life of Sharpe, p.
21.)

In the preamble to the act prohibiting the importation of slaves into
Rhode Island, June 1774, is the following: "Whereas, the inhabitants of
America are generally engaged in the preservation of their own rights
and liberties, among which that of personal freedom must be considered
the greatest, and as those who are desirous of enjoying all the
advantages of liberty themselves, _should be willing to extend personal
liberty to others_, therefore," &c.

October 20, 1774, the Continental Congress passed the following: "We,
for ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom we
represent, _firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of virtue,
honor, and love of our country_, as follows:

"2d Article. _We will neither import nor purchase any slaves imported_
after the first day of December next, after which time we will _wholly
discontinue_ the slave trade, and we will neither be concerned in it
ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or
manufactures to those who are concerned in it."

The Continental Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and the
necessity for taking up arms, say: "_If it were possible_ for men who
exercise their reason to believe that the Divine Author of our existence
intended a part of the human race _to hold an absolute property in_, and
_unbounded power over others_, marked out by infinite goodness and
wisdom as objects of a legal domination, never rightfully resistible,
however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might
at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence that
this dreadful authority over them has been granted to that body."

In 1776, the celebrated Dr. Hopkins, then at the head of New England
divines, published a pamphlet entitled, "An Address to the owners of
negro slaves in the American colonies," from which the following is an
extract: "The conviction of the unjustifiableness of this practice
(slavery) has been _increasing_, and _greatly spreading of late_, and
_many_ who have had slaves, have found themselves so unable to justify
their own conduct in holding them in bondage, as to be induced to _set
them at liberty_. May this conviction soon reach every owner of slaves
in _North America!_ Slavery is, _in every instance_, wrong, unrighteous,
and oppressive--a very great and crying sin--_there being nothing of the
kind equal to it on the face of the earth._"

The same year the American Congress issued a solemn MANIFESTO to the
world. These were its first words: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, 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." _Once_, these were words
of power; _now_, "a rhetorical flourish."

The celebrated Patrick Henry of Virginia, in a letter, of Jan. 18, 1773,
to Robert Pleasants, afterwards president of the Virginia Abolition
Society, says: "Believe me, I shall honor the Quakers for their noble
efforts to abolish slavery. It is a debt we owe to the purity of our
religion to show that it is at variance with that law that warrants
slavery. I exhort you to persevere in so worthy a resolution."

In 1779, the Continental Congress ordered a pamphlet to be published,
entitled, "Observations on the American Revolution," from which the
following is an extract: "The great principle (of government) is and
ever will remain in force, _that men are by nature free_; as accountable
to him that made them, they must be so; and so long as we have any idea
of divine _justice_, we must associate that of _human freedom_. Whether
men can part with their liberty, is among the questions which have
exercised the ablest writers; but it is _conceded on all hands, that the
right to be free_ CAN NEVER BE ALIENATED--still less is it practicable
for one generation to mortgage the privileges of another."

Extract from the Pennsylvania act for the Abolition of Slavery, passed
March 1, 1780:  *  *  *  "We conceive that it is our duty, and we
rejoice that it is in our power, to extend a portion of that freedom to
others which has been extended to us. Weaned by a long course of
experience from those narrow prejudices and partialities we have
imbibed, we find our hearts enlarged with kindness and benevolence
towards men of all conditions and nations:  *  *  *  Therefore be it
enacted, that no child born hereafter be a slave," &c.

Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, written just before the close of
the Revolutionary War, says: "I think a change already perceptible since
the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is
abating, that of the slave is rising from the dust, his condition
mollifying, _the way I hope preparing under the auspices of heaven_, FOR
A TOTAL EMANCIPATION, and that this is disposed, in the order of events,
to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their
extirpation."

In a letter to Dr. Price, of London, who had just published a pamphlet
in favor of the abolition of slavery, Mr. Jefferson, then Minister at
Paris, (August 7, 1785,) says: "From the mouth to the head of the
Chesapeake, _the bulk of the people will approve of your pamphlet in
theory_, and it will find a respectable minority ready to _adopt it in
practice_--a minority which, for weight and worth of character,
_preponderates against the greater number_." Speaking of Virginia, he
says: "This is the next state to which we may turn our eyes for the
interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with avarice and
oppression,--a conflict in which THE SACRED SIDE IS GAINING DAILY
RECRUITS. Be not, therefore discouraged--what you have written will do a
_great deal of good_; and could you still trouble yourself with our
welfare, no man is more able to give aid to the laboring side. The
College of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, since the remodelling of
its plan, is the place where are collected together all the young men of
Virginia, under preparation for public life. They are there under the
direction (most of them) of a Mr. Wythe, one of the most virtuous of
characters, and _whose sentiments on the subject of slavery are
unequivocal_. I am satisfied, if you could resolve to address an
exhortation to those young men with all the eloquence of which you are
master that _its influence on the future decision of this important
question would be great, perhaps decisive_. Thus, you see, that so far
from thinking you have cause to repent of what you have done, _I wish
you to do more, and wish it on an assurance of its
effect_."--Jefferson's Posthumous Works, vol. 1, p. 268.

In 1786, John jay, afterward Chief Justice of the United States, drafted
and signed a petition to the Legislature of New York, on the subject of
slavery, beginning with these words:

"Your memorialists being deeply affected by the situation of those, who,
although FREE BY THE LAWS OF GOD, are held in slavery by the laws of the
State," &c.

This memorial bore also the signature of the celebrated Alexander
Hamilton; Robert R. Livingston, afterward Secretary of Foreign Affairs
of the United States, and Chancellor of the State of New York; James
Duane, Mayor of the City of New York, and many others of the most
eminent individuals in the State.

In the preamble of an instrument, by which Mr. Jay emancipated a slave
in 1784, is the following passage:

"Whereas, the children of men are by nature equally free, and cannot,
without injustice, be either reduced to or HELD in slavery."

In his letter while Minister at Spain, in 1786, he says, speaking of the
abolition of slavery: "Till America comes into this measure, her prayers
to heaven will be IMPIOUS. This is a strong expression, but it is just.
I believe God governs the world; and I believe it to be a maxim in his,
as in our court, that those who ask for equity _ought to do it_."

In 1785, the New York Manumission Society was formed. John Jay was
chosen its first President, and held the office five years. Alexander
Hamilton was its second President, and after holding the office one
year, resigned upon his removal to Philadelphia as Secretary of the
United States' Treasury. In 1787, the Pennsylvania Abolition Society was
formed. Benjamin Franklin, warm from the discussions of the convention
that formed the United States constitution, was chosen President, and
Benjamin Rush, Secretary--both signers of the Declaration of
Independence. In 1789, the Maryland Abolition Society was formed. Among
its officers were Samuel Chace, Judge of the United States Supreme
Court, and Luther Martin, a member of the convention that formed the
United States constitution. In 1790, the Connecticut Abolition Society
was formed. The first President was Rev. Dr. Stiles, President of Yale
College, and the Secretary, Simeon Baldwin, (the late Judge Baldwin of
New Haven.) In 1791, this Society sent a memorial to Congress, from
which the following is an extract:

"From a sober conviction of the unrighteousness of slavery, your
petitioners have long beheld, with grief, our fellow men doomed to
perpetual bondage, in a country which boasts of her freedom. Your
petitioners are fully of opinion, that calm reflection will at last
convince the world, that the whole system of African slavery is unjust
in its nature--impolitic in its principles--and, in its consequences,
ruinous to the industry and enterprise of the citizens of these States.
From a conviction of these truths, your petitioners were led, by
motives, we conceive, of general philanthropy, to associate ourselves
for the protection and assistance of this unfortunate part of our fellow
men; and, though this Society has been _lately_ established, it has now
become _generally extensive_ through this state, and, we fully believe,
_embraces, on this subject, the sentiments of a large majority of its
citizens_."

The same year the Virginia Abolition Society was formed. This Society,
and the Maryland Society, had auxiliaries in different parts of those
States. Both societies sent up memorials to Congress. The memorial of
the Virginia Society is headed--"The memorial of the _Virginia Society_,
for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, &c." The following is an
extract:

"Your memorialists, fully believing that 'righteousness exalteth a
nation,' and that slavery is not only an odious degradation, but an
_outrageous violation of one of the most essential rights of human
nature, and utterly repugnant to the precepts of the gospel_, which
breathes 'peace on earth, good will to men;' lament that a practice, so
inconsistent with true policy and the inalienable rights of men, should
subsist in so enlightened an age, and among a people professing, that
all mankind are, by nature, equally entitled to freedom."

About the same time a Society was formed in New-Jersey. It had an acting
committee of five members in each county in the State. The following is
an extract from the preamble to its constitution:

"It is our boast, that we live under a government founded on principles
of justice and reason, wherein _life, liberty_, and the _pursuit of
happiness_, are recognised as the universal rights of men; and whilst we
are anxious to preserve these rights to ourselves, and transmit them
inviolate, to our posterity, we _abhor that inconsistent, illiberal, and
interested policy, which withholds those rights, from an unfortunate and
degraded class of our fellow creatures_."

Among other distinguished individuals who were efficient officers of
these Abolition Societies, and delegates from their respective state
societies, at the annual meetings of the American convention for
promoting the abolition of slavery, were Hon. Uriah Tracy, United
States' Senator, from Connecticut; Hon. Zephaniah Swift, Chief Justice
of the same State; Hon. Cesar A. Rodney, Attorney General of the United
States; Hon. James A. Bayard, United States Senator, from Delaware;
Governor Bloomfield, of New Jersey; Hon. Wm. Rawle, the late venerable
head of the Philadelphia bar; Dr. Casper Wistar, of Philadelphia;
Messrs. Foster and Tillinghast, of Rhode Island; Messrs. Ridgeley,
Buchanan, and Wilkinson, of Maryland; and Messrs. Pleasants, McLean, and
Anthony, of Virginia.

In July, 1787, the old Congress passed the celebrated ordinance,
abolishing slavery in the northwestern territory, and declaring that it
should never thereafter exist there. This ordinance was passed while the
convention that formed the United States constitution was in session. At
the first session of Congress under the constitution, this ordinance was
ratified by a special act. Washington, fresh from the discussions of the
convention, in which _more than forty days had been spent in adjusting
the question of slavery, gave it his approval._ The act passed with only
one dissenting voice, (that of Mr. Yates, of New-York,) _the South
equally with the North avowing the fitness and expediency of the measure
of general considerations, and indicating thus early the line of
national policy, to be pursued by the United States Government on the
subject of slavery_.

In the debates in the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, afterward
a Judge of the United States' Supreme Court, said, "_When the entire
abolition of slavery takes place_, it will be an event which must be
pleasing to every generous mind and every friend of human nature." Mr.
Galloway said, "I wish to see this abominable trade put an end to. I
apprehend the clause (touching the slave trade) means to _bring forward
manumission."_ Luther Martin, of Md., a member of the convention that
formed the United States constitution, said, "We ought to authorize the
General Government to make such regulations as shall be thought most
advantageous for _the gradual abolition of slavery,_ and the
_emancipation of the slaves_ which are already in the States." Judge
Wilson, of Pennsylvania, one of the framers of the constitution, said,
in the Pennsylvania convention of '87, Deb. Pa. Con. p. 303, 156: "I
consider this (the clause relative to the slave trade) as laying the
foundation for _banishing slavery out of this country_. It will produce
the same kind of gradual change which was produced in Pennsylvania; the
new states which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress
in this particular, and _slaves will never be introduced_ among them. It
presents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights of mankind will
be acknowledged and established _throughout the Union_. Yet the lapse of
a few years, and Congress will have power to _exterminate slavery_
within our borders." In the Virginia convention of '87, Mr. Mason,
author of the Virginia constitution, said, "The augmentation of slaves
weakens the States, and such a trade is _diabolical_ in itself, and
disgraceful to mankind. As much as I value a union of all the states, I
would not admit the southern states, (i.e., South Carolina and Georgia,)
into the union, _unless they agree to a discontinuance of this
disgraceful trade._" Mr. Tyler opposed with great power the clause
prohibiting the abolition of the slave trade till 1808, and said, "My
earnest desire is, that it shall he handed down to posterity that I
oppose this wicked clause." Mr. Johnson said, "The principle of
emancipation _has begun since the revolution. Let us do what we will, it
will come round._"--[_Deb. Va. Con._ p. 463.] Patrick Henry, arguing the
power of Congress under the United States constitution to abolish
slavery in the States, said, in the same convention, "Another thing will
contribute to bring this event (the abolition of slavery) about. Slavery
is _detested._ We feel its fatal effects; we deplore it with all the
pity of humanity."--[_Deb. Va. Con._ p. 431.] In the Mass. Con. of '88,
Judge Dawes said, "Although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet
_it has received a mortal wound_, and will die of consumption."--[_Deb.
Mass. Con._ p. 60.] General Heath said that, "Slavery was confined to
the States _now existing, it could not be extended_. By their ordinance,
Congress had declared that the new States should be republican States,
and _have no slavery._"--p. 147.

In the debate in the first Congress, February 11th and 12th, 1789, on
the petitions of the Society of Friends, and the Pennsylvania Abolition
Society, Mr. Parker, of Virginia, said, "I hope, Mr. Speaker, the
petition of these respectable people will be attended to _with all the
readiness the importance of its object demands_; and I cannot help
expressing the pleasure I feel in finding _so considerable a part_ of
the community attending to matters of such a momentous concern to the
_future prosperity_ and happiness of the people of America. I think it
my duty, as a citizen of the Union, _to espouse their cause_."

Mr. Page, of Virginia, (afterward Governor)--"Was _in favor_ of the
commitment; he hoped that the designs of the respectable memorialists
would not be stopped at the threshold, in order to preclude a fair
discussion of the prayer of the memorial. With respect to the alarm that
was apprehended, he conjectured there was none; but there might be just
cause, if the memorial was _not_ taken into consideration. He placed
himself in the case of a slave, and said, that on hearing that Congress
had refused to listen to the decent suggestions of a respectable part of
the community, he should infer, that the general government, _from which
was expected great good would result to_ EVERY CLASS _of citizens_, had
shut their ears against the voice of humanity, and he should despair of
any alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in prospect; if
any thing could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke like this,
impressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. But if he was told,
that application was made in his behalf, and that Congress were willing
to hear what could be urged in favor of discouraging the practice of
importing his fellow-wretches, he would trust in their justice and
humanity, and _wait the decision patiently_."

Mr. Scott, of Pennsylvania: "I cannot, for my part, conceive how any
person _can be said to acquire a property in another_; but enough of
those who reduce men to the state of transferable goods, or use them
like beasts of burden, who deliver them up as the property or patrimony
of another man. Let us argue on principles countenanced by reason, and
becoming humanity. _I do not know how far I might go, if I was one of
the judges of the United States, and those people were to come before me
and claim their emancipation, but I am sure I would go as far as I
could_."

Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, said, "He _saw the disposition of the
House_, and he feared it would be referred to a committee, maugre all
their opposition."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, said, "That on entering into this
government, they (South Carolina and Georgia) apprehended that the other
states, not knowing the necessity the citizens of the Southern states
were under to hold this species of property, _would, from motives of
humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general emancipation_;
and had they not seen, that the constitution provided against the effect
of such a disposition, I may be bold to say, they never would have
adopted it."

In the debate, at the same session, May 13th, 1789, on the petition of
the Society of Friends respecting the slave trade, Mr. Parker, of
Virginia, said, "He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their power
to _restore to human nature its inherent privileges_, and if possible,
wipe off the stigma, which America labored under. The inconsistency in
our principles, with which we are justly charged _should be done away_,
that we may show by our actions the pure beneficence of the doctrine we
held out to the world in our Declaration of Independence."

Mr. Jackson of Georgia, said, "IT WAS THE FASHION OF THE DAY TO FAVOR
THE LIBERTY OF THE SLAVES.  *  *  *  *  *  What is to be done for
compensation? Will Virginia set all her negroes free? Will they give up
the money they have cost them; and to whom? _When this practice comes to
be tried, then the sound of liberty will lose those charms which make it
grateful to the ravished ear_."

Mr. Madison of Virginia,--"The dictates of humanity, the principles of
the people, the national safety and happiness, and prudent policy,
require it of us. The constitution has particularly called our attention
to it.  *  *  *  *  *  I conceive the constitution in this particular
was formed in order that the Government, whilst it was restrained from
having a total prohibition, might be able to _give some testimony of the
sense of America_, with respect to the African trade.  *  *  *  *  *  It
is to be hoped, that by expressing a national disapprobation of this
trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves from reproaches, AND OUR
POSTERITY THE IMBECILITY EVER ATTENDANT ON A COUNTRY FILLED WITH SLAVES.
I do not wish to say any thing harsh to the hearing of gentlemen who
entertain different sentiments from me, or different sentiments from
those I represent. But if there is any one point in which it is clearly
the policy of this nation, so far as we constitutionally can, _to vary
the practice_ obtaining under some of the state governments, it is this.
But it is _certain_ a majority of the states are _opposed to this
practice_."--[Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12.]

A writer in the "Gazette of the United States," Feb. 20th, 1790, (then
the government paper,) who opposes the abolition of slavery, and avows
himself a _slaveholder_, says, "I have seen in the papers accounts of
_large associations_, and applications to Government for _the abolition
of slavery_. Religion, humanity, and the generosity natural to a free
people, are the _noble principles which dictate those measures_.  SUCH
MOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY EULOGIUM WORDS CAN BESTOW."

It is well known, that in the convention that formed the constitution of
Kentucky in 1780, the effort to prohibit slavery was nearly successful.
The writer has frequently heard it asserted in Kentucky, and has had it
from some who were members of that convention, that a decided majority
of that body would have voted for its exclusion but for the great
efforts and influence of two large slaveholders--men of commanding
talents and sway--Messrs. Breckenridge and Nicholas. The following
extract from a speech made in that convention by a member of it, Mr.
Rice, a native Virginian, is a specimen of the _free discussion_ that
prevailed on that "delicate subject." Said Mr. Rice: "I do a man greater
injury, when I deprive him of his liberty, than when I deprive him of
his property. It is vain for me to plead that I have the sanction of
law; for this makes the injury the greater--it arms the community
against him, and makes his case desperate. The owners of such slaves
then are _licensed robbers_, and not the just proprietors of what they
claim. Freeing them is not depriving them of property, but _restoring it
to the right owner_. In America, a slave is a standing monument of the
tyranny and inconsistency of human governments. The master is the enemy
of the slave; he _has made open war upon him_, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT
ON in unremitted efforts. Can any one imagine, then, that the slave is
indebted to his master, and _bound to serve him_? Whence can the
obligation arise? What is it founded upon? What is my duty to an enemy
that is carrying on war against me? I do not deny, but in some
circumstances, it is the duty of the slave to serve; but it is a duty he
owes himself, and not his master."

President Edwards, the younger, said, in a sermon preached before the
Connecticut Abolition Society, Sept. 15, 1791: "Thirty years ago,
scarcely a man in this country thought either the slave trade or the
slavery of negroes to be wrong; but now how many and able advocates in
private life, in our legislatures, in Congress, have appeared, and have
openly and irrefragably pleaded the rights of humanity in this as well
as other instances? And if we judge of the future by the past, _within
fifty years from this time, it will be as shameful for a man to hold a
negro slave, as to be guilty of common robbery or theft_."

In 1794, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted its
"Scripture proofs," notes, comments, &c. Among these was the following:


    "1 Tim. i. 10. The law is made for manstealers. This crime among
    the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment.
    Exodus xxi. 16. And the apostle here classes them with _sinners
    of the first rank_. The word he uses, in its original import
    comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human
    race into slavery, or in _retaining_ them in it. _Stealers of
    men_ are all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and _keep_,
    sell, or buy them."


In 1794, Dr. Rush declared: "Domestic slavery is repugnant to the
principles of Christianity. It prostrates every benevolent and just
principle of action in the human heart. It is rebellion against the
authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and
efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the
prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe, who has solemnly
claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."

In 1795, Mr. Fiske, then an officer of Dartmouth College, afterward a
Judge in Tennessee, said, in an oration published that year, speaking of
slaves: "I steadfastly maintain, that we must bring them to _an equal
standing, in point of privileges, with the whites_! They must enjoy all
the rights belonging to human nature."

When the petition on the abolition of the slave trade was under
discussion in the Congress of '89, Mr. Brown. of North Carolina, said,
"The emancipation of the slaves _will be effected_ in time; it ought to
be a gradual business, but he hoped that Congress would not
_precipitate_ it to the great injury of the southern States." Mr.
Hartley, of Pennsylvania said, in the sane debate, "_He was not a little
surprised to hear the cause of slavery advocated in that house._"
WASHINGTON, in a letter to Sir John Sinclair, says, "There are, in
Pennsylvania, laws for the gradual abolition of slavery which neither
Maryland nor Virginia have at present, but which _nothing is more
certain_ than that they _must have_, and at a period NOT REMOTE." In
1782, Virginia passed her celebrated manumission act. Within nine years
from that time nearly eleven thousand slaves were voluntarily
emancipated by their masters. Judge Tucker's "Dissertation on Slavery,"
p. 72. In 1787, Maryland passed an act legalizing manumission. Mr.
Dorsey, of Maryland, in a speech in Congress, December 27th, 1826,
speaking of manumissions under that act, said, that "_The progress of
emancipation was astonishing_, the State became crowded with a free
black population."

The celebrated William Pinkney, in a speech before the Maryland House of
Delegates, in 1789, on the emancipation of slaves, said, "Sir, by the
eternal principles of natural justice, _no master in the state has a
right to hold his slave in bondage for a single hour_. I would as soon
believe the incoherent tale of a schoolboy, who should tell me he had
been frightened by a ghost, as that the grant of this permission (to
emancipate) ought in any degree to alarm us. Are we apprehensive that
these men will become more dangerous by becoming freemen? Are we
alarmed, lest by being admitted into the enjoyment of civil rights, they
will be inspired with a deadly enmity against the rights of others?
Strange, unaccountable paradox! How much more rational would it be, to
argue that the natural enemy of the privileges of a freeman, is he who
is robbed of them himself! Dishonorable to the species is the idea that
they would ever prove injurious to our interests--released from the
shackles of slavery, by the justice of government and the bounty of
individuals--the want of fidelity and attachment would be next to
impossible."

Hon. James Campbell, in an address before the Pennsylvania Society of
the Cincinnati, July 4, 1787, said, "Our separation from Great Britain
has extended the empire of _humanity_. The time _is not far distant_
when our sister states, in imitation of our example, _shall turn their
vassals into freemen._" The Convention that formed the United States'
constitution being then in session, attended at the delivery of this
oration with General Washington at their head.

A Baltimore paper of September 8th, 1780, contains the following notice
of Major General Gates: "A few days ago passed through this town the
Hon. General Gates and lady. The General, previous to leaving Virginia,
summoned his numerous family of slaves about him, and amidst their tears
of affection and gratitude, gave them their FREEDOM."

In 1791 the university of William and Mary, in Virginia, conferred upon
Granville Sharpe the degree of Doctor of Laws. Sharpe was at that time
the acknowledged head of British abolitionists. His indefatigable
exertions, prosecuted for years in the case of Somerset, procured that
memorable decision in the Court of King's Bench, which settled the
principle that no slave could be held in England. He was most
uncompromising in his opposition to slavery, and for twenty years
previous he had spoken, written, and accomplished more against it than
any man living.

In the "Memoirs of the Revolutionary War in the Southern Department," by
Gen. Lee, of Va., Commandant of the Partizan Legion, is the following:
"The Constitution of the United States, adopted lately with so much
difficulty, has effectually provided against this evil, (by importation)
after a few years. It is much to be lamented that having done so much in
this way, _a provision had not been made for the gradual abolition of
slavery_."--p. 233, 4.

Mr. Tucker, of Virginia, Judge of the Supreme Court of that state, and
professor of law in the University of William and Mary, addressed a
letter to the General Assembly of that state, in 1796, urging the
abolition of slavery; from which the following is an extract. Speaking
of the slaves in Virginia, he says: "Should we not, at the time of the
revolution, have loosed their chains and broken their fetters; or if the
difficulties and dangers of such an experiment prohibited the attempt,
during the convulsions of a revolution, is it not our duty, _to embrace
the first moment_ of constitutional health and vigor to effectuate so
desirable an object, and to remove from us a stigma with which our
enemies will never fail to upbraid us, nor consciences to reproach us?"

Mr. Faulkner, in a speech before the Virginia Legislature, Jan. 20,
1832, said:--"The idea of a gradual emancipation and removal of the
slaves from this commonwealth, is coeval with the declaration of our
independence from the British yoke. It sprung into existence during the
first session of the General Assembly, subsequent to the formation of
your republican government. When Virginia stood sustained in her
legislation by the pure and philosophic intellect of Pendleton--by the
patriotism of Mason and Lee--by the searching vigor and sagacity of
Wythe, and by the all-embracing, all-comprehensive genius of Thomas
Jefferson! Sir, it was a committee composed of those five illustrious
men, who, in 1777, submitted to the general assembly of this state, then
in session, _a plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves of this
commonwealth_."

Hon. Benjamin Watkins Leigh, late United States' senator from Virginia,
in his letters to the people of Virginia, in 1832, signed Appomattox, p.
43, says: "I thought, till very lately, that it was known to every body
that during the Revolution, _and for many years after, the abolition of
slavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest statesmen_, who
entertained, with respect, all the schemes which wisdom or ingenuity
could suggest for accomplishing the object. Mr. Wythe, to the day of his
death, _was for a simple abolition, considering the objection to color
as founded in prejudice_. By degrees, all projects of the kind were
abandoned. Mr. Jefferson _retained_ his opinion, and now we have these
projects revived."

Governor Barbour, of Virginia, in his speech in the U.S. Senate, on the
Missouri question, Jan. 1820, said:--"We are asked why has Virginia
_changed her policy_ in reference to slavery? That the sentiments _of
our most distinguished men_, for thirty years _entirely corresponded_
with the course which the friends of the restriction (of slavery in
Missouri) now advocated; and that the Virginia delegation, one of which
was the late President of the United Stance, voted for the restriction,
(of slavery) in the northwestern territory, and that Mr. Jefferson has
delineated a gloomy picture of the baneful effects of slavery. When it
is recollected that the Notes of Mr. Jefferson were written during the
progress of the revolution, it is no matter of surprise that the writer
should have imbibed a large portion of that enthusiasm which such an
occasion was so well calculated to produce. As to the consent of the
Virginia delegation to the restriction in question, whether the result
of a disposition to restrain the slave trade indirectly, or the
influence of that _enthusiasm_ to which I have just alluded,  *  *  *  *
it is not now important to decide. We have witnessed its effects. The
liberality of Virginia, or, as the result may prove, her folly, which
submitted to, or, if you will, PROPOSED _this measure_, (abolition of
slavery in the N.W. territory) has eventuated in effects which speak a
monitory lesson. _How is the representation from this quarter on the
present question?_"

Mr. Imlay, in his early history of Kentucky, p. 185, says: "We have
disgraced the fair face of humanity, and trampled upon the sacred
privileges of man, at the very moment that we were exclaiming against
the tyranny of your (the English) ministry. But in contending for the
birthright of freedom, we have learned to feel _for the bondage of
others_, and in the libations we offer to the goddess of liberty, we
_contemplate an emancipation of the slaves of this country_, as
honorable to themselves as it will be glorious to us."

In the debate in Congress, Jan. 20, 1806, on Mr. Sloan's motion to lay a
tax on the importation of slaves, Mr. Clark of Va. said: "He was no
advocate for a system of slavery." Mr. Marion, of S. Carolina, said: "He
never had purchased, nor should he ever purchase a slave." Mr. Southard
said: "Not revenue, but an expression of the _national sentiment_ is the
principal object." Mr. Smilie--"I rejoice that the word (slave) is not
in the Constitution; its not being there does honor to the worthies who
would not suffer it to become a _part_ of it." Mr. Alston, of N.
Carolina--"In two years we shall have the power to prohibit the trade
altogether. Then this House will be UNANIMOUS. No one will object to our
exercising our full constitutional powers." National Intelligencer,
Jany. 24, 1806.

These witnesses need no vouchers to entitle them to credit--nor their
testimony comments to make it intelligible--their _names_ are their
_endorsers_ and their strong words their own interpreters. We wave all
comments. Our readers are of age. Whosoever hath ears to _hear_, let him
HEAR. And whosoever will not hear the fathers of the revolution, the
founders of the government, its chief magistrates, judges, legislators
and sages, who dared and periled all under the burdens, and in the heat
of the day that tried men's souls--then "neither will he be persuaded
though THEY rose from the dead."

Some of the points established by the testimony are--The universal
expectation that the _moral_ influence of Congress, of state
legislatures, of seminaries of learning, of churches, of the ministers
of religion, and of public sentiment widely embodied in abolition
societies, would be exerted against slavery, calling forth by argument
and appeal the moral sense of the nation, and creating a power of
opinion that would abolish the system throughout the union. In a word,
that free speech and a free press would be wielded against slavery
without ceasing and without restriction. Full well did the south know,
not only that the national government would probably legislate against
slavery wherever the constitution placed it within its reach, but she
knew also that Congress had already marked out the line of national
policy to be pursued on the subject--had committed itself before the
world to a course of action against slavery, wherever she could move
upon it without encountering a conflicting jurisdiction--that the nation
had established by solemn ordinance memorable precedent for subsequent
action, by abolishing slavery in the northwest territory, and by
declaring that it should never thenceforward exist there; and this too,
as soon as by cession of Virginia and other states, the territory came
under Congressional control. The south knew also that the sixth article
in the ordinance prohibiting slavery was first proposed by the largest
slaveholding state in the confederacy--that the chairman of the
committee that reported the ordinance was a slaveholder--that the
ordinance was enacted by Congress during the session of the convention
that formed the United States Constitution--that the provisions of the
ordinance were, both while in prospect, and when under discussion,
matters of universal notoriety and _approval_ with all parties, and when
finally passed, received the vote _of every member of Congress from each
of the slaveholding states_. The south also had every reason for
believing that the first Congress under the constitution would _ratify_
that ordinance--as it _did_ unanimously.

A crowd of reflections, suggest by the preceding testimony, press for
utterance. The right of petition ravished and trampled by its
constitutional guardians, and insult and defiance hurled in the faces of
the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE while calmly remonstrating _with their_ SERVANTS
for violence committed on the nation's charter and their own dearest
rights! Add to this "the right of peaceably assembling" violently
wrested--the rights of minorities, _rights_ no longer--free speech
struck dumb--free _men_ outlawed and murdered--free presses cast into
the streets and their fragments strewed with shoutings, or flourished in
triumph before the gaze of approving crowds as proud members of
prostrate law!

The spirit and power of our fathers, where are they? Their deep homage
always and every where rendered to FREE THOUGHT, with its _inseparable
signs--free speech and a free press_--their reverence for justice,
liberty, _rights_ and all-pervading law, where are they?

But we turn from these considerations--though the times on which we have
fallen, and those towards which we are borne with headlong haste, call
for their discussion as with the voices of departing life--and proceed
to topics relevant to the argument before us.

The seventh article of the amendments to the constitution is alleged to
withhold from Congress the power to abolish slavery in the District. "No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law." All the slaves in the District have been "deprived of
liberty" by legislative acts. Now, these legislative acts "depriving"
them "of liberty," were either "due process of law," or they were _not_.
If they _were_, then a legislative act, taking from the master that
"property" which is the identical "liberty" previously taken from the
slave, would be "due process of law" _also_, and of course a
_constitutional_ act; but if the legislative acts "depriving" them of
"liberty" were _not_ "due process of law," then the slaves were deprived
of liberty _unconstitutionally_, and these acts are _void_. In that case
the _constitution emancipates them_.

If the objector reply, by saying that the import of the phrase "due
process of law," is _judicial_ process solely, it is granted, and that
fact is our rejoinder; for no slave in the District _has_ been deprived
of his liberty by "a judicial process," or, in other words, by "due
process of law;" consequently, upon the objector's own admission, every
slave in the District has been deprived of liberty _unconstitutionally_,
and is therefore _free by the constitution_. This is asserted only of
the slaves under the "exclusive legislation" of Congress.

The last clause of the article under consideration is quoted for the
same purpose: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use
without just compensation." Each of the state constitutions has a clause
of similar purport. The abolition of slavery in the District by
Congress, would not, as we shall presently show, violate this clause
either directly or by implication. Granting for argument's sake, that
slaves are "private property," and that to emancipate them, would be to
"take private property" for "public use," the objector admits the power
of Congress to do _this_, provided it will do something _else_, that is,
_pay_ for them. Thus, instead of denying _the power_, the objector not
only admits, but _affirms_ it, as the ground of the inference that
compensation must accompany it. So far from disproving the existence of
_one_ power, the objector asserts the existence of _two_--one, the power
to take the slaves from their masters, the other, the power to take the
property of the United States to pay for them.

If Congress cannot constitutionally impair the right of private
property, or take it without compensation, it cannot constitutionally,
_legalize_ the perpetration of such acts, by _others_, nor _protect_
those who commit them. Does the power to rob a man of his earnings, rob
the earner of his _right_ to them? Who has a better right to the
_product_ than the producer?--to the _interest_, than the owner of the
_principal_?--to the hands and arms, than he from whose shoulders they
swing?--to the body and soul, than he whose they _are_? Congress not
only impairs but annihilates the right of private property, while it
withholds from the slaves of the District their title to _themselves_.
What! Congress powerless to protect a man's right to _himself_, when it
can make inviolable the right to a _dog_? But, waving this, I deny that
the abolition of slavery in the District would violate this clause. What
does the clause prohibit? The "taking" of "private property" for "public
use." Suppose Congress should emancipate the slaves in the District,
what would it "_take_?" Nothing. What would it _hold_? Nothing. What
would it put to "public use?" Nothing. Instead of _taking_ "private
property," Congress, by abolishing slavery, would say "private property
shall not _be_ taken; and those who have been robbed of it already,
shall be kept out of it no longer; and since every man's right to his
own body is _paramount_, he shall be protected in it." True, Congress
may not arbitrarily take property, _as_ property, from one man and give
it to another--and in the abolition of slavery no such thing is done. A
legislative act changes the _condition_ of the slave--makes him his own
_proprietor_ instead of the property of another. It determines a
question of _original right_ between two classes of persons--doing an
act of justice to one, and restraining the other from acts of injustice;
or, in other words, preventing one from robbing the other, by granting
to the injured party the protection of just and equitable laws.

Congress, by an act of abolition, would change the condition of seven
thousand "persons" in the District, but would "take" nothing. To
construe this provision so as to enable the citizens of the District to
hold as property, and in perpetuity, whatever they please, or to hold it
as property in all circumstances--all necessity, public welfare, and the
will and power of the government to the contrary notwithstanding--is a
total perversion of its whole _intent_. The _design_ of the provision,
was to throw up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right
to "take property" for _State uses_ is one thing;--the right so to
adjust the _tenures_ by which property is held, that _each may have his
own secured to him_, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of
legislation. Besides, if Congress were to "take" the slaves in the
District, it would be _adopting_, not abolishing slavery--becoming a
slaveholder itself, instead of requiring others to be such no longer.
The clause in question, prohibits the "taking" of individual property
for public uses, to be employed or disposed of _as_ property for
governmental purposes. Congress, by abolishing slavery in the District,
would do no such thing. It would merely change the _condition_ of that
which has been recognised as a qualified property by congressional acts,
though previously declared "persons" by the constitution. More than this
is done continually by Congress and every other Legislature. Property
the most absolute and unqualified, is annihilated by legislative acts.
The embargo and non-intercourse act, prostrated at a stroke, a forest of
shipping, and sank millions of capital. To say nothing of the power of
Congress to take hundreds of millions from the people by direct
taxation, who doubts its power to abolish at once the whole tariff
system, change the seat of Government, arrest the progress of national
works, prohibit any branch of commerce with the Indian tribes or with
foreign nations, change the locality of forts, arsenals, magazines, dock
yards, &c., to abolish the Post Office system, the privilege of patents
and copyrights, &c. By such acts Congress might, in the exercise of its
acknowledged powers, annihilate property to an incalculable amount, and
that without becoming liable to claims for compensation.

Finally, this clause prohibits the taking for public use of
"_property_." The constitution of the United States does not recognise
slaves as "PROPERTY" any where, and it does not recognise them in _any
sense_ in the District of Columbia. All allusions to them in the
constitution recognise them as "persons." Every reference to them points
_solely_ to the element of _personality_; and thus, by the strongest
implication, declares that the constitution _knows_ them only as
"persons," and _will_ not recognise them in any other light. If they
escape into free States, the constitution authorizes their being taken
back. But how? Not as the property of an "owner," but as "persons;" and
the peculiarity of the expression is a marked recognition of their
_personality_--a refusal to recognise them as chattels--"persons _held_
to service." Are _oxen "held_ to service?" That can be affirmed only of
_persons_. Again, slaves give political power as "persons." The
constitution, in settling the principle of representation, requires
their enumeration in the census. How? As property? Then why not include
race horses and game cocks? Slaves, like other inhabitants, are
enumerated as "persons." So by the constitution, the government was
pledged to non-interference with "the migration or importation of such
_persons_" as the States might think proper to admit until 1808, and
authorized the laying of a tax on each "person" so admitted. Further,
slaves are recognized as "persons" by the exaction of their _allegiance_
to the government. For offences against the government slaves are tried
as _persons_; as persons they are entitled to counsel for their defence,
to the rules of evidence, and to "due process of the law," and as
_persons_ they are punished. True, they are loaded with cruel
disabilities in courts of law, such as greatly obstruct and often
inevitably defeat the ends of justice, yet they are still recognised as
_persons_. Even in the legislation of Congress, and in the diplomacy of
the general government, notwithstanding the frequent and wide departures
from the integrity of the constitution on this subject, slaves are not
recognised as _property_ without qualification. Congress has always
refused to grant compensation for slaves killed or taken by the enemy,
even when these slaves had been impressed into the United States'
service. In half a score of cases since the last war, Congress has
rejected such applications for compensation. Besides, both in
Congressional acts, and in our national diplomacy, slaves and property
are not used as convertible terms. When mentioned in treaties and state
papers it is in such a way as to distinguish them from mere property,
and generally by a recognition of their _personality_. In the invariable
recognition of slaves as _persons_, the United States' constitution
caught the mantle of the glorious Declaration, and most worthily wears
it.--It recognizes all human beings as "men," "persons," and thus as
"equals." In the original draft of the Declaration, as it came from the
head of Jefferson, it is alleged that Great Britain had "waged a cruel
war against _human_ nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of
life and liberty in the persons of a distant people, carrying them into
slavery, * * determined to keep up a market where MEN should be bought
and sold,"--thus disdaining to make the charter of freedom a warrant for
the arrest of _men_, that they might be shorn both of liberty and
humanity.

The celebrated Roger Sherman, one of the committee of five appointed to
draft the Declaration of Independence, and also a member of the
Convention that formed the United States' Constitution, said, in the
first Congress after its adoption: "The constitution _does not consider
these persons_, (slaves,) _as a species of property_."--[Lloyd's Cong.
Reg. v. 1, p. 313.] That the United States' Constitution does not make
slaves "property," is shown in the fact, that no person, either as a
citizen of the United States, or by having his domicile within the
United States' government, can hold slaves. He can hold them only by
deriving his power from _state_ laws, or from the law of Congress, if he
hold slaves within the District. But no person resident within the
United States' jurisdiction, and _not_ within the District, nor within a
state whose laws support slavery, nor "held to service" under the laws
of such state or district, having escaped therefrom, _can be held as a
slave_.

Men can hold _property_ under the United States' government though
residing beyond the bounds of any state, district, or territory. An
inhabitant of the Wisconsin Territory can hold property there under the
laws of the United States, but he cannot hold _slaves_ there under the
United States' laws, nor by virtue of the United States' Constitution,
nor upon the ground of his United States citizenship, nor by having his
domicile within the United States jurisdiction. The constitution no
where recognizes the right to "slave property," _but merely the fact
that the states have jurisdiction each in its own limits, and that there
are certain "persons" within their jurisdictions "held to service" by
their own laws_.

Finally, in the clause under consideration, "private property" is not to
be taken "without _just_ compensation." "JUST!" If justice is to be
appealed to in determining the amount of compensation, let her determine
the _grounds_ also. If it be her province to say _how much_ compensation
is "just," it is hers to say whether _any_ is "just,"--whether the slave
is "just" property _at all_, rather than a "_person_." Then, if justice
adjudges the slave to be "private property," it adjudges him to be _his
own_ property, since the right to one's _self_ is the first right--the
source of all others--the original stock by which they are
accumulated--the principal, of which they are the interest. And since
the slave's "private property" has been "taken," and since
"compensation" is impossible--there being no _equivalent_ for one's
self--the least that can be done is to restore to him his original
private property.

Having shown that in abolishing slavery, "property" would not be "taken
for public use," it may be added that, in those states where slavery has
been abolished by law, no claim for compensation has been allowed.
Indeed the manifest absurdity of demanding it, seems to have quite
forestalled the _setting up_ of such a claim.

The abolition of slavery in the District, instead of being a legislative
anomaly, would proceed upon the principles of every day legislation. It
has been shown already, that the United States' Constitution does not
recognize slaves as "property." Yet ordinary legislation is full of
precedents, showing that even _absolute_ property is in many respects
wholly subject to legislation. The repeal of the law of entailments--all
those acts that control the alienation of property, its disposal by
will, its passing to heirs by descent, with the question, who shall be
heirs, and what shall be the rule of distribution among them, or whether
property shall be transmitted at all by descent, rather than escheat to
the state--these, with statutes of limitation, and various other classes
of legislative acts, serve to illustrate the acknowledged scope of the
law-making power, even where property _is in every sense absolute_.
Persons whose property is thus affected by public laws, receive from the
government no compensation for their losses, unless the state has been
put into possession of the property taken from them.

The preamble of the United States' Constitution declares it to be a
fundamental object of the organization of the government "to ESTABLISH
JUSTICE." Has Congress _no power_ to do that for which it was made the
_depository of power_? CANNOT the United States Government fulfil the
purpose _for which it was brought into being_?

To abolish slavery, is to take from no rightful owner his property; but
to "_establish justice_" between two parties. To emancipate the slave,
is to "_establish justice_" between him and his master--to throw around
the person, character, conscience, liberty, and domestic relations of
the one, _the same law_ that secures and blesses the other. In other
words, to prevent by _legal restraints_ one class of men from seizing
upon another class, and robbing them at pleasure of their earnings,
their time, their liberty, their kindred, and the very use and ownership
of their own persons. Finally, to abolish slavery is to proclaim and
_enact_ that innocence and helplessness--now _free plunder_--are
entitled to _legal protection_; and that power, avarice, and lust, shall
no longer gorge upon their spoils under the license, and by the
ministrations of _law_! Congress, by possessing "exclusive legislation
in all cases whatsoever," has a _general protective power_ for ALL the
inhabitants of the District. If it has no power to protect _one_ man, it
has none to protect another--none to protect _any_--and if it _can_
protect _one_ man and is _bound_ to protect him, it _can_ protect
_every_ man--all men--and is _bound_ to do it. All admit the power of
Congress to protect the masters in the District against their slaves.
What part of the constitution gives the power? The clause so often
quoted,--"power of legislation in all cases whatsoever," equally in the
"_case_" of defending the blacks against the whites, as in that of
defending the whites against the blacks. The power is given also by Art.
1, Sec. 8, clause 15--"Congress shall have power to suppress
insurrections"--a power to protect, as well blacks against whites, as
whites against blacks. If the constitution gives power to protect _one_
class against the other, it gives power to protect _either_ against the
other. Suppose the blacks in the District should seize the whites, drive
them into the fields and kitchens, force them to work without pay, flog
them, imprison them, and sell them at their pleasure, where would
Congress find power to restrain such acts? Answer; a _general_ power in
the clause so often cited, and an _express_ one in that cited
above--"Congress shall have power, to suppress insurrections." So much
for a _supposed_ case. Here follows a _real_ one. The whites in the
District are _perpetrating these identical acts_ upon seven thousand
blacks daily. That Congress has power to restrain these acts in one
case, all assert, and in so doing they assert the power "in _all_ cases
whatsoever." For the grant of power to suppress insurrections, is an
_unconditional_ grant, not hampered by provisos as to the color, shape,
size, sex, language, creed, or condition of the insurgents. Congress
derives its power to suppress this _actual_ insurrection, from the same
source whence it derived its power to suppress the _same_ acts in the
case _supposed_. If one case is an insurrection, the other is. The
_acts_ in both are the same; the _actors_ only are different. In the one
case, ignorant and degraded--goaded by the memory of the past, stung by
the present, and driven to desperation by the fearful looking for of
wrongs for ever to come. In the other, enlightened into the nature of
_rights_, the principles of justice, and the dictates of the law of
love, unprovoked by wrongs, with cool deliberation, and by system, they
perpetrate these acts upon those to whom they owe unnumbered obligations
for _whole lives_ of unrequited service. On which side may palliation be
pleaded, and which party may most reasonably claim an abatement of the
rigors of law? If Congress has power to suppress such acts _at all_, it
has power to suppress them _in_ all.

It has been shown already that _allegiance_ is exacted of the slave. Is
the government of the United States unable to grant _protection_ where
it exacts _allegiance_? It is an axiom of the civilized world, and a
maxim even with savages, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal
and correlative. Are principles powerless with us which exact homage of
barbarians? _Protection is the_ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT _of every human
being under the exclusive legislation of Congress who has not forfeited
it by crime_.

In conclusion, I argue the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the
District, froth Art. 1, sec. 8, clause 1, of the constitution: "Congress
shall have power to provide for the common defence and the general
welfare of the United States." Has the government of the United States
no power under this grant, to legislate within its own exclusive
jurisdiction on subjects that vitally affect its interests? Suppose the
slaves in the District should rise upon their masters, and the United
States' government, in quelling the insurrection, should kill any number
of them. Could their masters claim compensation of the government?
Manifestly not; even though no proof existed that the particular slaves
killed were insurgents. This was precisely the point at issue between
those masters, whose slaves were killed by the State troops at the time
of the Southampton insurrection, and the Virginia Legislature; no
evidence was brought to show that the slaves killed by the troops were
insurgents; yet the Virginia Legislature decided that their masters were
_not entitled to compensation_. They proceeded on the sound principle,
that a government may in self protection destroy the claim of its
subjects even to that which has been recognised as property by its own
acts. If in providing for the common defence the United States
government, in the case supposed, would have power to destroy slaves
both as _property and persons_, it surely might stop half-way, destroy
them as _property_ while it legalized their existence as _persons_, and
thus provided for the common defence by giving them a personal and
powerful interest in the government, and securing their strength for its
defence.

Like other Legislatures, Congress has power to abate nuisances--to
remove or tear down unsafe buildings--to destroy infected cargoes--to
lay injunctions upon manufactories injurious to the public health--and
thus to "provide for the common defence and general welfare" by
destroying individual property, when it puts in jeopardy the public
weal.

Granting, for argument's sake, that slaves are "property" in the
District of Columbia--if Congress has a right to annihilate property in
the District when the public safety requires it, it may surely
annihilate its existence _as_ property when public safety requires it,
especially if it transform into a _protection_ and _defence_ that which
as _property_ periled the public interests. In the District of Columbia
there are, besides the United States' Capitol, the President's house,
the national offices, &c. of the Departments of State, Treasury, War,
and Navy, the General Post-office, and Patent Office. It is also the
residence of the President, all the highest officers of the government,
both houses of Congress, and all the foreign ambassadors. In this same
District there are also _seven thousand slaves_. Jefferson, in his Notes
on Va. p. 241, says of slavery, that "the State permitting one half of
its citizens to trample on the rights of the other, _transforms them
into enemies_;" and Richard Henry Lee, in the Va. House of Burgesses in
1758, declared that to those who held them, "_slaves must be natural
enemies._" Is Congress so _impotent_ that it _cannot_ exercise that
right pronounced both by municipal and national law, the most sacred and
universal--the right of self-preservation and defence? Is it shut up to
the _necessity_ of keeping seven thousand "enemies" in the heart of the
nation's citadel? Does the iron fiat of the constitution doom it to such
imbecility that it _cannot_ arrest the process that _made_ them
"enemies," and still goads to deadlier hate by fiery trials, and day by
day adds others to their number? Is _this_ providing for the common
defence and general welfare? If to rob men of rights excites their hate,
freely to restore them and make amends, will win their love.

By emancipating the slaves in the District, the government of the United
States would disband an army of "enemies," and enlist "for the common
defence and general welfare," a body guard of _friends_ seven thousand
strong. In the last war, a handful of British soldiers sacked Washington
city, burned the capitol, the President's house, and the national
offices and archives; and no marvel, for thousands of the inhabitants of
the District had been "TRANSFORMED INTO ENEMIES." Would _they_ beat back
invasion? If the national government had exercised its constitutional
"power to provide for the common defence and to promote the general
welfare," by turning those "enemies" into friends, then, instead of a
hostile ambush lurking in every thicket inviting assault, and secret
foes in every house paralyzing defence, an army of allies would have
rallied in the hour of her calamity, and shouted defiance from their
munitions of rocks; whilst the banner of the republic, then trampled in
dust, would have floated securely over FREEMEN exulting amidst bulwarks
of strength.

To show that Congress can abolish slavery in the District, under the
grant of power "to provide for the common defence and to promote the
general welfare," I quote an extract from a speech of Mr. Madison, of
Va., in the first Congress under the constitution, May 13, 1789.
Speaking of the abolition of the slave trade, Mr. Madison says: "I
should venture to say it is as much for the interests of Georgia and
South Carolina, as of any state in the union. Every addition they
receive to their number of slaves tends to _weaken_ them, and renders
them less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign
nations, they will be the means of _inviting_ attack instead of
repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the general government to
protect every part of the empire against danger, as well _internal_ as
external. _Every thing, therefore, which tends to increase this danger,
though it may be a local affair, yet if it involves national expense or
safety, it becomes of concern to every part of the union, and is a
proper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general
administration of the government._" See Cong. Reg. vol. 1, p. 310-11.


WYTHE.



POSTSCRIPT

My apology for adding a _postscript_, to a discussion already perhaps
too protracted, is the fact that the preceding sheets were in the hands
of the printer, and all but the concluding pages had gone through the
press, before the passage of Mr. Calhoun's late resolutions in the
Senate of the United States. A proceeding so extraordinary,--if indeed
the time has not passed when _any_ acts of Congress in derogation of
freedom and in deference to slavery, can be deemed
extraordinary,--should not be suffered to pass in silence at such a
crisis as the present; especially as the passage of one of the
resolutions by a vote of 36 to 8, exhibits a shift of position on the
part of the South, as sudden as it is unaccountable, being nothing less
than the surrender of a fortress which until then they had defended with
the pertinacity of a blind and almost infuriated fatuity. Upon the
discussions during the pendency of the resolutions, and upon the vote,
by which they were carried, I make no comment, save only to record my
exultation in the fact there exhibited, that great emergencies are _true
touchstones_, and that henceforward, until this question is settled,
whoever holds a seat in Congress will find upon, and all around him, a
pressure strong enough to TEST him--a focal blaze that will find its way
through the carefully adjusted cloak of fair pretension, and the
sevenfold brass of two-faced political intrigue, and _no_-faced
_non-committalism_, piercing to the dividing asunder of joints and
marrow. Be it known to every northern man who aspires to a seat in
Congress, that hereafter it is the destiny of congressional action on
this subject, to be a MIGHTY REVELATOR--making secret thoughts public
property, and proclaiming on the house-tops what is whispered in the
ear--smiting off masks, and bursting open sepulchres beautiful
outwardly, and heaving up to the sun their dead men's bones. To such we
say,--_Remember the Missouri Question, and the fate of those who then
sold the North, and their own birthright!_

Passing by the resolutions generally without remark--the attention of
the reader is specially solicited to Mr. Clay's substitute for Mr.
Calhoun's fifth resolution.

"Resolved, That when the District of Columbia was ceded by the states of
Virginia and Maryland to the United States, domestic slavery existed in
both of these states, including the ceded territory, and that, as it
still continues in both of them, it could not be abolished within the
District without a violation of that good faith, which was implied in
the cession and in the acceptance of the territory; nor, unless
compensation were made to the proprietors of slaves, without a manifest
infringement of an amendment to the constitution of the United States;
nor without exciting a degree of just alarm and apprehension in the
states recognising slavery, far transcending in mischievous tendency,
any possible benefit which could be accomplished by the abolition."

By voting for this resolution, the south by a simultaneous movement,
shifted its mode of defence, not so much by taking a position entirely
new, as by attempting to refortify an old one--never much trusted in,
and abandoned mainly long ago, as being unable to hold out against
assault however unskilfully directed. In the debate on this resolution,
though the southern members of Congress did not _professedly_ retreat
from the ground hitherto maintained by them--that Congress has no power
by the constitution to abolish slavery in the District--yet in the main
they silently drew off from it.

The passage of this resolution--with the vote of every southern senator,
forms a new era in the discussion of this question.

We cannot join in the lamentations of those who bewail it. We hail it,
and rejoice in it. It was as we would have had it--offered by a southern
senator, advocated by southern senators, and on the ground that it "was
no compromise"--that it embodied the true southern principle--that "this
resolution stood on as high ground as Mr. Calhoun's."--(Mr.
Preston)--"that Mr. Clay's resolution was as strong as Mr.
Calhoun's"--(Mr. Rives)--that "the resolution he (Mr. Calhoun) now
refused to support, was as strong as his own, and that in supporting it,
there was no abandonment of principle by the south."--(Mr. Walker, of
Mi.)--further, that it was advocated by the southern senators generally
as an expression of their views, and as setting the question of slavery
in the District on its _true_ ground--that finally when the question was
taken, every slaveholding senator, including Mr. Calhoun himself, voted
for the resolution.

By passing this resolution, and with such avowals, the south has
surrendered irrevocably the whole question at issue between them and the
petitioners for abolition in the District. It has, unwittingly but
explicitly, conceded the main question argued in the preceding pages.

The _only_ ground taken against the right of Congress to abolish slavery
in the District is, that slavery existed in Maryland and Virginia when
the cession was made, and "_as it still continues in both of them_, it
could not be abolished without a violation of that good faith which was
implied in the cession," &c. The _sole argument_ is _not_ that exclusive
_sovereignty_ has no power to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction,
_nor_ that the powers of even _ordinary legislation_ cannot do it,--nor
that the clause granting Congress "exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever over such District," gives no power to do it; but that the
_unexpressed expectation_ of one of the parties that the other would not
"in _all_ cases" use the power which said party had consented _might be
used "in all cases," prohibits_ the use of it. The only cardinal point
in the discussion, is here not only _yielded_, but formally laid down by
the South as the leading article in their creed on the question of
Congressional jurisdiction over slavery in the District. The _sole
reason_ given why Congress should not abolish, and the sole evidence
that if it did, such abolition would be a violation of "good faith," is
that "_slavery still continues in those states_,"--thus explicitly
admitting, that if slavery did _not_ "still continue" in those States,
Congress _could_ abolish it in the District. The same admission is made
also in the _premises_, which state that slavery existed in those states
_at the time of the cession_, &c. Admitting that if it had _not_ existed
there then, but had grown up in the District under _United States'
laws_, Congress might constitutionally abolish it. Or that if the ceded
parts of those states had been the _only_ parts in which slaves were
held under their laws, Congress might have abolished in such a
contingency also. The cession in that case leaving no slaves in those
states,--no "good faith," would be "implied" in it, nor any "violated,"
by an act of abolition. The principle of the resolution makes this
further admission, that if Maryland and Virginia should at once abolish
their slavery, Congress might at once abolish it in the District. The
principle goes even further than this, and _requires_ Congress in such
case to abolish slavery in the District "by the _good faith implied_ in
the cession and acceptance of the territory." Since according to the
spirit and scope of the resolution, this "implied good faith" of
Maryland and Virginia in making the cession, was that Congress would do
nothing within the District which should go to counteract the policy, or
bring into disrepute the "institutions," or call in question the usages,
or even in any way ruffle the prejudices of those states, or do what
_they_ might think would unfavorably bear upon their interests;
_themselves_ of course being the judges.

But let us dissect another limb of the resolution. What is to be
understood by "that good faith which was IMPLIED?" It is of course an
admission that such a condition was not _expressed_ in the acts of
cession--that in their _terms_ there is nothing restricting the power of
Congress on the subject of slavery in the District--not a _word_
alluding to it, nor one inserted with such an _intent_. This "implied
faith," then, rests on no clause or word in the United States'
Constitution, or in the acts of cession, or in the acts of Congress
accepting the cession, nor does it rest on any declarations of the
legislatures of Maryland and Virginia made at the time, or in that
generation, nor on any _act_ of theirs, nor on any declaration of the
_people_ of those states, nor on the testimony of the Washingtons,
Jeffersons, Madisons, Chaces, Martins, and Jennifers, of those states
and times. The assertion rests _on itself alone!_ Mr. Clay and the other
senators who voted for the resolution, _guess_ that Maryland and
Virginia _supposed_ that Congress would by no means _use_ the power
given them by the constitution, except in such ways as would be well
pleasing in the eyes of those states; especially as one of them was the
"Ancient Dominion!" And now after the lapse of half a century, this
_assumed expectation_ of Maryland and Virginia, the existence of which
is mere matter of conjecture with the 36 senators, is conjured up and
duly installed upon the judgment-seat of final appeal, before whose nod
constitutions are to flee away, and with whom, solemn grants of power
and explicit guaranties are when weighed in the balance, altogether
lighter than vanity!

But let us survey it in another light. Why did Maryland and Virginia
leave so much to be "_implied_?" Why did they not in some way _express_
what lay so near their hearts? Had their vocabulary run so low that a
single word could not be eked out for the occasion? Or were those states
so bashful of a sudden that they dare not speak out and tell what they
wanted? Or did they take it for granted that Congress would always act
in the premises according to their wishes, and that too, without their
_making known_ their wishes? If, as honorable senators tell us, Maryland
and Virginia did verily travail with such abounding _faith_, why brought
they forth no _works_?

It is as true in _legislation_ as in religion, that the only _evidence_
of "faith" is _works_, and that "faith" _without_ works is _dead_, i.e.
has no power. But here, forsooth, a blind implication with nothing
_expressed_, an "implied" _faith_ without works, is _omnipotent_. Mr.
Clay is lawyer enough to know that even a _senatorial hypothesis_ as to
_what must have been the understanding_ of Maryland and Virginia about
congressional exercise of constitutional power, _abrogates no grant_,
and that to plead it in a court of law, would be of small service except
to jostle "their honors'" gravity! He need not be told that the
constitution gives Congress "power to exercise exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever over such District." Nor that the legislatures of
Maryland and Virginia constructed their acts of cession with this clause
_before their eyes_, and that both of them declared those acts made "in
_pursuance_" of said clause. Those states were aware that the United
States in their constitution had left nothing to be "_implied_" as to
the power of Congress over the District;--an admonition quite sufficient
one would think to put them on their guard, and induce them to eschew
vague implications and resort to _stipulations_. Full well did they know
also that these were times when, in matters of high import, _nothing_
was left to be "implied." The colonies were then panting from a twenty
years' conflict with the mother country, about bills of rights,
charters, treaties, constitutions, grants, limitations, and _acts of
cession_. The severities of a long and terrible discipline had taught
them to guard at all points _legislative grants_, that their exact
import and limit might be self-evident--leaving no scope for a blind
"faith," that _somehow_ in the lottery of chances there would be no
blanks, but making all sure by the use of explicit terms, and wisely
chosen words, and _just enough_ of them. The Constitution of the United
States with its amendments, those of the individual states, the national
treaties, the public documents of the general and state governments at
that period, show the universal conviction of legislative bodies, that
when great public interests were at stake, nothing should be left to be
"implied."

Further: suppose Maryland and Virginia had expressed their "implied
faith" in _words_, and embodied it in their acts of cession as a
proviso, declaring that Congress should not "exercise exclusive
legislation in _all_ cases whatsoever over the District," but that the
"case" of _slavery_ should be an exception: who does not know that
Congress, if it had accepted the cession on those terms, would have
violated the Constitution; and who that has ever studied the free mood
of those times in its bearings on slavery--proofs of which are given in
scores on the preceding pages--can for an instant believe that the
people of the United States would have altered their Constitution for
the purpose of providing for slavery an inviolable sanctuary; that when
driven in from its outposts, and everywhere retreating discomfited
before the march of freedom, it might be received into everlasting
habitations on the common homestead and hearth-stone of this free
republic? Besides, who can believe that Virginia made such a condition,
or cherished such a purpose, when at that very moment, Washington,
Jefferson, Wythe, Patrick Henry St. George Tucker, and almost all her
illustrious men, were advocating the abolition of slavery by law. When
Washington had said, two years before, Maryland and Virginia "must have
laws for the gradual abolition of slavery and at a period _not remote_;"
and when Jefferson in his letter to Price, three years before the
cession, had said, speaking of Virginia, "This is the next state to
which we may turn our eyes for the interesting spectacle of justice in
conflict with avarice and oppression--a conflict in which THE SACRED
SIDE IS GAINING DAILY RECRUITS;" when voluntary emancipations on the
soil were then progressing at the rate of between one and two thousand
annually, (See Judge Tucker's "Dissertation on Slavery," p. 73;) when
the public sentiment of Virginia had undergone, and was undergoing so
mighty a revolution that the idea of the continuance of slavery as a
permanent system could not be _tolerated_, though she then contained
about half the slaves in the Union. Was this the time to stipulate for
the _perpetuity_ of slavery under the exclusive legislation of Congress?
and that too at the _same_ session of Congress when _every one_ of her
delegation voted for the abolition of slavery in the North West
Territory; a territory which she had herself ceded to Congress, and
along with it had surrendered her jurisdiction over many of her
citizens, inhabitants of that territory, who held slaves there--and
whose slaves were emancipated by that act of Congress, in which all her
delegation with one accord participated?

Now in view of the universal belief then prevalent, that slavery in this
country was doomed to short life, and especially that in Maryland and
Virginia it would be _speedily_ abolished--are we to be told that these
states _designed_ to bind Congress _never_ to terminate it? Are we to
adopt the monstrous conclusion that this was the _intent_ of the Ancient
Dominion--thus to _bind_ the United States by an "implied faith," and
that when the United States _accepted_ the cession, she did solemnly
thus plight her troth, and that Virginia did then so _understand_ it?
Verily one would think that honorable senators supposed themselves
deputed to do our _thinking_ as well as our legislation, or rather, that
they themselves were absolved from such drudgery by virtue of their
office!

Another absurdity of this dogma about "implied faith" is, that where
there was no power to exact an _express_ pledge, there was none to
demand an _implied_ one, and where there was no power to _give_ the one,
there was none to give the _other_. We have shown already that Congress
could not have accepted the cession with such a condition. To have
signed away a part of its constitutional grant of power would have been
a _breach_ of the Constitution. Further, the Congress which accepted the
cession was competent to pass a resolution pledging itself not to _use
all_ the power over the District committed to it by the Constitution.
But here its power ended. Its resolution would only bind _itself_. Could
it bind the _next_ Congress by its authority? Could the members of one
Congress say to the members of another, because we do not choose to
exercise all the authority vested in us by the Constitution, therefore
you _shall_ not? This would have been a prohibition to do what the
Constitution gives power to do. Each successive Congress would still
have gone to the Constitution for its power, brushing away in its course
the cobwebs stretched across its path by the officiousness of an
impertinent predecessor. Again, the legislatures of Virginia and
Maryland, had no power to bind Congress, either by an express or an
implied pledge, never to abolish slavery in the District. Those
legislatures had no power to bind _themselves_ never to abolish slavery
within their own territories--the ceded parts included. Where then would
they get power to bind _another_ not to do what they had no power to
bind themselves not to do? If a legislature could not in this respect
control the successive legislatures of its own State, could it control
the successive Congresses of the United States?

But perhaps we shall be told, that the "implied faith" in the acts of
cession of Maryland and Virginia was _not_ that Congress should _never_
abolish slavery in the District, but that it should not do it until
_they_ had done it within their bounds! Verily this "faith" comes little
short of the faith of miracles! "A good rule that works both ways."
First, Maryland and Virginia have "good faith" that Congress will _not_
abolish until _they_ do; and then just as "good faith" that Congress
_will_ abolish _when_ they do! Excellently accommodated! Did those
States suppose that Congress would legislate over the national domain,
the common jurisdiction of _all_, for Maryland and Virginia alone? And
who, did they suppose, would be judges in the matter?--themselves
merely? or the whole Union?

This "good faith implied in the cession" is no longer of doubtful
interpretation. The principle at the bottom of it, when fairly stated,
is this:--That the Government of the United States are bound in "good
faith" to do in the District of Columbia, without demurring, just what
and when, Maryland and Virginia do in their own States. In short, that
the general government is eased of all the burdens of legislation within
its exclusive jurisdiction, save that of hiring a scrivener to copy off
the acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures as fast as they are
passed, and engross them, under the title of "Laws of the United States,
for the District of Columbia!" A slight additional expense would also be
incurred in keeping up an express between the capitols of those States
and Washington city, bringing Congress from time to time its
"_instructions_" from head quarters--instructions not to be disregarded
without a violation of that, "good faith implied in the cession," &c.

This sets in strong light the advantages of "our glorious Union," if the
doctrine of Mr. Clay and the thirty-six Senators be orthodox. The people
of the United States have been permitted to set up at their own expense,
and on their own territory, two great _sounding boards_ called "Senate
Chamber" and "Representatives' Hall," for the purpose of sending abroad
"by authority" _national echoes_ of _state_ legislation!--permitted also
to keep in their pay a corps of pliant _national_ musicians, with
peremptory instructions to sound on any line of the staff according as
Virginia and Maryland may give the _sovereign_ key note!

Though this may have the seeming of mere raillery, yet an analysis of
the resolution and of the discussions upon it, will convince every fair
mind that it is but the legitimate carrying out of the _principle_
pervading both. They proceed virtually upon the hypothesis that the will
and pleasure of Virginia and Maryland are _paramount_ to those of the
_Union_. If the main design of setting apart a federal district had been
originally the accommodation of Maryland, Virginia, and the south, with
the United States as an _agent_ to consummate the object, there could
hardly have been higher assumption or louder vaunting. The sole object
of _having_ such a District was in effect totally perverted in the
resolution of Mr. Clay, and in the discussions of the entire southern
delegation, upon its passage. Instead of taking the ground, that the
benefit of the whole Union was the sole _object_ of a federal district,
that it was designed to guard and promote the interests of _all_ the
states, and that it was to be legislated over _for this end_--the
resolution proceeds upon an hypothesis _totally the reverse_. It takes a
single point of _state_ policy, and exalts it above NATIONAL interests,
utterly overshadowing them; abrogating national _rights_; making void a
clause of the Constitution; humbling the general government into a
subject--crouching for favors to a superior, and that too _on its own
exclusive jurisdiction_. All the attributes of sovereignty vested in
Congress by the Constitution it impales upon the point of an alleged
_implication_. And this is Mr. Clay's peace-offering, to appease the
lust of power and the ravenings of state encroachment! A "_compromise_,"
forsooth! that sinks the general government on _its own territory_ into
a mere colony, with Virginia and Maryland for its "mother country!" It
is refreshing to turn from these shallow, distorted constructions and
servile cringings, to the high bearing of other southern men in other
times; men, who in their character of legislators and lawyers, disdained
to accommodate their interpretations of constitutions and charters to
geographical lines, or to bend them to the purposes of a political
canvass. In the celebrated case of Cohens vs. the State of Virginia,
Hon. William Pinkney, late of Baltimore, and Hon. Walter Jones, of
Washington city, with other eminent constitutional lawyers, prepared an
elaborate written opinion, from which the following is an extract: "Nor
is there any danger to be apprehended from allowing to Congressional
legislation with regard to the District of Columbia, its FULLEST EFFECT.
Congress is responsible to the States, and to the people for that
legislation. It is in truth the legislation of the states over a
district placed under their control for _their own benefit_, not for
that of the District, except as the prosperity of the District is
involved, and necessary to the _general advantage_."--[Life of Pinkney,
p.  612.]

The profound legal opinion, from which this is an extract, was
elaborated at great length many years since, by a number of the most
distinguished lawyers in the United States, whose signatures are
appended to it. It is specific and to the point. It asserts, 1st, that
Congressional legislation over the District, is "the legislation of the
_States_ and the _people_," (not of _two_ states, and a mere _fraction_
of the people.) 2d, "Over a District placed under _their_ control," i.e.
under the control of the _whole_ of the States, not under the control of
_two twenty-sixths_ of them. 3d, That it was thus put under their
control "_for_ THEIR OWN _benefit_," the benefit of _all_ the States
_equally_; not to secure special benefits to Maryland and Virginia, (or
what it might be _conjectured_ they would regard as benefits.) 4th, It
concludes by asserting that the design of this exclusive control of
Congress over the District was "not for the benefit of the _District_,"
except as that is _connected_ with, and _a means of promoting_ the
_general_ advantage. If this is the case with the _District_, which is
_directly_ concerned, it is pre-eminently so with Maryland and Virginia,
who are but _indirectly_ interested, and would be but remotely affected
by it. The argument of Mr. Madison in the Congress of '89, an extract
from which has been given on a preceding page, lays down the same
principle; that though any matter "_may be a local affair, yet if it
involves national_ EXPENSE OR SAFETY, _it becomes of concern to every
part of the union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of
those charged with the general administration of the government_." Cong.
Reg. vol. 1. p. 310, 11.

But these are only the initiatory absurdities of this "good faith
_implied_." The thirty-six senators aptly illustrate the principle, that
error not only conflicts with truth, but is generally at issue with
itself. For if it would be a violation of "good faith" to Maryland and
Virginia, for Congress to abolish slavery in the District, it would be
_equally_ a violation for Congress to do it _with the consent_, or even
at the earnest and unanimous petition of the people of the District: yet
for years it has been the southern doctrine, that if the people of the
District demand of Congress relief in this respect, it has power, as
their local legislature, to grant it, and by abolishing slavery there,
carry out the will of the citizens. But now new light has broken in! The
optics of the thirty-six have pierced the millstone with a deeper
insight, and discoveries thicken faster than they can be telegraphed!
Congress has no power, O no, not a modicum, to help the slaveholders of
the District, however loudly they may clamor for it. The southern
doctrine, that Congress is to the District a mere local Legislature to
do its pleasure, is tumbled from the genitive into the vocative! Hard
fate--and that too at the hands of those who begat it! The reasonings of
Messrs. Pinckney, Wise, and Leigh, are now found to be wholly at fault,
and the chanticleer rhetoric of Messrs. Glascock and Garland stalks
featherless and crest-fallen. For, Mr. Clay's resolution sweeps by the
board all those stereotyped common-places, as "Congress a local
Legislature," "consent of the District," "bound to consult the wishes of
the District," &c. &c., which for the last two sessions of Congress have
served to eke out scanty supplies. It declares, that _as slavery existed
in Maryland and Virginia at the time of the cession, and as it still
continues in both those states, it could not be abolished in the
District without a violation of 'that good faith'_, &c.

But let us see where this principle of the _thirty-six_ will lead us. If
"implied faith" to Maryland and Virginia _restrains_ Congress from the
abolition of slavery in the District, it _requires_ Congress to do in
the District what those states have done within their bounds, i.e.,
restrain _others_ from abolishing it. Upon the same principle Congress
is _bound_, by the doctrine of Mr. Clay's resolution, to _prohibit
emancipation_ within the District. There is no _stopping place_ for this
plighted "faith." Congress must not only refrain from laying violent
hands on slavery, _itself_, and see to it that the slaveholders
themselves do not, but it is bound to keep the system up to the Maryland
and Virginia standard of vigor!

Again, if the good faith of Congress to Virginia and Maryland requires
that slavery should exist in the District, while it exists in those
states, it requires that it should exist there _as_ it exists in those
states. If to abolish _every_ form of slavery in the District would
violate good faith, to abolish _the_ form existing in those states, and
to substitute a totally different one, would also violate it. The
Congressional "good faith" is to be kept not only with _slavery_, but
with the _Maryland and Virginia systems_ of slavery. The faith of those
states not being in the preservation of _a_ system, but of _their_
system; otherwise Congress, instead of _sustaining_, would counteract
their policy--principles would be brought into action there conflicting
with their system, and thus the true spirit of the "implied" pledge
would be violated. On this principle, so long as slaves are "chattels
personal" in Virginia and Maryland, Congress could not make them _real
estate_, inseparable from the soil, as in Louisiana; nor could it permit
slaves to read, nor to worship God according to conscience; nor could it
grant them trial by jury, nor legalize marriage; nor require the master
to give sufficient food and clothing; nor prohibit the violent sundering
of families--because such provisions would conflict with the existing
slave laws of Virginia and Maryland, and thus violate the "good faith
implied," &c. So the principle of the resolution binds Congress in all
these particulars: 1st. Not to abolish slavery in the District _until_
Virginia and Maryland abolish. 2d. Not to abolish any _part_ of it that
exists in those states. 3d. Not to abolish any _form_ or _appendage_ of
it still existing in those states. 4th. _To abolish_ when they do. 5th.
To increase or abate its rigor _when, how_, and _as_ the same are
modified by those states. In a word, Congressional action in the
District is to float passively in the wake of legislative action on the
subject in those states.

But here comes a dilemma. Suppose the legislation of those states should
steer different courses--then there would be _two_ wakes! Can Congress
float in both? Yea, verily! Nothing is too hard for it! Its
obsequiousness equals its "power of legislation in _all_ cases
whatsoever." It can float _up_ on the Virginia tide, and ebb down on the
Maryland at the same time. What Maryland does, Congress will do in the
Maryland part. What Virginia does, Congress will do in the Virginia
part. Though Congress might not always be able to run at the bidding of
both _at once_, especially in different directions, yet if it obeyed
orders cheerfully, and "kept in its place," according to its "good faith
implied," impossibilities might not be rigidly exacted. True, we have
the highest sanction for the maxim that no _man_ can serve two
masters--but if "corporations have _no_ souls," analogy would absolve
Congress on that score, or at most give it only _a very small soul_--not
large enough to be at all in the way, as an _exception_ to the universal
rule laid down to the maxim!

In following out the absurdities of this "_implied_ good faith," it will
be seen at once that the doctrine of Mr. Clay's Resolution extends to
_all the subjects_ of _legislation_ existing in Maryland and Virginia,
which exist also within the District. Every system, "institution," law,
and established usage there, is placed beyond Congressional control
equally with slavery, and by the same "implied faith." The abolition of
the lottery system in the District as an _immorality_, was a flagrant
breach of this "good faith" to Maryland and Virginia, as the system
"still continued in those states." So to abolish imprisonment for debt,
and capital punishment, to remodel the bank system, the power of
corporations, the militia law, laws of limitation, &c., in the District,
_unless Virginia and Maryland took the lead_, would violate the "good
faith implied in the cession," &c.

That in the acts of cession no such "good faith" was "implied by
Virginia and Maryland" as is claimed in the Resolution, we argue from
the fact, that in 1781 Virginia ceded to the United States all her
northwest territory, with the special proviso that her citizens
inhabiting that territory should "have their _possessions_ and _titles_
confirmed to them, and be _protected_ in the enjoyment of their _rights_
and liberties." (See Journals of Congress vol. 9, p. 63.) The cession
was made in the form of a deed, and signed by Thomas Jefferson, Samuel
Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe. Many of these inhabitants _held
slaves_. Three years after the cession, the Virginia delegation in
Congress _proposed_ the passage of an ordinance which should abolish
slavery, in that territory, and declare that it should never thereafter
exist there. All the members of Congress from Virginia and Maryland
voted for this ordinance. Suppose some member of Congress had during the
passage of the ordinance introduced the following resolution: "Resolved,
That when the northwest territory was ceded by Virginia to the United
States, domestic slavery existed in that State, including the ceded
territory, and as it still continues in that State, it could not be
abolished within the territory without a violation of that good faith,
which was implied in the cession and in the acceptance of the
territory." What would have been the indignant response of Grayson,
Griffin, Madison, and the Lees, in the Congress of '87, to such a
resolution, and of Carrington, Chairman of the Committee, who reported
the ratification of the ordinance in the Congress of '89, and of Page
and Parker, who with every other member of the Virginia delegation
supported it?

But to enumerate all the absurdities into which the thirty-six Senators
have plunged themselves, would be to make a quarto inventory. We decline
the task; and in conclusion, merely add that Mr. Clay in presenting this
resolution, and each of the thirty-six Senators who voted for it,
entered on the records of the Senate, and proclaimed to the world, a
most unworthy accusation against the MILLIONS of American citizens who
have during nearly half a century petitioned the national legislature to
abolish slavery in the District of Colombia,--charging them either with
the ignorance or the impiety of praying the nation to violate its
"PLIGHTED FAITH." The resolution virtually indicts at the bar of public
opinion, and brands with odium, all the Manumission Societies, the
_first_ petitioners for the abolition of slavery in the District, and
for a long time the only ones, petitioning from year to year through
evil report and good report, still petitioning, by individual societies
and in their national conventions.

But as if it were not enough to table the charge against such men as
Benjamin Rush, William Rawle, John Sergeant, Robert Vaux, Cadwallader
Colden, and Peter A. Jay,--to whom we may add Rufus King, James
Hillhouse, William Pinkney, Thomas Addis Emmett, Daniel D. Tompkins, De
Witt Clinton, James Kent, and Daniel Webster, besides eleven hundred
citizens of the District itself; headed by their Chief Justice and
judges--even the sovereign States of Pennsylvania, New-York,
Massachusetts, and Vermont, whose legislatures have either memorialized
Congress to abolish slavery in the District, or instructed their
Senators to move such a measure, must be gravely informed by Messrs.
Clay, Norvell, Niles, Smith, Pierce, Benton, Black, Tipton, and other
honorable Senators, either that their perception is so dull, they know
not whereof they affirm, or that their moral sense is so blunted they
can demand without compunction a violation of the nation's faith!

We have spoken already of the concessions unwittingly made in this
resolution to the true doctrine of Congressional power over the
District. For that concession, important as it is, we have small thanks
to render. That such a resolution, passed with such an _intent_, and
pressing at a thousand points on relations and interests vital to the
free states, should be hailed, as it has been, by a portion of the
northern press as a "compromise" originating in deference to northern
interests, and to be received by us as a free-will offering of
disinterested benevolence, demanding our gratitude to the mover,--may
well cover us with shame. We deserve the humiliation and have well
earned the mockery. Let it come!

If, after having been set up at auction in the public sales-room of the
nation, and for thirty years, and by each of a score of "compromises,"
treacherously knocked off to the lowest bidder, and that without money
and without price, the North, plundered and betrayed, _will not_, in
this her accepted time, consider the things that belong to her peace
before they are hidden from her eyes, then let her eat of the fruit of
her own way, and be filled with her own devices! Let the shorn and
blinded giant grind in the prison-house of the Philistines, till taught
the folly of intrusting to Delilahs the secret and the custody of his
strength.

Have the free States bound themselves by an oath never to profit by the
lessons of experience? If lost to _reason_, are they dead to _instinct_
also? Can nothing rouse them to cast about for self preservation? And
shall a life of tame surrenders be terminated by suicidal sacrifice?

A "COMPROMISE!" Bitter irony! Is the plucked and hood-winked North to be
wheedled by the sorcery of another Missouri compromise? A compromise in
which the South gained all, and the North lost all, and lost it for
ever. A compromise which embargoed the free laborer of the North and
West, and clutched at the staff he leaned upon, to turn it into a
bludgeon and fell him with its stroke. A compromise which wrested from
liberty her boundless birthright domain, stretching westward to the
sunset, while it gave to slavery loose reins and a free course, from the
Mississippi to the Pacific.

The resolution, as it finally passed, is here inserted. The original
Resolution, as moved by Mr. Clay, was inserted at the head of this
postscript with the impression that it was the _amended_ form. It will
be seen however, that it underwent no material modification.

"Resolved, That the interference by the citizens of any of the states,
with the view to the abolition of slavery in the District, is
endangering the rights and security of the people of the District; and
that any act or measure of Congress designed to abolish slavery in the
District, would be a violation of the faith implied in the cessions by
the states of Virginia and Maryland, a just cause of alarm to the people
of the slaveholding states, and have a direct and inevitable tendency to
disturb and endanger the Union."

The vote upon the Resolution stood as follows:

_Yeas_.--Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benton, Black, Buchanan, Brown, Calhoun,
Clay, of Alabama, Clay, of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert,
Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell,
Pierce, Preston, Rives, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smith, of Connecticut,
Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, White, Williams, Wright, Young.

_Nays_.--Messrs. DAVIS, KNIGHT, McKEAN, MORRIS, PRENTISS, RUGGLES,
SMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, WEBSTER.








THE


ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER

No. 5



       *       *       *       *       *


THE


POWER OF CONGRESS


OVER THE


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.


       *       *       *       *       *


ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, UNDER THE SIGNATURE
OF "WYTHE."


       *       *       *       *       *


WITH ADDITIONS BY THE AUTHOR.


       *       *       *       *       *



NEW-YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY

NO. 143 NASSAU-STREET.

1838.


       *       *       *       *       *


This periodical contains 3-1/2 sheets--Postage under 100 miles, 6 cts.,
over 100, 10 cts.



POWER OF CONGRESS

OVER THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

A civilized community presupposes a government of law. If that
government be a republic, its citizens are the sole _sources_, as well
as the _subjects_ of its power. Its constitution is their bill of
directions to their own agents--a grant authorizing the exercise of
certain powers, and prohibiting that of others. In the Constitution of
the United States, whatever else may be obscure, the clause granting
power to Congress over the Federal District may well defy
misconstruction. Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 18: "The Congress shall have
power to exercise exclusive legislation, _in all cases whatsoever_, over
such District." Congress may make laws for the District "in all
_cases_," not of all _kinds_; not all _laws_ whatsoever, but laws "in
all _cases_ whatsoever." The grant respects the _subjects_ of
legislation, _not_ the moral nature of the laws. The law-making power
every where is subject to _moral_ restrictions, whether limited by
constitutions or not. No legislature can authorize murder, nor make
honesty penal, nor virtue a crime, nor exact impossibilities. In these
and similar respects, the power of Congress is held in check by
principles, existing in the nature of things, not imposed by the
Constitution, but presupposed and assumed by it. The power of Congress
over the District is restricted only by those principles that limit
ordinary legislation, and, in some respects, it has even wider scope.

In common with the legislatures of the States, Congress cannot
constitutionally pass ex post facto laws in criminal cases, nor suspend
the writ of habeas corpus, nor pass a bill of attainder, nor abridge the
freedom of speech and of the press, nor invade the right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, nor enact
laws respecting an establishment of religion. These are general
limitations. Congress cannot do these things _any where_. The exact
import, therefore, of the clause "in all cases whatsoever," is, _on all
subjects within the appropriate sphere of legislation_. Some
legislatures are restrained by constitutions, from the exercise of
powers strictly within the proper sphere of legislation. Congressional
power over the District has no such restraint. It traverses the whole
field of legitimate legislation. All the power which any legislature has
within its own jurisdiction, Congress holds over the District of
Columbia.

It has been objected that the clause in question respects merely police
regulations, and that its sole design was to enable Congress to protect
itself against popular tumults. But if the convention that framed the
Constitution aimed to provide for a _single_ case only, why did they
provide for "_all_ cases whatsoever?" Besides, this clause was opposed
in many of the state conventions, because the grant of power was not
restricted to police regulations _alone_. In the Virginia Convention,
George Mason, the father of the Virginia Constitution, Patrick Henry,
Mr. Grayson, and others, assailed it on that ground. Mr. Mason said,
"This clause gives an unlimited authority in every possible case within
the District. He would willingly give them exclusive power as far as
respected the police and good government of the place, but he would give
them no more." Mr. Grayson said, that control over the _police_ was
all-sufficient, and "that the Continental Congress never had an idea of
exclusive legislation in all cases." Patrick Henry said, "Is it
consistent with any principle of prudence or good policy, to grant
_unlimited, unbounded authority?_" Mr. Madison said in reply: "I did
conceive that the clause under consideration was one of those parts
which would speak its own praise. When any power is given, its
delegation necessarily involves authority to make laws to execute it....
The powers which are found necessary to be given, are therefore
delegated _generally_, and particular and minute specification is left
to the Legislature.... It is not within the limits of human capacity to
delineate on paper all those particular cases and circumstances, in
which legislation by the general legislature, would be necessary."
Governor Randolph said: "Holland has no ten miles square, but she has
the Hague where the deputies of the States assemble. But the influence
which it has given the province of Holland, to have the seat of
government within its territory, subject in some respects to its
control, has been injurious to the other provinces." The wisdom of the
convention is therefore manifest in granting to Congress exclusive
jurisdiction over the place of their session. [_Deb. Va. Con._, p. 320.]
In the forty-third number of the "Federalist," Mr. Madison says: "The
indispensable necessity of _complete_ authority at the seat of
government, carries its own evidence with it."

Finally, that the grant in question is to be interpreted according to
the obvious import of its _terms_, is proved by the fact, that Virginia
proposed an amendment to the United States' Constitution at the time of
its adoption, providing that this clause "should be so construed as to
give power only over the _police and good government_ of said District,"
_which amendment was rejected._

The former part of the clause under consideration, "Congress shall have
power to exercise _exclusive_ legislation," gives _sole_ jurisdiction,
and the latter part, "in all cases whatsoever," defines the _extent_ of
it. Since, then, Congress is the _sole_ legislature within the District,
and since its power is limited only by the checks common to all
legislatures, it follows that what the law-making power is intrinsically
competent to do _any_ where, Congress is competent to do in the District
of Columbia. Having disposed of preliminaries, we proceed to state and
argue the _real question_ at issue.



IS THE LAW-MAKING POWER COMPETENT TO ABOLISH SLAVERY WHEN NOT RESTRICTED
IN THAT PARTICULAR BY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS--or, IS THE ABOLITION OF
SLAVERY WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE SPHERE OF LEGISLATION?

In every government, absolute sovereignty exists _somewhere_. In the
United States it exists primarily with the _people_, and _ultimate_
sovereignty _always_ exists with them. In each of the States, the
legislature possesses a _representative_ sovereignty, delegated by the
people through the Constitution--the people thus committing to the
legislature a portion of their sovereignty, and specifying in their
constitutions the amount and the conditions of the grant. That the
_people_ in any state where slavery exists, have the power to abolish
it, none will deny. If the legislature have not the power, it is because
_the people_ have reserved it to themselves. Had they lodged with the
legislature "power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever," they would have parted with their sovereignty over the
legislation of the State, and so far forth the legislature would have
become _the people_, clothed with all their functions, and as such
competent, _during the continuance of the grant_, to do whatever the
people might have done before the surrender of their power:
consequently, they would have the power to abolish slavery. The
sovereignty of the District of Columbia exists _somewhere_--where is it
lodged? The citizens of the District have no legislature of their own,
no representation in Congress, and no political power whatever. Maryland
and Virginia have surrendered to the United States their "full and
absolute right and entire sovereignty," and the people of the United
States have committed to Congress by the Constitution, the power to
"exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such
District."

Thus, the sovereignty of the District of Columbia, is shown to reside
solely in the Congress of the United States; and since the power of the
people of a state to abolish slavery within their own limits, results
from their entire sovereignty within that state, so the power of
Congress to abolish slavery in the District, results from its entire
_sovereignty_ within the District. If it be objected that Congress can
have no more power over the District, than was held by the legislatures
of Maryland and Virginia, we ask what clause in the constitution
graduates the power of Congress by the standard of a state legislature?
Was the United States' constitution worked into its present shape under
the measuring line and square of Virginia and Maryland? and is its power
to be bevelled down till it can run in the grooves of state legislation?
There is a deal of prating about constitutional power over the District,
as though Congress were indebted for it to Maryland and Virginia. The
powers of those states, whether few or many, prodigies or nullities,
have nothing to do with the question. As well thrust in the powers of
the Grand Lama to join issue upon, or twist papal bulls into
constitutional tether, with which to curb congressional action. The
Constitution of the United States gives power to Congress, and takes it
away, and _it alone_. Maryland and Virginia adopted the Constitution
_before_ they ceded to the United States the territory of the District.
By their acts of cession, they abdicated their own sovereignty over the
District, and thus made room for that provided by the United States'
constitution, which sovereignty was to commence as soon as a cession of
territory by states, and its acceptance by Congress, furnished a sphere
for its exercise. That the abolition of slavery is within the sphere of
legislation, I argue,

2. FROM THE FACT, THAT SLAVERY, AS A LEGAL SYSTEM, IS THE CREATURE OF
LEGISLATION. The law, by _creating_ slavery, not only affirmed its
_existence_ to be within the sphere and under the control of
legislation, but equally, the _conditions_ and _terms_ of its existence,
and the _question_ whether or not it _should_ exist. Of course
legislation would not travel _out_ of its sphere, in abolishing what is
_within_ it, and what was recognised to be within it, by its own act.
Cannot legislatures repeal their own laws? If law can take from a man
his rights, it can give them back again. If it can say, "your body
belongs to your neighbor," it can say, "it belongs to _yourself_." If it
can annul a man's right to himself, held by express grant from his
Maker, and can create for another an _artificial_ title to him, can it
not annul the artificial title, and leave the original owner to hold
himself by his original title?

3. THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED WITHIN THE
APPROPRIATE SPHERE OF LEGISLATION. Almost every civilized nation has
abolished slavery by law. The history of legislation since the revival
of letters, is a record crowded with testimony to the universally
admitted competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery. It is so
manifestly an attribute not merely of absolute sovereignty, but even of
ordinary legislation, that the competency of a legislature to exercise
it, may well nigh be reckoned among the legal axioms of the civilized
world. Even the night of the dark ages was not dark enough to make this
invisible.

The Abolition decree of the great council of England was passed in 1102.
The memorable Irish decree, "that all the English slaves in the whole of
Ireland, be immediately emancipated and restored to their former
liberty," was issued in 1171. Slavery in England was abolished by a
general charter of emancipation in 1381. Passing over many instances of
the abolition of slavery by law, both during the middle ages and since
the reformation, we find them multiplying as we approach our own times.
In 1776 slavery was abolished in Prussia by special edict. In St.
Domingo, Cayenne, Guadeloupe, and Martinique, in 1794, where more than
690,000 slaves were emancipated by the French government. In Java, 1811;
in Ceylon, 1815; in Buenos Ayres, 1816; in St. Helena, 1819; in
Colombia, 1821; by the Congress of Chili in 1821; in Cape Colony, 1823;
in Malacca, 1825; in the southern provinces of Birmah, 1826; in Bolivia,
1826; in Peru, Guatemala, and Monte Video, 1828, in Jamaica, Barbadoes,
Bermudas, Bahamas, the Mauritius, St. Christophers, Nevis, the Virgin
Islands, Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica, St. Vincents, Grenada, Berbice,
Tobago, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Honduras, Demarara, and the Cape of Good
Hope, on the 1st of August, 1834. But waving details, suffice it to say,
that England, France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Austria,
Prussia, and Germany, have all and often given their testimony to the
competency of the legislative power to abolish slavery. In our own
country, the Legislature of Pennsylvania passed an act of abolition in
1780, Connecticut, in 1784; Rhode Island, 1784; New-York, 1799;
New-Jersey, in 1804; Vermont, by Constitution, in 1777; Massachusetts,
in 1780; and New Hampshire, in 1784.

When the competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery, has thus
been recognised every where and for ages, when it has been embodied in
the highest precedents, and celebrated in the thousand jubilees of
regenerated liberty, is it an achievement of modern discovery, that such
a power is a nullity?--that all these acts of abolition are void, and
that the millions disenthralled by them, are, either themselves or their
posterity, still legally in bondage?

4. LEGISLATIVE POWER HAS ABOLISHED SLAVERY IN ITS PARTS. The law of
South Carolina prohibits the working of slaves more than fifteen hours
in the twenty-four. In other words, it takes from the slaveholder his
power over nine hours of the slave's time daily; and if it can take nine
hours it may take twenty-four. The laws of Georgia prohibit the working
of slaves on the first day of the week; and if they can do it for the
first, they can for the six following.

The law of North Carolina prohibits the "immoderate" correction of
slaves. If it has power to prohibit immoderate correction, it can
prohibit _moderate_ correction--_all_ correction, which would be virtual
emancipation; for, take from the master the power to inflict pain, and
he is master no longer. Cease to ply the slave with the stimulus of
fear; and he is free.

The Constitution of Mississippi gives the General Assembly power to make
laws "to oblige the owners of slaves to _treat them with humanity_." The
Constitution of Missouri has the same clause, and an additional one
making it the DUTY of the legislature to pass such laws as may be
necessary to secure the _humane_ treatment of the slaves. This grant to
those legislatures, empowers them to decide what _is_ and what is _not_
"humane treatment." Otherwise it gives no "power"--the clause is mere
waste paper, and flouts in the face of a befooled legislature. A clause
giving power to require "humane treatment" covers all the _particulars_
of such treatment--gives power to exact it in _all respects--requiring_
certain acts, and _prohibiting_ others--maiming, branding, chaining
together, separating families, floggings for learning the alphabet, for
reading the Bible, for worshiping God according to conscience--the
legislature has power to specify each of these acts--declare that it is
not "_humane_ treatment," and PROHIBIT it.--The legislature may also
believe that driving men and women into the field, and forcing them to
work without pay, is not "humane treatment," and being Constitutionally
bound "to _oblige_" masters to practise "humane treatment"--they have
the power to _prohibit such_ treatment, and are bound to do it.

The law of Louisiana makes slaves real estate, prohibiting the holder,
if he be also a _land_ holder, to separate them from the soil.[A] If it
has power to prohibit the sale _without_ the soil, it can prohibit the
sale _with_ it; and if it can prohibit the _sale_ as property, it can
prohibit the _holding_ as property. Similar laws exist in the French,
Spanish, and Portuguese colonies.

[Footnote A: Virginia made slaves real estate by a law passed in 1705.
(_Beverly's Hist. of Va_., p. 98.) I do not find the precise time when
this law was repealed, probably when Virginia became the chief slave
breeder for the cotton-growing and sugar-planting country, and made
young men and women "from fifteen to twenty-five" the main staple
production of the State.]

The law of Louisiana requires the master to give his slaves a certain
amount of food and clothing. If it can oblige the master to give the
slave _one_ thing, it can oblige him to give him another: if food and
clothing, then wages, liberty, his own body.

By the laws of Connecticut, slaves may receive and hold property, and
prosecute suits in their own name as plaintiffs: [This last was also the
law of Virginia in 1795. See Tucker's "Dissertation on Slavery," p. 73.]
There were also laws making marriage contracts legal, in certain
contingencies, and punishing infringements of them, ["_Reeve's Law of
Baron and Femme_," p. 340-1.] Each of the laws enumerated above, does,
_in principle_, abolish slavery; and all of them together abolish it in
fact. True, not as a _whole_, and at a _stroke_, nor all in one place;
but in its _parts_, by piecemeal, at divers times and places; thus
showing that the abolition of slavery is within the boundary of
legislation.

5. THE COMPETENCY OF THE LAW-MAKING POWER TO ABOLISH SLAVERY, HAS BEEN
RECOGNIZED BY ALL THE SLAVEHOLDING STATES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR BY
IMPLICATION. Some States recognize it in their _Constitutions_, by
giving the legislature power to emancipate such slaves as may "have
rendered the state some distinguished service, "and others by express
prohibitory restrictions. The Constitution of Mississippi, Arkansas, and
other States, restrict the power of the legislature in this respect. Why
this express prohibition, if the law-making power _cannot_ abolish
slavery? A stately farce, indeed, to construct a special clause, and
with appropriate rites induct it into the Constitution, for the express
purpose of restricting a nonentity!--to take from the law-making power
what it _never had_, and what _cannot_ pertain to it! The legislatures
of those States have no power to abolish slavery, simply because their
Constitutions have expressly _taken away_ that power. The people of
Arkansas, Mississippi, &c., well knew the competency of the law-making
power to abolish slavery, and hence their zeal to _restrict_ it.

The slaveholding States have recognised this power in their _laws_. The
Virginia Legislature passed a law in 1786 to prevent the further
importation of Slaves, of which the following is an extract: "And be it
further enacted that every slave imported into this commonwealth
contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, shall upon such
importation become _free_." By a law of Virginia, passed Dec. 17, 1792,
a slave brought into the state and kept _there a year_, was _free_. The
Maryland Court of Appeals at the December term 1813 [case of Stewart
_vs._ Oakes,] decided that a slave owned in Maryland, and sent by his
master into Virginia to work at different periods, making one year in
the whole, became _free_, being _emancipated_ by the law of Virginia
quoted above. North Carolina and Georgia in their acts of cession,
transferring to the United States the territory now constituting the
States of Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi, made it a condition of the
grant, that the provisions of the ordinance of '87, should be secured to
the inhabitants _with the exception of the sixth article which prohibits
slavery_; thus conceding, both the competency of law to abolish slavery,
and the power of Congress to do it, within its jurisdiction. (These acts
show the prevalent belief at that time, in the slaveholding States, that
the general government had adopted a line of policy aiming at the
exclusion of slavery from the entire territory of the United States, not
included within the original States, and that this policy would be
pursued unless prevented by specific and formal stipulation.)

Slaveholding states have asserted this power _in their judicial
decisions_. In numerous cases their highest courts have decided that if
the legal owner of slaves takes them into those States where slavery has
been abolished either by law or by the constitution, such removal
emancipates them, such law or constitution abolishing their slavery.
This principle is asserted in the decision of the Supreme Court of
Louisiana, in the case of Lunsford _vs._ Coquillon, 14 Martin's La.
Reps. 401. Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the case of Hunter
_vs._ Fulcher, 1 Leigh's Reps. 172. The same doctrine was laid down by
Judge Washington, of the United States Supreme Court, in the case of
Butler _vs._ Hopper, Washington's Circuit Court Reps. 508. This
principle was also decided by the Court of Appeals in Kentucky; case of
Rankin _vs._ Lydia, 2 Marshall's Reps. 407; see also, Wilson _vs._
Isbell, 5 Call's Reps. 425, Spotts _vs._ Gillespie, 6 Randolph's Reps.
566. The State _vs._ Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. 60, Marie Louise
_vs._ Mariot, 8 La. Reps. 475. In this case, which was tried in 1836,
the slave had been taken by her master to France and brought back; Judge
Mathews, of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, decided that "residence for
one moment" under the laws of France emancipated her.

6. EMINENT STATESMEN, THEMSELVES SLAVEHOLDERS, HAVE CONCEDED THIS POWER.
Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, dated April 12, 1786, says:
"There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see
a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery; but there is only one
proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is
by _legislative_ authority." In a letter to Lafayette, dated May 10,
1786, he says: "It (the abolition of slavery) certainly might, and
assuredly ought to be effected, and that too by _legislative_
authority." In a letter to John Fenton Mercer, dated Sept. 9, 1786, he
says: "It is among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which
slavery in this country may be abolished by _law_." In a letter to Sir
John Sinclair, he says: "There are in Pennsylvania, _laws_ for the
gradual abolition of slavery, which neither Maryland nor Virginia have
at present, but which nothing is more certain than that they _must
have_, and at a period not remote." Speaking of movements in the
Virginia Legislature in 1777, for the passage of a law emancipating the
slaves, Mr. Jefferson says: "The principles of the amendment were agreed
on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day; but it
was found that the public mind would not bear the proposition, yet the
day is not far distant, when _it must bear and adopt it_."--Jefferson's
Memoirs, v. 1, p. 35. It is well known that Jefferson, Pendleton, Mason,
Wythe and Lee, while acting as a committee of the Virginia House of
Delegates to revise the State Laws, prepared a plan for the gradual
emancipation of the slaves by law. These men were the great lights of
Virginia. Mason, the author of the Virginia Constitution; Pendleton, the
President of the memorable Virginia Convention in 1787, and President of
the Virginia Court of Appeals; Wythe was the Blackstone of the Virginia
bench, for a quarter of a century Chancellor of the State, the professor
of law in the University of William and Mary, and the preceptor of
Jefferson, Madison, and Chief Justice Marshall. He was author of the
celebrated remonstrance to the English House of Commons on the subject
of the stamp act. As to Jefferson, his _name_ is his biography.

Every slaveholding member of Congress from the States of Maryland,
Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, voted for the
celebrated ordinance of 1787, which _abolished_ the slavery then
existing in the Northwest Territory. Patrick Henry, in his well known
letter to Robert Pleasants, of Virginia, January 18, 1773, says: "I
believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to
_abolish_ this lamentable evil." William Pinkney, of Maryland, advocated
the abolition of slavery by law, in the legislature of that State, in
1789. Luther Martin urged the same measure both in the Federal
Convention, and in his report to the Legislature of Maryland. In 1796,
St. George Tucker, of Virginia, professor of law in the University of
William and Mary, and Judge of the General Court, published an elaborate
dissertation on slavery, addressed to the General Assembly of the State,
and urging upon them the abolition of slavery by _law_.

John Jay, while New York was yet a slave State, and himself in law a
slaveholder, said in a letter from Spain, in 1786, "An excellent law
might be made out of the Pennsylvania one, for the gradual abolition of
slavery. Were I in your legislature, I would present a bill for the
purpose, drawn up with great care, and I would never cease moving it
till it became a law, or I ceased to be a member."

Daniel D. Tompkins, in a message to the Legislature of New-York January
8, 1812, said: "To devise the means for the gradual and ultimate
_extermination_ from amongst us of slavery, is a work worthy the
representatives of a polished and enlightened nation."

The Virginia Legislature asserted this power in 1832. At the close of a
month's debate, the following proceedings were had. I extract from an
editorial article of the Richmond Whig, of January 26, 1832.


    "The report of the Select Committee, adverse to legislation on
    the subject of Abolition, was in these words: _Resolved_, as the
    opinion of this Committee, that it is INEXPEDIENT FOR THE
    PRESENT, to make any _legislative enactments for the abolition
    of Slavery_." This Report Mr. Preston moved to reverse, and thus
    to declare that it _was_ expedient, _now_ to make legislative
    enactments for the abolition of slavery. This was meeting the
    question in its strongest form. It demanded action, and
    immediate action. On this proposition the vote was 58 to 73.
    Many of the most decided friends of abolition voted against the
    amendment; because they thought public opinion not sufficiently
    prepared for it, and that it might prejudice the cause to move
    too rapidly. The vote on Mr. Witcher's motion to postpone the
    whole subject indefinitely, indicates the true state of opinion
    in the House.--That was the test question, and was so intended
    and proclaimed by its mover. That motion was _negatived_, 71 to
    60; showing a majority of 11, who by that vote, declared their
    belief that "at the proper time, and in the proper mode,
    Virginia ought to commence a system of gradual abolition."


7. THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE ASSERTED THIS POWER. The
ordinance of '87, declaring that there should be "neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude," in the North Western territory, abolished the
slavery then existing there. The Supreme Court of Mississippi, in its
decision in the case of Harvey vs. Decker, Walker's Mi. Reps. 36,
declared that the ordinance emancipated the slaves then held there. In
this decision the question is argued ably and at great length. The
Supreme Court of La. made the same decision in the case of Forsyth vs.
Nash, 4 Martin's La. Reps. 395. The same doctrine was laid down by Judge
Porter, (late United States Senator from La.,) in his decision at the
March term of the La. Supreme Court, 1830, in the case of Merry vs.
Chexnaider, 20 Martin's Reps. 699.

That the ordinance abolished the slavery then existing there is also
shown by the fact, that persons holding slaves in the territory
petitioned for the repeal of the article abolishing slavery, assigning
_that_ as a reason. "The petition of the citizens of Randolph and St.
Clair counties in the Illinois country, stating that they were in
possession of slaves, and praying the repeal of that act (the 6th
article of the ordinance of '87) and the passage of a law legalizing
slavery there." [Am. State papers, Public Lands, v. 1. p. 69.] Congress
passed this ordinance before the United States Constitution was adopted,
when it derived all its authority from the articles of Confederation,
which conferred powers of legislation far more restricted than those
conferred on Congress over the District and Territories by the United
States Constitution. Now, we ask, how does the Constitution _abridge_
the powers which Congress possessed under the articles of confederation?

The abolition of the slave trade by Congress, in 1808, is another
illustration of the competency of legislative power to abolish slavery.
The African slave trade has become such a mere _technic_, in common
parlance, that the fact of its being _proper slavery_ is overlooked. The
buying and selling, the transportation, and the horrors of the middle
passage, were mere _incidents_ of the slavery in which the victims were
held. Let things be called by their own names. When Congress abolished
the African slave trade, it abolished SLAVERY--supreme slavery--power
frantic with license, trampling a whole hemisphere scathed with its
fires, and running down with blood. True, Congress did not, in the
abolition of the slave trade, abolish _all_ the slavery within its
jurisdiction, but it did abolish all the slavery in _one_ part of its
jurisdiction. What has rifled it of power to abolish slavery in
_another_ part of its jurisdiction, especially in that part where it has
"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever?"

8. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNISES THIS POWER BY THE
MOST CONCLUSIVE IMPLICATION. In Art. 1, sec. 3, clause 1, it prohibits
the abolition of the slave trade previous to 1808: thus implying the
power of Congress to do it at once, but for the restriction; and its
power to do it _unconditionally_, when that restriction ceased. Again;
In Art. 4, sec. 2, "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 said service or
labor." This clause was inserted, as all admit, to prevent the runaway
slave from being emancipated by the _laws_ of the free states. If these
laws had _no power_ to emancipate, why this constitutional guard to
prevent it?

The insertion of the clause, was the testimony of the eminent jurists
that framed the Constitution, to the existence of the _power_, and their
public proclamation, that the abolition of slavery was within the
appropriate sphere of legislation. The right of the owner to that which
is rightfully property, is founded on a principle of _universal law_,
and is recognised and protected by all civilized nations; property in
slaves is, by general consent, an _exception_; hence slaveholders
insisted upon the insertion of this clause in the United States
Constitution, that they might secure by an _express provision_, that
from which protection is withheld, by the acknowledged principles of
universal law.[A] By demanding this provision, slaveholders consented
that their slaves should not be recognised as property by the United
States Constitution, and hence they found their claim, on the fact of
their being "_persons_, and _held_ to service."

[Footnote A: The fact, that under the articles of Confederation,
slaveholders, whose slaves had escaped into free states, had no legal
power to force them back,--that _now_ they have no power to recover, by
process of law, their slaves who escape to Canada, the South American
States, or to Europe--the case already cited, in which the Supreme Court
of Louisiana decided, that residence "_for one moment_," under the laws
of France emancipated an American slave--the case of Fulton _vs._.
Lewis, 3 Har. and John's Reps., 56, where the slave of a St. Domingo
slaveholder, who brought him to Maryland in '93, was pronounced free by
the Maryland Court of Appeals--are illustrations of the acknowledged
truth here asserted, that by the consent of the civilized world, and on
the principles of universal law, slaves are not "_property_," and that
whenever held as property under _law_, it is only by _positive
legislative acts_, forcibly setting aside the law of nature, the common
law, and the principles of universal justice and right between man and
man,--principles paramount to all law, and from which alone law, derives
its intrinsic authoritative sanction.]

9. CONGRESS HAS UNQUESTIONABLE POWER TO ADOPT THE COMMON LAW, AS THE
LEGAL SYSTEM, WITHIN ITS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.--This has been done,
with certain restrictions, in most of the States, either by legislative
acts or by constitutional implication. THE COMMON LAW KNOWS NO SLAVES.
Its principles annihilate slavery wherever they touch it. It is a
universal, unconditional, abolition act. Wherever slavery is a legal
system, it is so only by _statute_ law, and in violation of the common
law. The declaration of Lord Chief Justice Holt, that, "by the common
law, no man can have property in another," is an acknowledged axiom, and
based upon the well known common law definition of property. "The
subjects of dominion or property are _things_, as contra-distinguished
from _persons_." Let Congress adopt the common law in the District of
Columbia, and slavery there is at once abolished. Congress may well be
at home in common law legislation, for the common law is the grand
element of the United States Constitution. All its _fundamental_
provisions are instinct with its spirit; and its existence, principles,
and paramount authority, are presupposed and assumed throughout the
whole. The preamble of the Constitution plants the standard of the
Common Law immovably in its foreground. "We, the people of the United
States, in order to ESTABLISH JUSTICE, &c., do ordain and establish this
Constitution;" thus proclaiming _devotion to_ JUSTICE, as the
controlling motive in the organization of the Government, and its secure
establishment the chief object of its aims. By this most solemn
recognition, the common law, that grand legal embodyment of "_justice_"
and fundamental right--was made the Groundwork of the Constitution, and
intrenched behind its strongest munitions. The second clause of Sec. 9,
Art. 1; Sec. 4, Art. 2, and the last clause of Sec. 2, Art. 3, with
Articles 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the Amendments, are also express
recognitions of the common law as the presiding Genius of the
Constitution.

By adopting the common law within its exclusive jurisdiction Congress
would carry out the principles of our glorious Declaration, and follow
the highest precedents in our national history and jurisprudence. It is
a political maxim as old as civil legislation, that laws should be
strictly homogeneous with the principles of the government whose will
they express, embodying and carrying them out--being indeed the
_principles themselves_, in preceptive form--representatives alike of
the nature and the power of the Government--standing illustrations of
its genius and spirit, while they proclaim and enforce its authority.
Who needs be told that slavery makes war upon the principles of the
Declaration, and the spirit of the Constitution, and that these and the
principles of the common law gravitate toward each other with
irrepressible affinities, and mingle into one? The common law came
hither with our pilgrim fathers; it was their birthright, their panoply,
their glory, and their song of rejoicing in the house of their
pilgrimage. It covered them in the day of their calamity, and their
trust was under the shadow of its wings. From the first settlement of
the country, the genius of our institutions and our national spirit have
claimed it as a common possession, and exulted in it with a common
pride. A century ago, Governor Pownall, one of the most eminent
constitutional jurists of colonial times, said of the common law, "In
all the colonies the common law is received as the foundation and main
body of their law." In the Declaration of Rights, made by the
Continental Congress at its first session in '74, there was the
following resolution: "Resolved, That the respective colonies are
entitled to the common law of England, and especially to the great and
inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage
according to the course of that law." Soon after the organization of the
general government, Chief Justice Ellsworth, in one of his decisions on
the bench of the United States Supreme Court, said: "The common law of
this country remains the same as it was before the revolution." Chief
Justice Marshall, in his decision in the case of Livingston _vs._
Jefferson, said: "When our ancestors migrated to America, they brought
with them the common law of their native country, so far as it was
applicable to their new situation, and I do not conceive that the
revolution in any degree changed the relations of man to man, or the law
which regulates them. In breaking our political connection with the
parent state, we did not break our connection with each other." [_Hall's
Law Journal, new series._] Mr. Duponceau, in his "Dissertation on the
Jurisdiction of Courts in the United States," says, "I consider the
common law of England the _jus commune_ of the United States. I think I
can lay it down as a correct principle, that the common law of England,
as it was at the time of the Declaration of Independence, still
continues to be the national law of this country, so far as it is
applicable to our present state, and subject to the modifications it has
received here in the course of nearly half a century." Chief Justice
Taylor of North Carolina, in his decision in the case of the State _vs._
Reed, in 1823, Hawkes' N.C. Reps. 454, says, "a law of _paramount
obligation to the statute_, was violated by the offence--COMMON LAW
founded upon the law of nature, and confirmed by revelation." The
legislation of the United States abounds in recognitions of the
principles of the common law, asserting their paramount binding power.
Sparing details, of which our national state papers are full, we
illustrate by a single instance. It was made a condition of the
admission of Louisiana into the Union, that the right of trial by jury
should be secured to all her citizens,--the United States government
thus employing its power to enlarge the jurisdiction of the common law
in this its great representative.

Having shown that the abolition of slavery is within the competency of
the law-making power, when unrestricted by constitutional provisions,
and that the legislation of Congress over the District is thus
unrestricted, its power to abolish slavery there is established.

We argue it further, from the fact, that slavery exists there _now_ by
an act of Congress. In the act of 16th July, 1790, Congress accepted
portions of territory offered by the states of Maryland and Virginia,
and enacted that the laws, as they then were, should continue in force,
"until Congress shall otherwise by law provide." Under these laws,
adopted by Congress, and in effect re-enacted and made laws of the
District, the slaves there are now held.

Is Congress so impotent in its own "exclusive jurisdiction" that it
_cannot_ "otherwise by law provide?" If it can say, what _shall_ be
considered property, it can say what shall _not_ be considered property.
Suppose a legislature should enact that marriage contracts shall be mere
bills of sale, making a husband the proprietor of his wife, as his _bona
fide_ property; and suppose husbands should herd their wives in droves
for the market as beasts of burden, or for the brothel as victims of
lust, and then prate about their inviolable legal property, and deny the
power of the legislature, which stamped them "property," to undo its own
wrong, and secure to wives by law the rights of human beings. Would such
cant about "legal rights" be heeded where reason and justice held sway,
and where law, based upon fundamental morality, received homage? If a
frantic legislature pronounces woman a chattel, has it no power, with
returning reason, to take back the blasphemy? Is the impious edict
irrepealable? Be it, that with legal forms it has stamped wives "wares."
Can no legislation blot out the brand? Must the handwriting of Deity on
human nature be expunged for ever? Has law no power to stay the erasing
pen, and tear off the scrawled label that covers up the IMAGE OF GOD?



II. THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN,
TILL RECENTLY, UNIVERSALLY CONCEDED.

1. IT HAS BEEN ASSUMED BY CONGRESS ITSELF. The following record stands
on the journals of the House of Representatives for 1804, p. 225: "On
motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following
resolution: 'Resolved, That from and after the 4th day of July, 1805,
all blacks and people of color that shall be born within the District of
Columbia, or whose mothers shall be the property of any person residing
within said District, shall be free, the males at the age of ----, and
the females at the age of ----. The main question being taken that the
house do agree to said motion as originally proposed, it was negatived
by a majority of 46.'" Though the motion was lost, it was on the ground
of its alleged _inexpediency_ alone. In the debate which preceded the
vote, the _power_ of Congress was conceded. In March, 1816, the House of
Representatives passed the following resolution:--"Resolved, That a
committee be appointed to inquire into the existence of an inhuman and
illegal traffic in slaves, carried on in and through the District of
Columbia, and to report whether any and what measures are necessary for
_putting a stop to the same_."

On the 9th of January, 1829, the House of Representatives passed the
following resolution by a vote of 114 to 66: "Resolved, That the
Committee on the District of Columbia, be instructed to inquire into the
_expediency_ of providing by _law_ for the gradual abolition of slavery
within the District, in such manner that the interests of no individual
shall be injured thereby." Among those who voted in the affirmative were
Messrs. Barney of Md., Armstrong of Va., A.H. Shepperd of N.C., Blair of
Tenn., Chilton and Lyon of Ky., Johns of Del., and others from slave
states.

2. IT HAS BEES CONCEDED BY COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS, OF THE DISTRICT of
COLUMBIA.--In a report of the committee on the District, Jan. 11, 1837,
by their chairman, Mr. Powell of Va., there is the following
declaration:--"The Congress of the United States, has by the
constitution exclusive jurisdiction over the District, and has power
upon this subject, (_slavery_,) as upon all other subjects of
legislation, to exercise _unlimited discretion_." Reps. of Comms. 2d
Sess. 19th Cong. v. iv. No. 43. In December, 1831, the committee on the
District, Dr. Doddridge of Va., Chairman, reported, "That until the
adjoining states act on the subject, (slavery) it would be (not
_unconstitutional_ but) unwise and impolitic, if not unjust, for
Congress to interfere." In April, 1836, a special committee on abolition
memorials reported the following resolutions by their Chairman, Mr.
Pinckney of South Carolina: "Resolved, That Congress possesses no
constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the institution of
slavery in any of the states of this confederacy."

"Resolved, That Congress _ought not to interfere_ in any way with
slavery in the District of Columbia." "Ought not to interfere,"
carefully avoiding the phraseology of the first resolution, and thus in
effect conceding the constitutional power. In a widely circulated
"Address to the electors of the Charleston District," Mr. Pinkney is
thus denounced by his own constituents: "He has proposed a resolution
which is received by the plain common sense of the whole country as a
concession that Congress has authority to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia."

3. IT HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY THE CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT. A petition for
the gradual abolition of slavery in the District, signed by nearly
eleven hundred of its citizens, was presented to Congress, March 24,
1827. Among the signers to this petition, were Chief Justice Cranch,
Judge Van Ness, Judge Morsel, Prof. J.M. Staughton, and a large number
of the most influential inhabitants of the District. Mr. Dickson, of New
York, asserted on the floor of Congress in 1835, that the signers of
this petition owned more than half of the property in the District. The
accuracy of this statement has never been questioned.

THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY GRAND JURIES OF THE DISTRICT. The Grand
jury of the county of Alexandria, at the March term, 1802, presented the
domestic slave trade as a grievance, and said, "We consider these
grievances demanding _legislative_ redress." Jan. 19, 1829, Mr.
Alexander, of Virginia, presented a representation of the grand jury in
the city of Washington, remonstrating against "any measure for the
abolition of slavery within said District, unless accompanied by
measures for the removal of the emancipated from the same;" thus, not
only conceding the power to emancipate slaves, but affirming an
additional power, that of _excluding them when free_. Journal H.R.
1828-9, p. 174.

4. THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY STATE LEGISLATURES. In 1828 the
Legislature of Pennsylvania instructed their Senators in Congress "to
procure, if practicable, the passage of a law to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia." Jan. 28, 1829, the House of Assembly of New-York
passed a resolution, that their "Senators in Congress be instructed to
make every possible exertion to effect the passage of a law for the
abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia." In February, 1837,
the Senate of Massachusetts "Resolved, That Congress having exclusive
legislation in the District of Columbia, possess the right to abolish
slavery and the slave trade therein." The House of Representatives
passed the following resolution at the same session: "Resolved, That
Congress having exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia,
possess the right to abolish slavery in said District."

November 1, 1837, the Legislature of Vermont, "Resolved, that Congress
have the full power by the constitution to abolish slavery and the slave
trade in the District of Columbia, and in the territories."

May 30, 1836, a committee of the Pennsylvania Legislature reported the
following resolution: "Resolved, That Congress does possess the
constitutional power, and it is expedient to abolish slavery and the
slave trade within the District of Columbia."

In January, 1836, the Legislature of South Carolina "Resolved, That we
should consider the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia as
a violation of the rights of the citizens of that District derived from
the _implied_ conditions on which that territory was ceded to the
General Government." Instead of denying the constitutional power, they
virtually admit its existence, by striving to smother it under an
_implication_. In February, 1836, the Legislature of North Carolina
"Resolved, That, although by the Constitution _all legislative power_
over the District of Columbia is vested in the Congress of the United
States, yet we would deprecate any legislative action on the part of
that body towards liberating the slaves of that District, as a breach of
faith towards those States by whom the territory was originally ceded.
Here is a full concession of the _power_. February 2, 1836, the Virginia
Legislature passed unanimously the following resolution: "Resolved, by
the General Assembly of Virginia, that the following article be proposed
to the several states of this Union, and to Congress, as an amendment of
the Constitution of the United States: "The powers of Congress shall not
be so construed as to authorize the passage of any law for the
emancipation of slaves in the District of Columbia, without the consent
of the individual proprietors thereof, unless by the sanction of the
Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland, and under such conditions as they
shall by law prescribe."

Fifty years after the formation of the United States' constitution the
states are solemnly called upon by the Virginia Legislature, to amend
that instrument by a clause asserting that, in the grant to Congress of
"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District, the
"case" of slavery is not included!! What could have dictated such a
resolution but the conviction that the power to abolish slavery is an
irresistible inference from the constitution _as it is_. The fact that
the same legislature passed afterward a resolution, though by no means
unanimously, that Congress does not possess the power, abates not a
tittle of the testimony in the first resolution. March 23d, 1824, "Mr.
Brown presented the resolutions of the General Assembly of Ohio,
recommending to Congress the consideration of a system for the gradual
emancipation of persons of color held in servitude in the United
States." On the same day, "Mr. Noble, of Indiana, communicated a
resolution from the legislature of that state, respecting the gradual
emancipation of slaves within the United States." Journal of the United
States Senate, for 1824-5, p. 231.

The Ohio and Indiana resolutions, by taking for granted the _general_
power of Congress over the subject of slavery, do virtually assert its
_special_ power within its _exclusive_ jurisdiction.

5. THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY BODIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SLAVE
STATES. The petition of eleven hundred citizens of the District, has
been already mentioned. "March 5, 1830, Mr. Washington presented a
memorial of inhabitants of the county of Frederick, in the state of
Maryland, praying that provision be made for the gradual abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia." Journal H.R. 1829-30, p. 358.

March 30, 1828. Mr. A.H. Shepperd, of North Carolina, presented a
memorial of citizens of that state, "praying Congress to take measures
for the entire abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia."
Journal H.R. 1829-30, p. 379.

January 14, 1822. Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, presented a memorial of
citizens of that state, praying "that provision may be made, whereby all
slaves which may hereafter be born in the District of Columbia, shall be
free at a certain period of their lives." Journal H.R. 1821-22, p. 142.

December 13, 1824. Mr. Saunders of North Carolina, presented a memorial
of citizens of that state, praying "that measures may be taken for the
gradual abolition of slavery in the United States." Journal H.R.
1824-25, p. 27.

December 16, 1828. "Mr. Barnard presented the memorial of the American
Convention for promoting the abolition of slavery, held in Baltimore,
praying that slavery may be abolished in the District of Columbia."
Journal U.S. Senate, 1828-29, p. 24.

6. DISTINGUISHED STATESMEN AND JURISTS IN THE SLAVEHOLDING STATES, HAVE
CONCEDED THIS POWER. The testimony of Messrs. Doddridge, and Powell, of
Virginia, Chief Justice Cranch, and Judges Morsel and Van Ness, of the
District, has already been given. In the debate in Congress on the
memorial of the Society of Friends, in 1790, Mr. Madison, in speaking of
the territories of the United States, explicitly declared, from his own
knowledge of the views of the members of the convention that framed the
constitution, as well as from the obvious import of its terms, that in
the territories, "Congress have certainly the power to regulate the
subject of slavery." Congress can have no more power over the
territories than that of "exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever," consequently, according to Mr. Madison, "it has certainly
the power to regulate the subject of slavery in the" _District_. In
March, 1816, Mr. Randolph of Va. introduced a resolution for putting a
stop to the domestic slave trade within the District. December 12, 1827,
Mr. Barney, of Md. presented a memorial for abolition in the District,
and moved that it be printed. Mr. McDuffie, of S.C., objected to the
printing, but "expressly admitted the right of Congress to grant to the
people of the District any measures which they might deem necessary to
free themselves from the deplorable evil."--[See letter of Mr. Claiborne
of Miss. to his constituents, published in the Washington Globe, May 9,
1836.] The sentiments of Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, on the subject are well
known. In a speech before the U.S. Senate, in 1836, he declared the
power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District "unquestionable."
Messrs. Blair, of Tenn., and Chilton, Lyon, and R.M. Johnson, of Ky.,
A.H. Shepperd, of N.C., Messrs. Armstrong and Smyth, of Va., Messrs.
Dorsey, Archer, and Barney, of Md., and Johns, of Del., with numerous
others from slave states, have asserted the power of Congress to abolish
slavery in the District. In the speech of Mr. Smyth, of Va., on the
Missouri question, January 28, 1820, he says on this point: "If the
future freedom of the blacks is your real object, and not a mere
pretence, why do you not begin _here_? Within the ten miles square, you
have _undoubted power_ to exercise exclusive legislation. _Produce a
bill to emancipate the slaves in the District of Columbia_, or, if you
prefer it, to emancipate those born hereafter."

To this may be added the testimony of the present Vice President of the
United States, Hon. Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky. In a speech before
the U.S. Senate, Feb. 1, 1820, (National Intelligencer, April 20, 1820)
he says: "In the District of Columbia, containing a population of 30,000
souls, and probably as many slaves as the whole territory of Missouri,
THE POWER OF PROVIDING FOR THEIR EMANCIPATION RESTS WITH CONGRESS ALONE.
Why, then, this heart-rending sympathy for the slaves of Missouri, and
this cold insensibility, this eternal apathy, towards the slaves in the
District of Columbia?"

It is quite unnecessary to add, that the most distinguished northern
statesmen of both political parties, have always affirmed the power of
Congress to abolish slavery in the District: President Van Buren in his
letter of March 6, 1836, to a committee of gentlemen in North Carolina,
says, "I would not, from the light now before me, feel myself safe in
pronouncing that Congress does not possess the power of abolishing
slavery in the District of Columbia." This declaration of the President
is consistent with his avowed sentiments touching the Missouri question,
on which he coincided with such men as Daniel D. Tompkins, De Witt
Clinton, and others, whose names are a host.[A] It is consistent, also,
with his recommendation in his late message, in which, speaking of the
District, he strongly urges upon Congress "a thorough and careful
revision of its local government," speaks of the "entire dependence" of
the people of the District "upon Congress," recommends that a "uniform
system of local government" be adopted, and adds, that "although it was
selected as the seat of the General Government, the site of its public
edifices, the depository of its archives, and the residence of officers
entrusted with large amounts of public property, and the management of
public business, yet it never has been subjected to, or received, that
_special_ and _comprehensive_ legislation which these circumstances
peculiarly demanded."

[Footnote A: Mr. Van Buren, when a member of the Senate of New-York,
voted for the following preamble and resolutions, which passed
unanimously:--Jan 28th, 1820. "Whereas the inhibiting the further
extension of slavery in the United States, is a subject of deep concern
to the people of this state: and whereas, we consider slavery as an evil
much to be deplored, and that _every constitutional barrier should be
interposed to prevent its further extension_: and that the constitution
of the United States _clearly gives congress the right_ to require new
states, not comprised within the original boundary of the United States,
to _make the prohibition of slavery_ a condition of their admission into
the Union: Therefore,

"Resolved, That our Senators be instructed, and our members of Congress
be requested, to oppose the admission as a state into the Union, of an
territory not comprised as aforesaid, without making _the prohibition of
slavery_ therein an indispensable condition of admission." ]

The tenor of Mr. Tallmadge's speech on the right of petition, and of Mr.
Webster's on the reception of abolition memorials, may be taken as
universal exponents of the sentiments of northern statesmen as to the
power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.

An explicit declaration, that an "_overwhelming majority_" of the
_present_ Congress concede the power to abolish slavery in the District,
has just been made by Hon. Robert Barnwell Rhett, a member of Congress
from South Carolina, in a letter published in the Charleston Mercury of
Dec. 27, 1837. The following is an extract:


    "The time has arrived when we must have new guaranties under the
    constitution, or the Union must be dissolved. _Our views of the
    constitution are not those of the majority_. AN OVERWHELMING
    MAJORITY _think that by the constitution, Congress may abolish
    slavery in the District of Columbia--may abolish the slave trade
    between the States; that is, it may prohibit their being carried
    out of the State in which they are--and prohibit it in all the
    territories, Florida among them. They think_, NOT WITHOUT STRONG
    REASONS, _that the power of Congress extends to all of these
    subjects_."


_Direct testimony_ to show that the power of Congress to abolish slavery
in the District, has always till recently been _universally conceded_,
is perhaps quite superfluous. We subjoin, however, the following:

The Vice-President of the United States in his speech on the Missouri
question, quoted above, after contending that the restriction of slavery
in Missouri would be unconstitutional, declares, that the power of
Congress over slavery in the District "COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED." In the
speech of Mr. Smyth, of Va., also quoted above, he declares the power of
Congress to abolish slavery in the District to be "UNDOUBTED."

Mr. Sutherland, of Penn., in a speech in the House of Representatives,
on the motion to print Mr. Pinckney's Report, is thus reported in the
Washington Globe, of May 9th, '36. "He replied to the remark that the
report conceded that Congress had a right to legislate upon the subject
in the District of Columbia, and said that SUCH A RIGHT HAD NEVER BEEN,
TILL RECENTLY, DENIED."

The American Quarterly Review, published at Philadelphia, with a large
circulation and list of contributors in the slave states, holds the
following language in the September No. 1833, p. 55: "Under this
'exclusive jurisdiction,' granted by the constitution, Congress has
power to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of
Columbia. It would hardly be necessary to state this as a distinct
proposition, had it not been occasionally questioned. The truth of the
assertion, however, is too obvious to admit of argument--and we believe
HAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY PERSONS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE
CONSTITUTION."



OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS CONSIDERED.

We now proceed to notice briefly the main arguments that have been
employed in Congress, and elsewhere against the power of Congress to
abolish slavery in the District. One of the most plausible is; that "the
conditions on which Maryland and Virginia ceded the District to the
United States, would be violated, if Congress should abolish slavery
there." The reply to this is, that Congress had no power to _accept_ a
cession coupled with conditions restricting that "power of exclusive
legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District," which was
given it by the constitution.

To show the futility of the objection, we insert here the acts of
cession. The cession of Maryland was made in November, 1788, and is as
follows: "An act to cede to Congress a district of ten miles square in
this state for the seat of the government of the United States."

"Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, that the
representatives of this state in the House of Representatives of the
Congress of the United States, appointed to assemble at New-York, on the
first Wednesday of March next, be, and they are hereby authorized and
required on the behalf of this state, to cede to the Congress of the
United States, any district in this state, not exceeding ten miles
square, which the Congress may fix upon, and accept for the seat of
government of the United States." Laws of Md., v. 2., c. 46.

The cession of Virginia was made on the 3d of December, 1788, in the
following words:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That a tract of country, not
exceeding ten miles square, or any lesser quantity, to be located within
the limits of the State, and in any part thereof, as Congress may, by
law, direct, shall be, and the same is hereby forever ceded and
relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, in
full and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil, as
of persons residing or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and
effect of the eighth section of the first article of the government of
the constitution of the United States."

But were there no provisos to these acts? The Maryland act had _none_.
The Virginia act had this proviso: "Sect. 2. Provided, that nothing
herein contained, shall be construed to vest in the United States any
right of property in the soil, or to affect the rights of individuals
_therein_, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred by such
individuals to the United States."

This specification touching the soil was merely definitive and
explanatory of that clause in the act of cession, "_full and absolute
right_." Instead of restraining the power of Congress on _slavery_ and
other subjects, it even gives it freer course; for exceptions to _parts_
of a rule, give double confirmation to those parts not embraced in the
exceptions. If it was the _design_ of the proviso to restrict
congressional action on the subject of _slavery_, why is the _soil
alone_ specified? As legal instruments are not paragons of economy in
words, might not "John Doe," out of his abundance, and without spoiling
his style, have afforded an additional word--at least a hint--that
slavery was _meant_, though nothing was _said_ about it?

But again, Maryland and Virginia, in their acts of cession, declare them
to be "in pursuance of" that clause of the constitution which gives to
Congress "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over" the ten
miles square--thus, instead of _restricting_ that clause, both States
_confirm_ it. Now, their acts of cession either accorded with that
clause of the constitution, or they conflicted with it. If they
conflicted with it, _accepting_ the cessions was a violation of the
constitution. The fact that Congress accepted the cessions, proves that
in its view their _terms_ did not conflict with its constitutional grant
of power. The inquiry whether these acts of cession were consistent or
inconsistent with the United States' constitution, is totally irrelevant
to the question at issue. What saith the CONSTITUTION? That is the
question. Not, what saith Virginia, or Maryland, or--equally to the
point--John Bull! If Maryland and Virginia had been the authorized
interpreters of the constitution for the Union, these acts of cession
could hardly have been magnified more than they have been recently by
the southern delegation in Congress. A true understanding of the
constitution can be had, forsooth, only by holding it up in the light of
Maryland and Virginia legislation!

We are told, again, that those States would not have ceded the District
if they had supposed the constitution gave Congress power to abolish
slavery in it.

This comes with an ill grace from Maryland and Virginia. They _knew_ the
constitution. They were parties to it. They had sifted it clause by
clause, in their State conventions. They had weighed its words in the
balance--they had tested them as by fire; and finally, after long
pondering, they _adopted_ the constitution. And _afterward_, self-moved,
they ceded the ten miles square, and declared the cession made "in
pursuance of" that oft-cited clause, "Congress shall have power to
exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such
District." And now verily "they would not have ceded if they had
_supposed_!" &c. Cede it they _did_, and in "full and absolute right
both of soil and persons." Congress accepted the cession--state power
over the District ceased, and congressional power over it commenced--and
now, the sole question to be settled is, _the amount of power over the
District, lodged in Congress by the constitution_. The constitution--THE
CONSTITUTION--that is the point. Maryland and Virginia "suppositions"
must be potent suppositions to abrogate a clause of the United States'
Constitution! That clause either gives Congress power to abolish slavery
in the District, or it does _not_--and that point is to be settled, not
by state "suppositions," nor state usages, nor state legislation, but
_by the terms of the clause themselves_.

Southern members of Congress, in the recent discussions, have conceded
the power of a contingent abolition in the District, by suspending it
upon the _consent_ of the people. Such a doctrine from _declaimers_ like
Messrs. Alford, of Georgia, and Walker, of Mississippi, would excite no
surprise; but that it should be honored with the endorsement of such men
as Mr. Rives and Mr. Calhoun, is quite unaccountable. Are attributes of
_sovereignty_ mere creatures of _contingency_? Is delegated _authority_
mere conditional _permission_? Is a _constitutional power_ to be
exercised by those who hold it, only by popular _sufferance?_ Must it
lie helpless at the pool of public sentiment, waiting the gracious
troubling of its waters? Is it a lifeless corpse, save only when popular
"consent" deigns to puff breath into its nostrils? Besides, if the
consent of the people of the District be necessary, the consent of the
_whole_ people must be had--not that of a majority, however large.
Majorities, to be authoritative, must be _legal_--and a legal majority
without legislative power, or right of representation, or even the
electoral franchise, would be truly an anomaly! In the District of
Columbia, such a thing as a majority in a legal sense is unknown to law.
To talk of the power of a majority, or the will of a majority there, is
mere mouthing. A majority? Then it has an authoritative will--and an
organ to make it known--and an executive to carry it into effect--Where
are they? We repeat it--if the consent of the people of the District be
necessary, the consent of _every one_ is necessary--and _universal_
consent will come only with the Greek Kalends and a "perpetual motion."
A single individual might thus _perpetuate_ slavery in defiance of the
expressed will of a whole people. The most common form of this fallacy
is given by Mr. Wise, of Virginia, in his speech, February 16, 1835, in
which he denied the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the
District, unless the inhabitants owning slaves petitioned for it!!
Southern members of Congress at the present session ring changes almost
daily upon the same fallacy. What! pray Congress _to use_ a power which
it _has not_? "It is required of a man according to what he _hath_,"
saith the Scripture. I commend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would
that he had got his _logic_ of him! If Congress does not possess the
power, why taunt it with its weakness, by asking its exercise? Why mock
it by demanding impossibilities? Petitioning, according to Mr. Wise, is,
in matters of legislation, omnipotence itself; the very _source_ of all
constitutional power; for, _asking_ Congress to do what it _cannot_ do,
gives it the power--to pray the exercise of a power that is _not,
creates_ it. A beautiful theory! Let us work it both ways. If to
petition for the exercise of a power that is _not_, creates it--to
petition against the exercise of a power that _is_, annihilates it. As
southern gentlemen are partial to summary processes, pray, sirs, try the
virtue of your own recipe on "exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever;" a better subject for experiment and test of the
prescription could not be had. But if the petitions of the citizens of
the District give Congress the _right_ to abolish slavery, they impose
the _duty_; if they confer constitutional _authority_, they create
constitutional _obligation_. If Congress _may_ abolish because of an
expression of their will, it _must_ abolish at the bidding of that will.
If the people of the District are a _source of power_ to Congress, their
_expressed_ will has the force of a constitutional provision, and has
the same binding power upon the National Legislature. To make Congress
dependent on the District for authority, is to make it a _subject_ of
its authority, restraining the exercise of its own discretion, and
sinking it into a mere organ of the District's will. We proceed to
another objection.

"_The southern states would not have ratified the constitution, if they
had supposed that it gave this power._" It is a sufficient answer to
this objection, that the northern states would not have ratified it, if
they had supposed that it _withheld_ the power. If "suppositions" are to
take the place of the constitution--coming from both sides, they
neutralize each other. To argue a constitutional question by _guessing_
at the "suppositions" that might have been made by the parties to it,
would find small favor in a court of law. But even a desperate shift is
some easement when sorely pushed. If this question is to be settled by
"suppositions" suppositions shall be forthcoming, and that without
stint.

First, then, I affirm that the North ratified the constitution,
"supposing" that slavery had begun to wax old, and would speedily vanish
away, and especially that the abolition of the slave trade, which by the
constitution was to be surrendered to Congress after twenty years, would
cast it headlong.

Would the North have adopted the constitution, giving three-fifths of
the "slave property" a representation, if it had "supposed" that the
slaves would have increased from half a million to two millions and a
half by 1838--and that the census of 1840 would give to the slave states
thirty representatives of "slave property?"

If they had "supposed" that this representation would have controlled
the legislation of the government, and carried against the North every
question vital to its interests, would Hamilton, Franklin, Sherman,
Gerry, Livingston, Langdon, and Rufus King have been such madmen, as to
sign the constitution, and the Northern States such suicides as to
ratify it? Every self-preserving instinct would have shrieked at such an
infatuate immolation. At the adoption of the United States constitution,
slavery was regarded as a fast waning system. This conviction was
universal. Washington, Jefferson, Henry, Grayson, Tucker, Madison,
Wythe, Pendleton, Lee, Blair, Mason, Page, Parker, Randolph, Iredell,
Spaight, Ramsey, Pinkney, Martin, McHenry, Chase, and nearly all the
illustrious names south of the Potomac, proclaimed it before the sun. A
reason urged in the convention that formed the United States
constitution, why the word slave should not be used in it, was, that
_when slavery should cease_, there might remain upon the National
Charter no record that it had ever been. (See speech of Mr. Burrill, of
R.I., on the Missouri question.)

I now proceed to show by testimony, that at the date of the United
States constitution, and for several years before and after that period,
slavery was rapidly on the wane; that the American Revolution with the
great events preceding, accompanying, and following it, had wrought an
immense and almost universal change in the public sentiment of the
nation on the subject, powerfully impelling it toward the entire
abolition of the system--and that it was the _general belief_ that
measures for its abolition throughout the Union, would be commenced by
the individual States generally before the lapse of many years. A great
mass of testimony establishing this position might be presented, but
narrow space, and the importance of speedy publication, counsel brevity.
Let the following proofs suffice. First, a few dates as points of
observation.

The first _general_ Congress met in 1774. The revolutionary war
commenced in '75. Independence was declared in '76. The articles of
confederation were adopted by the thirteen states in '78. Independence
acknowledged in '83. The convention for forming the U.S. constitution
was held in '87, the state conventions for considering it in '87, and
'88. The first Congress under the constitution in '89.

Dr. Rush, of Pennsylvania, one of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence, in a letter to Granville Sharpe, May 1, 1773, says "A
spirit of humanity and religion begins to awaken in several of the
colonies in favor of the poor negroes. Great events have been brought
about by small beginnings. _Anthony Benezet stood alone a few years ago
in opposing negro slavery in Philadelphia_, and NOW THREE-FOURTHS OF THE
PROVINCE AS WELL AS OF THE CITY CRY OUT AGAINST IT."--[Stuart's Life of
Sharpe, p. 21.]

In the preamble to the act prohibiting the importation of slaves into
Rhode Island, June, 1774, is the following: "Whereas the inhabitants of
America are generally engaged in the preservation of their own rights
and liberties, among which that of personal freedom must be considered
the greatest, and as those who are desirous of enjoying all the
advantages of liberty themselves, _should be willing to extend personal
liberty to others_, therefore," &c.

October 20, 1774, the Continental Congress passed the following: "We,
for ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom we
represent, _firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of virtue,
honor, and love of our country_, as follows:

"2d Article. We _will neither import nor purchase any slaves imported_
after the first day of December next, after which time we will _wholly
discontinue_ the slave trade, and we will neither be concerned in it
ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or
manufactures to those who are concerned in it."

The Continental Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and the
necessity for taking up arms, say: "_If it were possible_ for men who
exercise their reason to believe that the divine Author of our existence
intended a part of the human race to _hold an absolute property in, and
unbounded power over others_," &c.

In 1776, Dr. Hopkins, then at the head of New England divines, in "An
Address to the owners of negro slaves in the American colonies," says:
"The conviction of the unjustifiableness of this practice (slavery) has
been _increasing_, and _greatly spreading of late_, and _many_ who have
had slaves, have found themselves so unable to justify their own conduct
in holding them in bondage, as to be induced to _set them at liberty_. *
*     *     *     Slavery is, _in every instance_, wrong, unrighteous,
and oppressive--a very great and crying sin--_there being nothing of the
kind equal to it on the face of the earth._"

The same year the American Congress issued a solemn MANIFESTO to the
world. These were its first words: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, 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." _Once_, these were words
of power; _now_, "a rhetorical flourish."

The celebrated Patrick Henry of Virginia, in a letter, of Jan. 18, 1773,
to Robert Pleasants, afterwards president of the Virginia Abolition
Society, says: "Believe me, I shall honor the Quakers for their noble
efforts to abolish slavery. It is a debt we owe to the purity of our
religion to show that it is at variance with that law that warrants
slavery. I exhort you to persevere in so worthy a resolution."

In 1779, the Continental Congress ordered a pamphlet to be published,
entitled, "Observations on the American Revolution," from which the
following is an extract: "The great principle (of government) is and
ever will remain in force, _that men are by nature free_; and so long as
we have any idea of divine _justice_, we must associate that of _human
freedom_. It is _conceded on all hands, that the right to be free_ CAN
NEVER BE ALIENATED."

Extract from the Pennsylvania act for the abolition of slavery, passed
March 1, 1780: *     *  "We conceive that it is our duty, and we rejoice
that it is in our power, to extend a portion of that freedom to others
which has been extended to us. Weaned by a long course of experience
from those narrow prejudices and partialities we had imbibed, we find
our hearts enlarged with kindness and benevolence towards men of all
conditions and nations: *     *     * Therefore be it enacted, that no
child born hereafter be a slave," &c.

Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, written just before the close of
the Revolutionary War, says: "I think a change already perceptible since
the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is
abating, that of the slave is rising from the dust, his condition
mollifying, _the way I hope preparing under the auspices of heaven_, FOR
A TOTAL EMANCIPATION."

In a letter to Dr. Price, of London, who had just published a pamphlet
in favor of the abolition of slavery, Mr. Jefferson, then minister at
Paris, (August 7, 1785,) says: "From the mouth to the head of the
Chesapeake, _the bulk of the people will approve of your pamphlet in
theory_, and it will find a respectable minority ready to _adopt it in
practice_--a minority which, for weight and worth of character,
_preponderates against the greater number_." Speaking of Virginia, he
says: "This is the next state to which we may turn our eyes for the
interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with avarice and
oppression,--a conflict in which THE SACRED SIDE IS GAINING DAILY
RECRUITS. Be not, therefore, discouraged--what you have written will do
a _great deal of good_; and could you still trouble yourself with our
welfare, no man is more able to give aid to the laboring side. The
College of William and Mary, since the remodelling of its plan, is the
place where are collected together all the young men of Virginia, under
preparation for public life. They are there under the direction (most of
them) of a Mr. Wythe, one of the most virtuous of characters, and _whose
sentiments on the subject of slavery are unequivocal._ I am satisfied,
if you could resolve to address an exhortation to those young men with
all that eloquence of which you are master, that _its influence on the
future decision of this important question would be great, perhaps
decisive._ Thus, you see, that so far from thinking you have cause to
repent of what you have done, _I wish you to do more, and wish it on an
assurance of its effect._"--Jefferson's Posthumous Works, vol. 1, p.
268.

In 1786, John Jay drafted and signed a petition to the Legislature of
New York, on the subject of slavery, beginning with these words: "Your
memorialists being deeply affected by the situation of those, who,
although FREE BY THE LAW OF GOD, are held in slavery by the laws of the
State," &c. This memorial bore also the signatures of the celebrated
Alexander Hamilton; Robert R. Livingston, afterward Secretary of Foreign
Affairs of the United States, and Chancellor of the State of New-York;
James Duane, Major of the City of New-York, and many others of the most
eminent individuals in the State.

In the preamble of an instrument, by which Mr. Jay emancipated a slave
in 1784, is the following passage:

"Whereas, the children of men are by nature equally free, and cannot,
without injustice, be either reduced to or HELD in slavery."

In his letter while Minister at Spain, in 1786, he says, speaking of the
abolition of slavery: "Till America comes into this measure, her prayers
to heaven will be IMPIOUS. I believe God governs the world; and I
believe it to be a maxim in his, as in our court, that those who ask for
equity _ought to do it._"

In 1785, the New-York Manumission Society was formed. John Jay was
chosen its first President, and held the office for five years.
Alexander Hamilton was its second President, and after holding the
office one year, resigned upon his removal to Philadelphia as Secretary
of the United States' Treasury. In 1787, the Pennsylvania Abolition
Society was formed. Benjamin Franklin, warm from the discussions of the
convention that formed the U.S. constitution, was chosen President, and
Benjamin Rush, Secretary--both signers of the Declaration of
Independence. In 1789, the Maryland Abolition Society was formed. Among
its officers were Samuel Chace, Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, and
Luther Martin, a member of the convention that formed the U.S.
constitution. In 1790, the Connecticut Abolition Society was formed. The
first President was Rev. Dr. Stiles, President of Yale College, and the
Secretary, Simeon Baldwin, (the late Judge Baldwin of New Haven.) In
1791, this Society sent a memorial to Congress, from which the following
is an extract:


    "From a sober conviction of the unrighteousness of slavery, your
    petitioners have long beheld, with grief, our fellow men doomed
    to perpetual bondage, in a country which boasts of her freedom.
    Your petitioners are fully of opinion; that calm reflection will
    at last convince the world, that the whole system of African
    slavery IS unjust in its nature--impolitic in its
    principles--and, in its consequences, ruinous to the industry
    and enterprise of the citizens of these States. From a
    conviction of those truths, your petitioners were led, by
    motives, we conceive, of general philanthropy, to associate
    ourselves for the protection and assistance of this unfortunate
    part of our fellow men; and, though this Society has been
    _lately_ established, it has now become _generally extensive_
    through this state, and, we fully believe, _embraces, on this
    subject, the sentiments of a large majority of its citizens._"


The same year the Virginia Abolition Society was formed. This Society,
and the Maryland Society, had auxiliaries in different parts of those
States. Both societies sent up memorials to Congress. The memorial of
the Virginia Society is headed--"The memorial of the _Virginia Society_,
for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, &c." The following is an
extract:


    "Your memorialists, fully believing that slavery is not only an
    odious degradation, but an _outrageous violation of one of the
    most essential rights of human nature, and utterly repugnant to
    the precepts of the gospel_, lament that a practice so
    inconsistent with true policy and the inalienable rights of men,
    should subsist in so enlightened an age, and among a people
    professing, that all mankind are, by nature, equally entitled to
    freedom."


About the same time a Society was formed in New Jersey. It had an acting
committee of five members in each county in the State. The following is
an extract from the preamble to its constitution:


    "It is our boast, that we live under a government wherein
    _life_, _liberty_, and the _pursuit of happiness_, are
    recognized as the universal rights of men; and whilst we are
    anxious to preserve these rights to ourselves, and transmit them
    inviolate, to our posterity, we _abhor that inconsistent,
    illiberal, and interested policy, which withholds those rights
    from an unfortunate and degraded class of our fellow
    creatures._"


Among other distinguished individuals who were efficient officers of
these Abolition Societies, and delegates from their respective state
societies, at the annual meetings of the American convention for
promoting the abolition of slavery, were Hon. Uriah Tracy, United
States' Senator, from Connecticut; Hon. Zephaniah Swift, Chief Justice
of the same State; Hon. Cesar A. Rodney, Attorney General of the United
States; Hon. James A. Bayard, United States' Senator, from Delaware;
Governor Bloomfield, of New-Jersey; Hon. Wm. Rawle, the late venerable
head of the Philadelphia bar; Dr. Caspar Wistar, of Philadelphia;
Messrs. Foster and Tillinghast, of Rhode Island; Messrs. Ridgely,
Buchanan, and Wilkinson, of Maryland; and Messrs. Pleasants, McLean, and
Anthony, of Virginia.

In July, 1787, the old Congress passed the celebrated ordinance
abolishing slavery in the northwestern territory, and declaring that it
should never thereafter exist there. This ordinance was passed while the
convention that formed the United States' constitution was in session.
At the first session of Congress under the constitution, this ordinance
was ratified by a special act. Washington, fresh from the discussions of
the convention, in which _more than forty days had been spent in
adjusting the question of slavery, gave it his approval._ The act passed
with only one dissenting voice, (that of Mr. Yates, of New York,) _the
South equally with the North avowing the fitness and expediency of the
measure on general considerations, and indicating thus early the line of
national policy, to be pursued by the United States' Government on the
subject of slavery_.

In the debates in the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, afterward
a Judge of the United States' Supreme Court, said, "_When the entire
abolition of slavery takes place_, it will be an event which must be
pleasing to every generous mind and every friend of human nature." Mr.
Galloway said, "I wish to see this abominable trade put an end to. I
apprehend the clause (touching the slave trade) means _to bring forward
manumission_." Luther Martin, of Maryland, a member of the convention
that formed the United States Constitution, said, "We ought to authorize
the General Government to make such regulations as shall be thought most
advantageous for _the gradual abolition of slavery_, and the
_emancipation of the slaves_ which are already in the States." Judge
Wilson, of Pennsylvania, one of the framers of the constitution, said,
in the Pennsylvania convention of '87, [Deb. Pa. Con. p. 303, 156:] "I
consider this (the clause relative to the slave trade) as laying the
foundation for _banishing slavery out of this country_. It will produce
the same kind of gradual change which was produced in Pennsylvania; the
new states which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress
in this particular, and _slaves will never be introduced_ among them. It
presents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights of mankind will
be acknowledged and established _throughout the Union_. Yet the lapse of
a few years, and Congress will have power to _exterminate slavery_
within our borders." In the Virginia convention of '87, Mr. Mason,
author of the Virginia constitution, said, "The augmentation of slaves
weakens the States, and such a trade is _diabolical_ in itself, and
disgraceful to mankind. As much as I value a union of all the states, I
would not admit the southern states, (i.e., South Carolina and Georgia,)
into the union, _unless they agree to a discontinuance of this
disgraceful trade_." Mr. Tyler opposed with great power the clause
prohibiting the abolition of the slave trade till 1808, and said, "My
earnest desire is, that it shall be handed down to posterity that I
oppose this wicked clause." Mr. Johnson said, "The principle of
emancipation _has begun since the revolution. Let us do what we will, it
will come round_."--[Deb. Va. Con. p. 463.] Patrick Henry, arguing the
power of Congress under the United States' constitution to abolish
slavery in the States, said, in the same convention, "Another thing will
contribute to bring this event (the abolition of slavery) about. Slavery
is _detested_. We feel its fatal effects; we deplore it with all the
pity of humanity."--[Deb. Va. Con. p. 431.] In the Mass. Con. of '88,
Judge Dawes said, "Although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet
_it has received a mortal wound_, and will die of consumption."--[Deb.
Mass. Con. p. 60.] General Heath said that, "Slavery was confined to the
States _now existing_, it _could not be extended_. By their ordinance,
Congress had declared that the new States should be republican States,
_and have no slavery_."--p. 147.

In the debate, in the first Congress, February 11th and 12th, 1789, on
the petitions of the Society of Friends, and the Pennsylvania Abolition
Society, Mr. Parker, of Virginia, said, "I cannot help expressing the
pleasure I feel in finding _so considerable a part_ of the community
attending to matters of such a momentous concern to the _future
prosperity_ and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty,
as a citizen of the Union, _to espouse their cause_."

Mr. Page, of Virginia, (afterward Governor)--"Was _in favor_ of the
commitment; he hoped that the designs of the respectable memorialists
would not be stopped at the threshold, in order to preclude a fair
discussion of the prayer of the memorial. With respect to the alarm that
was apprehended, he conjectured there was none; but there might be just
cause, if the memorial was _not_ taken into consideration. He placed
himself in the case of a slave, and said, that on hearing that Congress
had refused to listen to the decent suggestions of a respectable part of
the community, he should infer, that the general government, _from which
was expected great good would result to_ EVERY CLASS _of citizens_, had
shut their ears against the voice of humanity, and he should despair of
any alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in prospect; if
any thing could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke like this,
impressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. But if he was told,
that application was made in his behalf, and that Congress were willing
to hear what could be urged in favor of discouraging the practice of
importing his fellow-wretches, he would trust in their justice and
humanity, and _wait the decision patiently_."

Mr. Scott of Pennsylvania: "I cannot, for my part, conceive how any
person _can be said to acquire a property in another_. Let us argue on
principles countenanced by reason, and becoming humanity. _I do not know
how far I might go, if I was one of the judges of the United States, and
those people were to came before me and claim their emancipation, but I
am sure I would go as far as I could_."

Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, said, "He _saw the disposition of the
House_, and he feared it would he referred to a committee, maugre all
their opposition."

Mr. Smith of South Carolina, said, "That on entering into this
government, they (South Carolina and Georgia) apprehended that the other
states,  *     *     _would, from motives of humanity and benevolence,
be led to vote for a general emancipation_."

In the debate, at the same session, May 13th, 1789, on the petition of
the Society of Friends respecting the slave trade, Mr. Parker, of
Virginia, said, "He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their power
_to restore to human nature its inherent privileges_. The inconsistency
in our principles, with which we are justly charged _should be done
away_."

Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, said, "IT WAS THE FASHION OF THE DAY TO FAVOR
THE LIBERTY OF THE SLAVES.     *     *     *     *      Will Virginia
set her negroes free? _When this practice comes to be tried, then the
sound of liberty will lose those charms which make it grateful to the
ravished ear_."

Mr. Madison, of Virginia,--"The dictates of humanity, the principles of
the people, the national safety and happiness, and prudent policy,
require it of us.     *     *     *     *     I conceive the
constitution in this particular was formed in order that the Government,
whilst it was restrained from laying a total prohibition, might be able
to _give some testimony of the sense of America_, with respect to the
African trade.     *     *     *     *     It is to be hoped, that by
expressing a national disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it,
and save ourselves from reproaches, AND OUR POSTERITY THE IMBECILITY
EVER ATTENDANT ON A COUNTRY FILLED WITH SLAVES. If there is any one
point in which it is clearly the policy of this nation, so far as we
constitutionally can, _to vary the practice_ obtaining under some of the
state governments, it is this. But it is _certain_ a majority of the
states are _opposed to this practice_."--Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12.

A writer in the "Gazette of the United States," Feb. 20th, 1790, (then
the government paper,) who opposes the abolition of slavery, and avows
himself a _slaveholder_, says, "I have seen in the papers accounts of
_large associations_, and applications to Government for _the abolition
of slavery_. Religion, humanity, and the generosity natural to a free
people, are the _noble principles which dictate those measures_. SUCH
MOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY EULOGIUM WORDS CAN BESTOW."

In the convention that formed the constitution of Kentucky in 1790, the
effort to prohibit slavery was nearly successful. A decided majority of
that body would undoubtedly have voted for its exclusion, but for the
great efforts and influence of two large slaveholders--men of commanding
talents and sway--Messrs. Breckenridge and Nicholas. The following
extract from a speech made in that convention by a member of it, Mr.
Rice a native Virginian, is a specimen of the _free discussion_ that
prevailed on that "delicate subject." Said Mr. Rice: "I do a man greater
injury, when I deprive him of his liberty, than when I deprive him of
his property. It is vain for me to plead that I have the sanction of
law; for this makes the injury the greater--it arms the community
against him, and makes his case desperate. The owners of such slaves
then are _licensed robbers_, and not the just proprietors of what they
claim. Freeing them is not depriving them of property, but _restoring it
to the right owner_. In America, a slave is a standing monument of the
tyranny and inconsistency of human governments. The master is the enemy
of the slave; he _has made open war upon him_, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT
ON in unremitted efforts. Can any one imagine, then, that the slave is
indebted to his master, and _bound to serve him_? Whence can the
obligation arise? What is it founded upon? What is my duty to an enemy
that is carrying on war against me? I do not deny, but in some
circumstances, it is the duty of the slave to serve; but it is a duty he
owes himself, and not his master."

President Edwards, the younger, said, in a sermon preached before the
Connecticut Abolition Society, Sept. 15, 1791: "Thirty years ago,
scarcely a man in this country thought either the slave trade or the
slavery of negroes to be wrong; but now how many and able advocates in
private life, in our legislatures, in Congress, have appeared, and have
openly and irrefragably pleaded the rights of humanity in this as well
as other instances? And if we judge of the future by the past, _within
fifty years from this time, it will be as shameful for a man to hold a
negro slave, as to be guilty of common robbery or theft_."

In 1794, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted its
"Scripture proofs," notes, comments, &c. Among these was the following:


    "1 Tim. i. 10. The law is made for manstealers. This crime among
    the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment.
    Exodus xxi. 16. And the apostle here classes them with _sinners
    of the first rank_. The word he uses, in its original import
    comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human
    race into slavery, or in _retaining_ them in it. _Stealers of
    men_ are all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and _keep_,
    sell, or buy them."


In 1794, Dr. Rush declared: "Domestic slavery is repugnant to the
principles of Christianity. It prostrates every benevolent and just
principle of action in the human heart. It is rebellion against the
authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and
efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the
prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe, who has solemnly
claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."

In 1790, Mr. Fiske, then an officer of Dartmouth College, afterward a
Judge in Tennessee, said, in an oration published that year, speaking of
slaves: "I steadfastly maintain, that we must bring them to _an equal
standing, in point of privileges, with the whites_! They must enjoy all
the rights belonging to human nature."

When the petition on the abolition of the slave trade was under
discussion in the Congress of '89, Mr. Brown, of North Carolina, said,
"The emancipation of the slaves _will be effected_ in time; it ought to
be a gradual business, but he hoped that Congress would not
_precipitate_ it to the great injury of the southern States." Mr.
Hartley, of Pennsylvania, said, in the same debate, "_He was not a
little surprised to hear the cause of slavery advocated in that house._"
WASHINGTON, in a letter to Sir John Sinclair, says, "There are, in
Pennsylvania, laws for the gradual abolition of slavery which neither
Maryland nor Virginia have at present, but which _nothing is more
certain_ than that they _must have_, and at a period NOT REMOTE." In
1782, Virginia passed her celebrated manumission act. Within nine years
from that time nearly eleven thousand slaves were voluntarily
emancipated by their masters. Judge Tucker's "Dissertation on Slavery,"
p. 72. In 1787, Maryland passed an act legalizing manumission. Mr.
Dorsey, of Maryland, in a speech in Congress, December 27th, 1826,
speaking of manumissions under that act, said, that "_The progress of
emancipation was astonishing_, the State became crowded with a free
black population."

The celebrated William Pinkney, in a speech before the Maryland House of
Delegates, in 1789, on the emancipation of slaves, said, "Sir, by the
eternal principles of natural justice, _no master in the state has a
right to hold his slave in bondage for a single hour_.... I would as
soon believe the incoherent tale of a schoolboy, who should tell me he
had been frightened by a ghost, as that the grant of this permission (to
emancipate) ought in any degree to alarm us. Are we apprehensive that
these men will become more dangerous by becoming freemen? Are we
alarmed, lest by being admitted into the enjoyment of civil rights, they
will be inspired with a deadly enmity against the rights of others?
Strange, unaccountable paradox! How much more rational would it be, to
argue that the natural enemy of the privileges of a freeman, is he who
is robbed of them himself! Dishonorable to the species is the idea that
they would ever prove injurious to our interests--released from the
shackles of slavery, by the justice of government and the bounty of
individuals--the want of fidelity and attachment would be next to
impossible."

Hon. James Campbell, in an address before the Pennsylvania Society of
the Cincinnati, July 4, 1787, said, "Our separation from Great Britain
has extended the empire of humanity. The time _is not far distant_ when
our sister states, in imitation of our example, _shall turn their
vassals into freemen_." The Convention that formed the United States'
Constitution being then in session, attended at the delivery of this
oration with General Washington at their head.

A Baltimore paper of September 8th, 1780, contains the following notice
of Major General Gates: "A few days ago passed through this town the
Hon. General Gates and lady. The General, previous to leaving Virginia,
summoned his numerous family of slaves about him, and amidst their tears
of affection and gratitude, gave them their FREEDOM."

In 1791 the university of William and Mary, in Virginia, conferred upon
Granville Sharpe the degree of Doctor of Laws. Sharpe was at that time
the acknowledged head of British abolitionists. His indefatigable
exertions, prosecuted for years in the case of Somerset, procured that
memorable decision in the Court of King's Bench, which settled the
principle that no slave could be held in England. He was most
uncompromising in his opposition to slavery, and for twenty years
previous he had spoken, written, and accomplished more against it than
any man living.

In the "Memoirs of the Revolutionary War in the Southern Department," by
Gen. Lee, of Va., Commandant of the Partizan Legion, is the following:
"The Constitution of the United States, adopted lately with so much
difficulty, has effectually provided against this evil, (by importation)
after a few years. It is much to be lamented that having done so much in
this way, _a provision had not been made for the gradual abolition of
slavery_."--p. 233, 4.

Mr. Tucker, of Virginia, Judge of the Supreme Court of that state, and
professor of law in the University of William and Mary, addressed a
letter to the General Assembly of that state, in 1796, urging the
abolition of slavery; from which the following is an extract. Speaking
of the slaves in Virginia, he says: "Should we not, at the time of the
revolution, have loosed their chains and broken their fetters; or if the
difficulties and dangers of such an experiment prohibited the attempt,
during the convulsions of a revolution, is it not our duty, _to embrace
the first moment_ of constitutional health and vigor to effectuate so
desirable an object, and to remove from us a stigma with which our
enemies will never fail to upbraid us, nor our consciences to reproach
us?"

Mr. Faulkner, in a speech before the Virginia Legislature, Jan. 20,
1832, said--"The idea of a gradual emancipation and removal of the
slaves from this commonwealth, is coeval with the declaration of our
independence from the British yoke. It sprung into existence during the
first session of the General Assembly, subsequent to the formation of
your republican government. When Virginia stood sustained in her
legislation by the pure and philosophic intellect of Pendleton--by the
patriotism of Mason and Lee--by the searching vigor and sagacity of
Wythe, and by the all-embracing, all-comprehensive genius of Thomas
Jefferson! Sir, it was a committee composed of those five illustrious
men, who, in 1777, submitted to the general assembly of this state, then
in session, _a plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves of this
commonwealth_."

Hon. Benjamin Watkins Leigh, late United States' senator from Virginia,
in his letters to the people of Virginia, in 1832, signed Appomattox, p.
43, says: "I thought, till very lately, that it was known to every body
that during the Revolution, _and for many years after, the abolition of
slavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest statesmen_, who
entertained, with respect, all the schemes which wisdom or ingenuity
could suggest for accomplishing the object. Mr. Wythe, to the day of his
death, _was for a simple abolition, considering the objection to color
as founded in prejudice_. By degrees, all projects of the kind were
abandoned. Mr. Jefferson _retained_ his opinion, and now we have these
projects revived."

Governor Barbour, of Virginia, in his speech in the U.S. Senate, on the
Missouri question, Jan. 1820, said:--"We are asked why has Virginia
_changed her policy_ in reference to slavery? That the sentiments of
_our most distinguished men_, for thirty years _entirely corresponded_
with the course which the friends of the restriction (of slavery in
Missouri) now advocated; and that the Virginia delegation, one of whom
was the late President of the United States, voted for the restriction,
(of slavery) in the northwestern territory, and that Mr. Jefferson has
delineated a gloomy picture of the baneful effects of slavery. When it
is recollected that the Notes of Mr. Jefferson were written during the
progress of the revolution, it is no matter of surprise that the writer
should have imbibed a large portion of that enthusiasm which such an
occasion was so well calculated to produce. As to the consent of the
Virginia delegation to the restriction in question, whether the result
of a disposition to restrain the slave trade indirectly, or the
influence of that enthusiasm to which I have just alluded,     *     *
*     * it is not now important to decide. We have witnessed its
effects. The liberality of Virginia, or, as the result may prove, her
folly, which submitted to, or, if you will, PROPOSED _this measure_,
(abolition of slavery in the N.W. territory) has eventuated in effects
which speak a monitory lesson. _How is the representation from this
quarter on the present question?_"

Mr. Imlay, in his early history of Kentucky, p. 185, says: "We have
disgraced the fair face of humanity, and trampled upon the sacred
privileges of man, at the very moment that we were exclaiming against
the tyranny of your (the English) ministry. But in contending for the
birthright of freedom, we have learned to feel _for the bondage of
others_, and in the libations we offer to the goddess of liberty, we
_contemplate an emancipation of the slaves of this country_, as
honorable to themselves as it will be glorious to us."

In the debate in Congress, Jan, 20, 1806, on Mr. Sloan's motion to lay a
tax on the importation of slaves, Mr. Clark of Va. said: "He was no
advocate for a system of slavery." Mr. Marion, of S. Carolina, said: "He
never had purchased, nor should he ever purchase a slave." Mr. Southard
said: "Not revenue, but an expression of the _national sentiment_ is the
principal object." Mr. Smilie--"I rejoice that the word (slave) is not
in the constitution; its not being there does honor to the worthies who
would not suffer it to become a _part_ of it." Mr. Alston, of N.
Carolina--"In two years we shall have the power to prohibit the trade
altogether. Then this House will be UNANIMOUS. No one will object to our
exercising our full constitutional powers." National Intelligencer, Jan.
24, 1806.

These witnesses need no vouchers to entitle them to credit; nor their
testimony comments to make it intelligible--their _names_ are their
_endorsers_ and their strong words their own interpreters. We wave all
comments. Our readers are of age. Whosoever hath ears to _hear_, let him
HEAR. And whosoever will not hear the fathers of the revolution, the
founders of the government, its chief magistrates, judges, legislators
and sages, who dared and periled all under the burdens, and in the heat
of the day that tried men's souls--then "neither will he be persuaded
though THEY rose from the dead."

Some of the points established by the testimony are--The universal
expectation that the _moral_ influence of Congress, of state
legislatures, of seminaries of learning, of churches, of the ministers
of religion, and of public sentiment widely embodied in abolition
societies, would be exerted against slavery, calling forth by argument
and appeal the moral sense of the nation, and creating a power of
opinion that would abolish the system throughout the union. In a word,
that free speech and a free press would be wielded against slavery
without ceasing and without restriction. Full well did the south know,
not only that the national government would probably legislate against
slavery wherever the constitution placed it within its reach, but she
knew also that Congress had already marked out the line of national
policy to be pursued on the subject--had committed itself before the
world to a course of action against slavery, wherever she could move
upon it without encountering a conflicting jurisdiction--that the nation
had established by solemn ordinance memorable precedent for subsequent
action, by abolishing slavery in the northwest territory, and by
declaring that it should never thenceforward exist there; and this too,
as soon as by cession of Virginia and other states, the territory came
under Congressional control. The south knew also that the sixth article
in the ordinance prohibiting slavery was first proposed by the largest
slaveholding state in the confederacy--that the chairman of the
committee that reported the ordinance was a slaveholder--that the
ordinance was enacted by Congress during the session of the convention
that formed the United States Constitution--that the provisions of the
ordinance were, both while in prospect, and when under discussion,
matters of universal notoriety and _approval_ with all parties, and when
finally passed, received the vote _of every member of Congress from each
of the slaveholding states_. The south also had every reason for
believing that the first Congress under the constitution would _ratify_
that ordinance--as it _did_ unanimously.

A crowd of reflections, suggested by the preceding testimony, press for
utterance. The right of petition ravished and trampled by its
constitutional guardians, and insult and defiance hurled in the faces of
the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE while calmly remonstrating _with their_ SERVANTS
for violence committed on the nation's charter and their own dearest
rights! Add to this "the right of peaceably assembling" violently
wrested--the rights of minorities, _rights_ no longer--free speech
struck dumb--free _men_ outlawed and murdered--free presses cast into
the streets and their fragments strewed with shoutings, or flourished in
triumph before the gaze of approving crowds as proud members of
prostrate law!

The spirit and power of our fathers, where are they? Their deep homage
always and every where rendered to FREE THOUGHT, with its _inseparable
signs--free speech and a free press_--their reverence for justice,
liberty, _rights_ and all-pervading law, where are they?

But we turn from these considerations--though the times on which we have
fallen, and those towards which we are borne with headlong haste, call
for their discussion as with the voices of departing life--and proceed
to topics relevant to the argument before us.

The seventh article of the amendments to the constitution is alleged to
withhold from Congress the power to abolish slavery in the District. "No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law." All the slaves in the District have been "deprived of
liberty" by legislative acts. Now, these legislative acts "depriving"
them "of liberty," were either "due process of law," or they were _not_.
If they _were_, then a legislative act, taking from the master that
"property" which is the identical "liberty" previously taken from the
slave, would be "due process of law" _also_, and of course a
_constitutional_ act; but if the legislative acts "depriving" them of
"liberty" were _not_ "due process of law," then the slaves were deprived
of liberty _unconstitutionally_, and these acts are _void_. In that case
the _constitution emancipates them_.

If the objector reply, by saying that the import of the phrase "due
process of law," is _judicial_ process solely, it is granted, and that
fact is our rejoinder; for no slave in the District _has_ been deprived
of his liberty by "a judicial process," or, in other words, by "due
process of law;" consequently, upon the objector's own admission, every
slave in the District has been deprived of liberty _unconstitutionally_,
and is therefore _free by the constitution_. This is asserted only of
the slaves under the "exclusive legislation" of Congress.

The last clause of the article under consideration is quoted for the
same purpose: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use
without just compensation." Each of the state constitutions has a clause
of similar purport. The abolition of slavery in the District by
Congress, would not, as we shall presently show, violate this clause
either directly or by implication. Granting for argument's sake, that
slaves are "private property," and that to emancipate them, would be to
"take private property" for "public use," the objector admits the power
of Congress to do _this_, provided it will do something _else_, that is,
_pay_ for them. Thus, instead of denying the _power_, the objector not
only admits, but _affirms_ it, as the ground of the inference that
compensation must accompany it. So far from disproving the existence of
_one_ power, the objector asserts the existence of _two_--one, the power
to take the slaves from their masters, the other, the power to take the
property of the United States to pay for them.

If Congress cannot constitutionally impair the right of private
property, or take it without compensation, it cannot constitutionally,
_legalise_ the perpetration of such acts, by _others_, nor _protect_
those who commit them. Does the power to rob a man of his earnings, rob
the earner of his right to them? Who has a better right to the _product_
than the producer?--to the _interest_, than the owner of the
_principal_?--to the hands and arms, than he from whose shoulders they
swing?--to the body and soul, than he whose they _are_? Congress not
only impairs but annihilates the right of private property, while it
withholds from the slaves of the District their title to _themselves_.
What! Congress powerless to protect a man's right to _himself_, when it
can make inviolable the right to a _dog_! But, waving this, I deny that
the abolition of slavery in the District would violate this clause. What
does the clause prohibit? The "taking" of "private property" for "public
use." Suppose Congress should emancipate the slaves in the District,
what would it "_take_?" Nothing. What would it _hold_? Nothing. What
would it put to "public use?" Nothing. Instead of _taking_ "private
property," Congress, by abolishing slavery, would say "_private
property_ shall not _be_ taken; and those who have been robbed of it
already, shall be kept out of it no longer; and since every man's right
to his own body is _paramount_, he shall be protected in it." True,
Congress may not arbitrarily take property, _as_ property, from one man
and give it to another--and in the abolition of slavery no such thing is
done. A legislative act changes the _condition_ of the slave--makes him
his own _proprietor_ instead of the property of another. It determines a
question of _original right_ between two classes of persons--doing an
act of justice to one, and restraining the other from acts of injustice;
or, in other words, preventing one from robbing the other, by granting
to the injured party the protection of just and equitable laws.

Congress, by an act of abolition, would change the condition of seven
thousand "persons" in the District, but would "take" nothing. To
construe this provision so as to enable the citizens of the District to
hold as property, and in perpetuity, whatever they please, or to hold it
as property in all circumstances--all necessity, public welfare, and the
will and power of the government to the contrary notwithstanding--is a
total perversion of its whole _intent_. The _design_ of the provision,
was to throw up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right
to "take property" for _State uses_ is one thing;--the right so to
adjust the _tenures_ by which property is held, that _each may have his
own secured to him_, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of
legislation. Besides, if Congress were to "take" the slaves in the
District, it would be _adopting_, not abolishing slavery--becoming a
slaveholder itself, instead of requiring others to be such no longer.
The clause in question, prohibits the "taking" of individual property
for public uses, to be employed or disposed of as property for
governmental purposes. Congress, by abolishing slavery in the District,
would do no such thing. It would merely change the _condition_ of that
which has been recognised as a qualified property by congressional acts,
though previously declared "persons" by the constitution. More than this
is done continually by Congress and every other Legislature. Property
the most absolute and unqualified, is annihilated by legislative acts.
The embargo and non-intercourse act, prostrated at a stroke, a forest of
shipping, and sunk millions of capital. To say nothing of the power of
Congress to take hundreds of millions from the people by direct
taxation, who doubts its power to abolish at once the whole tariff
system, change the seat of Government, arrest the progress of national
works, prohibit any branch of commerce with the Indian tribes or with
foreign nations, change the locality of forts, arsenals, magazines, dock
yards, &c., to abolish the Post Office system, the privilege of patents
and copyrights, &c. By such acts Congress might, in the exercise of its
acknowledged powers, annihilate property to an incalculable amount, and
that without becoming liable to claims for compensation.

Finally, this clause prohibits the taking for public use of
"_property_." The constitution of the United States does not recognise
slaves as "PROPERTY" any where, and it does not recognise them in _any
sense_ in the District of Columbia. All allusions to them in the
constitution recognise them as "persons." Every reference to them points
_solely_ to the element of _personality_; and thus, by the strongest
implication, declares that the constitution _knows_ them only as
"persons," and _will_ not recognise them in any other light. If they
escape into free States, the constitution authorizes their being taken
back. But how? Not as the property of an "owner," but as "persons;" and
the peculiarity of the expression is a marked recognition of their
_personality_--a refusal to recognise them as chattels--"persons _held_
to service." Are _oxen_ "_held_ to service?" That can be affirmed only
of _persons_. Again, slaves give political power as "persons." The
constitution, in settling the principle of representation, requires
their enumeration in the census. How? As property? Then why not include
race horses and game cocks? Slaves, like other inhabitants, are
enumerated as "persons." So by the constitution, the government was
pledged to non-interference with "the migration or importation of such
persons" as the States might think proper to admit until 1808, and
authorized the laying of a tax on each "person" so admitted. Further,
slaves are recognised as _persons_ by the exaction of their _allegiance_
to the government. For offences against the government slaves are tried
as _persons_; as persons they are entitled to counsel for their defence,
to the rules of evidence, and to "due process of law," and as _persons_
they are punished. True, they are loaded with cruel disabilities in
courts of law, such as greatly obstruct and often inevitably defeat the
ends of justice, yet they are still recognised as _persons_. Even in the
legislation of Congress, and in the diplomacy of the general government,
notwithstanding the frequent and wide departures from the integrity of
the constitution on this subject, slaves are not recognised as
_property_ without qualification. Congress has always refused to grant
compensation for slaves killed or taken by the enemy, even when these
slaves had been impressed into the United States' service. In half a
score of cases since the last war, Congress has rejected such
applications for compensation. Besides, both in Congressional acts, and
in our national diplomacy, slaves and property are not used as
convertible terms. When mentioned in treaties and state papers it is in
such a way as to distinguish them from mere property, and generally by a
recognition of their _personality_. In the invariable recognition of
slaves as _persons_, the United States' constitution caught the mantle
of the glorious Declaration, and most worthily wears it.--It recognizes
all human beings as "men," "persons," and thus as "equals." In the
original draft of the Declaration, as it came from the hand of
Jefferson, it is alleged that Great Britain had "waged a cruel war
against _human_ nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life
and liberty in the persons of a distant people, carrying them into
slavery,     *     * determined to keep up a market where MEN should be
bought and sold,"--thus disdaining to make the charter of freedom a
warrant for the arrest of _men_, that they might be shorn both of
liberty and humanity.

The celebrated Roger Sherman, one of the committee of five appointed to
draft the Declaration of Independence, and also a member of the
convention that formed the United States' constitution, said, in the
first Congress after its adoption: "The constitution _does not consider
these persons,_ (slaves,) _as a species of property._"--[Lloyd's Cong.
Reg. v. 1, p. 313.] That the United States' Constitution does not make
slaves "property," is shown in the fact that no person, either as a
citizen of the United States, or by having his domicile within the
United States' government, can hold slaves. He can hold them only by
deriving his power from _state_ laws, or from the laws of Congress, if
he hold slaves within the District. But no person resident within the
United States' jurisdiction, and not within the District, nor within a
state whose laws support slavery, nor "held to service" under the laws
of such state or district, having escaped therefrom, _can be held as a
slave_.

Men can hold _property_ under the United States' government though
residing beyond the bounds of any state, district, or territory. An
inhabitant of the Wisconsin Territory can hold property there under the
laws of the United States, but he cannot hold _slaves_ there under the
United States' laws, nor by virtue of the United States' Constitution,
nor upon the ground of his United States citizenship, nor by having his
domicile within the United States' jurisdiction. The constitution no
where recognizes the right to "slave property," _but merely the fact
that the states have jurisdiction each in its own limits, and that there
are certain "persons" within their jurisdictions "held to service" by
their own laws._

Finally, in the clause under consideration, "private property" is not to
be taken "without _just_ compensation." "JUST!" If justice is to be
appealed to in determining the amount of compensation, let her determine
the _grounds_ also. If it be her province to say _how much_ compensation
is "just," it is hers to say whether _any_ is "just,"--whether the slave
is "just" property _at all_, rather than a "_person_." Then, if justice
adjudges the slave to be "private property," it adjudges him to be _his
own_ property, since the right to one's _self_ is the first right--the
source of all others--the original stock by which they are
accumulated--the principal, of which they are the interest. And since
the slave's "private property" has been "taken," and since
"compensation" is impossible--there being no _equivalent_ for one's
self--the least that can be done is to restore to him his original
private property.

Having shown that in abolishing slavery, "property" would not be "taken
for public use," it may be added that, in those states where slavery has
been abolished by law, no claim for compensation has been allowed.
Indeed the manifest absurdity of demanding it, seems to have quite
forstalled the _setting up_ of such a claim.

The abolition of slavery in the District, instead of being a legislative
anomaly, would proceed upon the principles of every day legislation. It
has been shown already, that the United States' Constitution does not
recognize slaves as "property." Yet ordinary legislation is full of
precedents, showing that even _absolute_ property is in many respects
wholly subject to legislation. The repeal of the law of entailments--all
those acts that control the alienation of property, its disposal by
will, its passing to heirs by descent, with the question, who shall be
heirs, and what shall be the rule of distribution among them, or whether
property shall be transmitted at all by descent, rather than escheat to
the state--these, with statutes of limitation, and various other classes
of legislative acts, serve to illustrate the acknowledged scope of the
law-making power, even where property _is in every sense absolute_.
Persons whose property is thus affected by public laws, receive from the
government no compensation for their losses, unless the state has been
put in possession of the property taken from them.

The preamble of the United States' Constitution declares it to be a
fundamental object of the organization of the government "to ESTABLISH
JUSTICE." Has Congress _no power_ to do that for which it was made the
_depository of power_? CANNOT the United States' Government fulfil the
purpose _for which it was brought into being_?

To abolish slavery, is to take from no rightful owner his property; but
to "_establish justice_" between two parties. To emancipate the slave,
is to "_establish justice_" between him and his master--to throw around
the person, character, conscience, liberty, and domestic relations of
the one, _the same law_ that secures and blesses the other. In other
words, to prevent by _legal restraints_ one class of men from seizing
upon another class, and robbing them at pleasure of their earnings,
their time, their liberty, their kindred, and the very use and ownership
of their own persons. Finally, to abolish slavery is to proclaim and
_enact_ that innocence and helplessness--now _free plunder_--are
entitled to _legal protection_; and that power, avarice, and lust, shall
no longer gorge upon their spoils under the license, and by the
ministrations of _law_! Congress, by possessing "exclusive legislation
in all cases whatsoever," has a _general protective power_ for ALL the
inhabitants of the District. If it has no power to protect _one_ man, it
has none to protect another--none to protect _any_--and if it _can_
protect _one_ man and is _bound_ to protect him, it _can_ protect
_every_ man--all men--and is _bound_ to do it. All admit the power of
Congress to protect the masters in the District against their slaves.
What part of the constitution gives the power? The clause so often
quoted,--"power of legislation in all cases whatsoever," equally in the
"_case_" of defending the blacks against the whites, as in that of
defending the whites against the blacks. The power is given also by Art.
1, Sec. 8, clause 15--"Congress shall have power to suppress
insurrections"--a power to protect, as well blacks against whites, as
whites against blacks. If the constitution gives power to protect _one_
class against the other, it gives power to protect _either_ against the
other. Suppose the blacks in the District should seize the whites, drive
them into the fields and kitchens, force them to work without pay, flog
them, imprison them, and sell them at their pleasure, where would
Congress find power to restrain such acts? Answer; a _general_ power in
the clause so often cited, and an _express_ one in that cited
above--"Congress shall have power to suppress insurrections." So much
for a _supposed_ case. Here follows a _real_ one. The whites in the
District _are perpetrating these identical acts_ upon seven thousand
blacks daily. That Congress has power to restrain these acts in _one_
case, all assert, and in so doing they assert the power "in _all_ cases
whatsoever." For the grant of power to suppress insurrections, is an
_unconditional_ grant, not hampered by provisos as to the color, shape,
size, sex, language, creed, or condition of the insurgents. Congress
derives its power to suppress this _actual_ insurrection, from the same
source whence it derived its power to suppress the _same_ acts in the
case _supposed_. If one case is an insurrection, the other is. The
_acts_ in both are the same; the _actors_ only are different. In the one
case, ignorant and degraded--goaded by the memory of the past, stung by
the present, and driven to desperation by the fearful looking for of
wrongs for ever to come. In the other, enlightened into the nature of
_rights_, the principles of justice, and the dictates of the law of
love, unprovoked by wrongs, with cool deliberation, and by system, they
perpetrate these acts upon those to whom they owe unnumbered obligations
for _whole lives_ of unrequited service. On which side may palliation be
pleaded, and which party may most reasonably claim an abatement of the
rigors of law? If Congress has power to suppress such acts _at all_, it
has power to suppress them _in_ all.

It has been shown already that _allegiance_ is exacted of the slave. Is
the government of the United States unable to grant _protection_ where
it exacts _allegiance_? It is an axiom of the civilized world, and a
maxim even with savages, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal
and correlative. Are principles powerless with us which exact homage of
barbarians? _Protection is the_ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT _of every human
being under the exclusive legislation of Congress who has not forfeited
it by crime._

In conclusion, I argue the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the
District, from Art. 1, sec, 8, clause 1, of the constitution; "Congress
shall have power to provide for the common defence and the general
welfare of the United States." Has the government of the United States
no power under this grant, to legislate within its own exclusive
jurisdiction on subjects that vitally affect its interests? Suppose the
slaves in the district should rise upon their masters, and the United
States' government, in quelling the insurrection, should kill any number
of them. Could their masters claim compensation of the government?
Manifestly not; even though no proof existed that the particular slaves
killed were insurgents. This was precisely the point at issue between
those masters, whose slaves were killed by the State troops at the time
of the Southampton insurrection, and the Virginia Legislature: no
evidence was brought to show that the slaves killed by the troops were
insurgents; yet the Virginia Legislature decided that their masters were
_not entitled to compensation_. They proceeded on the sound principle,
that a government may in self-protection destroy the claim of its
subjects even to that which has been recognized as property by its own
acts. If in providing for the common defence, the United States'
government, in the case supposed, would have power to destroy slaves
both as _property_ and _persons_, it surely might stop _half-way_,
destroy them _as property_ while it legalized their existence as
_persons_, and thus provided for the common defence by giving them a
personal and powerful interest in the government, and securing their
strength for its defence.

Like other Legislatures, Congress has power to abate nuisances--to
remove or tear down unsafe buildings--to destroy infected cargoes--to
lay injunctions upon manufactories injurious to the public health--and
thus to "provide for the common defence and general welfare" by
destroying individual property, when such property puts in jeopardy the
public weal.

Granting, for argument's sake, that slaves are "property" in the
District of Columbia--if Congress has a right to annihilate property in
the District when the public safety requires it, it may surely
annihilate its existence _as_ property when the public safety requires
it, especially if it transform into a _protection_ and _defence_ that
which as _property_ perilled the public interests. In the District of
Columbia there are, besides the United States' Capitol, the President's
house, the national offices, &c. of the Departments of State, Treasury,
War, and Navy, the General Post-office, and Patent Office. It is also
the residence of the President, all the highest officers of the
government, both houses of Congress, and all the foreign ambassadors. In
this same District there are also _seven thousand slaves_. Jefferson, in
his Notes on Va. p. 241, says of slavery, that "the State permitting one
half of its citizens to trample on the rights of the other, _transforms
them into enemies_;" and Richard Henry Lee, in the Va. house of
Burgesses in 1758, declared that to those who held them, "_slaves must
be natural enemies_." Is Congress so _impotent_ that it _cannot_
exercise that right pronounced both by municipal and national law, the
most sacred and universal--the right of self-preservation and defence?
Is it shut up to the _necessity_ of keeping seven thousand "enemies" in
the heart of the nation's citadel? Does the iron fiat of the
constitution doom it to such imbecility that it _cannot_ arrest the
process that _made_ them "enemies," and still goads to deadlier hate by
fiery trials, and day by day adds others to their number? Is _this_
providing for the common defence and general welfare? If to rob men of
rights excites their hate, freely to restore them and make amends, will
win their love.

By emancipating the slaves in the District, the government of the United
States would disband an army of "enemies," and enlist "for the common
defence and general welfare," a body guard of _friends_ seven thousand
strong. In the last year, a handful of British soldiers sacked
Washington city, burned the capitol, the President's house, and the
national offices and archives; and no marvel, for thousands of the
inhabitants of the District had been "TRANSFORMED INTO ENEMIES." Would
_they_ beat back invasion? If the national government had exercised its
constitutional "power to provide for the common defence and to promote
the general welfare," by turning those "enemies" into friends, then,
instead of a hostile ambush lurking in every thicket inviting assault,
and secret foes in every house paralyzing defence, an army of allies
would have rallied in the hour of her calamity, and shouted defiance
from their munitions of rocks; whilst the banner of the republic, then
trampled in dust, would have floated securely over FREEMEN exulting
amidst bulwarks of strength.

To show that Congress can abolish slavery in the District, under the
grant of power "to provide for the common defence and to promote the
general welfare," I quote an extract from a speech of Mr. Madison, of
Va., in the first Congress under the constitution, May 13, 1789.
Speaking of the abolition of the slave trade, Mr. Madison says: "I
should venture to say it is as much for the interests of Georgia and
South Carolina, as of any state in the union. Every addition they
receive to their number of slaves tends to _weaken_ them, and renders
them less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign
nations, they will be the means of _inviting_ attack instead of
repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the general government to
protect every part of the empire against danger, as well _internal_ as
external. _Every thing, therefore, which tends to increase this danger,
though it may be a local affair, yet if it involves national expense or
safety, it becomes of concern to every part of the union, and is a
proper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general
administration of the government._" See Cong. Reg. vol. 1, p. 310, 11.



POSTSCRIPT

My apology for adding a _postscript_, to a discussion already perhaps
too protracted, is the fact that the preceding sheets were in the hands
of the printer, and all but the concluding pages had gone through the
press, before the passage of Mr. Calhoun's late resolutions in the
Senate of the United States. A proceeding so extraordinary,--if indeed
the time has not passed when _any_ acts of Congress in derogation of
freedom and in deference to slavery, can be deemed
extraordinary,--should not be suffered to pass in silence at such a
crisis as the present; especially as the passage of one of the
resolutions by a vote of 36 to 9, exhibits a shift of position on the
part of the South, as sudden as it is unaccountable, being nothing less
than the surrender of a fortress which until then they had defended with
the pertinacity of a blind and almost infuriated fatuity. Upon the
discussions during the pendency of the resolutions, and upon the vote,
by which they were carried, I make no comment, save only to record my
exultation in the fact there exhibited, that great emergencies are _true
touchstones_, and that henceforward, until this question is settled,
whoever holds a seat in Congress will find upon, and all around him, a
pressure strong enough to TEST him--a focal blaze that will find its way
through the carefully adjusted cloak of fair pretension, and the
sevenfold brass of two-faced political intrigue, and _no_-faced
_non-committalism_, piercing to the dividing asunder of joints and
marrow. Be it known to every northern man who aspires to a seat in
Congress, that hereafter it is the destiny of congressional action on
this subject, to be a MIGHTY REVELATOR--making secret thoughts public
property, and proclaiming on the house-tops what is whispered in the
ear--smiting off masks, and bursting open sepulchres beautiful
outwardly, and heaving up to the sun their dead men's bones. To such we
say,--_Remember the Missouri Question, and the fate of those who then
sold the North, and their own birthright_!

Passing by the resolutions generally without remark--the attention of
the reader is specially solicited to Mr. Clay's substitute for Mr.
Calhoun's fifth resolution.


    "Resolved, That when the District of Columbia was ceded by the
    states of Virginia and Maryland to the United States, domestic
    slavery existed in both of these states, including the ceded
    territory, and that, as it still continues in both of them, it
    could not be abolished within the District without a violation
    of that good faith, which was implied in the cession and in the
    acceptance of the territory; nor, unless compensation were made
    to the proprietors of slaves, without a manifest infringement of
    an amendment to the constitution of the United States; nor
    without exciting a degree of just alarm and apprehension in the
    states recognizing slavery, far transcending in mischievous
    tendency, any possible benefit which could be accomplished by
    the abolition."


By voting for this resolution, the south, by a simultaneous movement,
shifted its mode of defense, not so much by taking a position entirely
new, as by attempting to refortify an old one--never much trusted in,
and abandoned mainly long ago, as being unable to hold out against
assault however unskilfully directed. In the debate on this resolution,
though the southern members of Congress did not _professedly_ retreat
from the ground hitherto maintained by them--that Congress has no power
by the constitution to abolish slavery in the District--yet in the main
they silently drew off from it.

The passage of this resolution--with the vote of every southern senator,
forms a new era in the discussion of this question.

We cannot join in the lamentations of those who bewail it. We hail it,
and rejoice in it. It was as we would have had it--offered by a southern
senator, advocated by southern senators, and on the ground that it "was
no compromise"--that it embodied the true southern principle--that "this
resolution stood on as high ground as Mr. Calhoun's"--(Mr.
Preston)--"that Mr. Clay's resolution was as strong as Mr.
Calhoun's"--(Mr.  Rives)--that "the resolution he (Mr. Calhoun) now
refused to support, was as strong as his own, and that in supporting it,
there was no abandonment of principle by the south."--(Mr. Walker, of
Mi.)--further, that it was advocated by the southern senators generally
as an expression of their views, and as setting the question of slavery
in the District on its _true_ ground--that finally when the question was
taken, every slaveholding senator, including Mr. Calhoun himself, voted
for the resolution.

By passing this resolution, and with such avowals, the south has
surrendered irrevocably the whole question at issue between them and the
petitioners for abolition in the District. It has, unwittingly but
explicitly, conceded the main question argued in the preceding pages.

The _only_ ground taken against the right of Congress to abolish slavery
in the District is, that it existed in Maryland and Virginia when the
cession was made, and "_as it still continues in both of them_, it could
not be abolished without a violation of that good faith which was
implied in the cession." &c. The _sole argument_ is _not_ that exclusive
_sovereignty_ has no power to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction,
_nor_ that the powers of even _ordinary legislation_ cannot do
it,--_nor_ that the clause granting Congress "exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever over such District," gives no power to do it; but
that the _unexpressed expectation_ of one of the parties that the other
would not "in _all_ cases" _use_ the power which said party had
consented _might be used_ "_in all cases_," _prohibits_ the use of it.
The only cardinal point in the discussion, is here not only _yielded_,
but formally laid down by the South as the leading article in their
creed on the question of Congressional jurisdiction over slavery in the
District. The _sole reason_ given why Congress should not abolish, and
the sole evidence that if it did, such abolition would be a violation of
"good faith," is that "_slavery still continues in those states_,"--thus
explicitly admitting, that if slavery did _not_ "still continue" in
those States, Congress _could_ abolish it in the District. The same
admission is made also in the _premises_, which state that slavery
existed in those states _at the time of the cession_, &c. Admitting that
if it had _not_ existed there then, but had grown up in the District
under _United States' laws_, Congress might constitutionally abolish it.
Or that if the ceded parts of those states had been the _only_ parts in
which slaves were held under their laws, Congress might have abolished
in such a contingency also. The cession in that case leaving no slaves
in those states,--no "good faith," would be "implied" in it, nor any
"violated," by an act of abolition. The principle of the resolution
makes this further admission, that if Maryland and Virginia should at
once abolish their slavery, Congress might at once abolish it in the
District. The principle goes even further than this, and _requires_
Congress in such case to abolish slavery in the District "by the _good
faith implied_ in the cession and acceptance of the territory." Since,
according to the spirit and scope of the resolution, this "implied good
faith" of Maryland and Virginia in making the cession, was that Congress
would do nothing within the District which should go to counteract the
policy, or bring into disrepute the "institutions," or call in question
the usages, or even in any way ruffle the prejudices of those states, or
do what _they_ might think would unfavorably bear upon their interests;
_themselves_ of course being the judges.

But let us dissect another limb of the resolution. What is to be
understood by "that good faith which was IMPLIED?" It is of course an
admission that such a condition was not _expressed_ in the acts of
cession--that in their _terms_ there is nothing restricting the power of
Congress on the subject of slavery in the District--not a word alluding
to it, nor one inserted with such an _intent_. This "implied faith,"
then, rests on no clause or word in the United States' Constitution, or
in the acts of cession, or in the acts of Congress accepting the
cession, nor does it rest on any declarations of the legislatures of
Maryland and Virginia made at the time, or in that generation, nor on
any _act_ of theirs, nor on any declaration of the people of those
states, nor on the testimony of the Washingtons, Jeffersons, Madisons,
Chaces, Martins, and Jennifers, of those states and times. The assertion
rests _on itself alone_! Mr. Clay and the other senators who voted for
the resolution, _guess_ that Maryland and Virginia supposed that
Congress would by no means _use_ the power given them by the
constitution, except in such ways as would be well pleasing in the eyes
of those states; especially as one of them was the "Ancient Dominion!"
And now after the lapse of half a century, this _assumed expectation_ of
Maryland and Virginia, the existence of which is mere matter of
conjecture with the 36 senators, is conjured up and duly installed upon
the judgment-seat of final appeal, before whose nod constitutions are to
flee away, and with whom, solemn grants of power and explicit guaranties
are, when weighed in the balance, altogether lighter than vanity!

But let us survey it in another light. Why did Maryland and Virginia
leave so much to be "_implied_?" Why did they not in some way express
what lay so near their hearts? Had their vocabulary run so low that a
single word could not be eked out for the occasion? Or were those states
so bashful of a sudden that they dare not speak out and tell what they
wanted? Or did they take it for granted that Congress would always act
in the premises according to their wishes, and that too, without their
_making known_ their wishes? If, as honorable senators tell us, Maryland
and Virginia did verily travail with such abounding _faith_, why brought
they forth no _works_?

It is as true in _legislation_ as in religion, that the only _evidence_
of "faith" is _works_, and that "faith" _without_ works is _dead_, i.e.
has no _power_. But here, forsooth, a blind implication with nothing
_expressed_, an "implied" _faith_ without works, is _omnipotent_. Mr.
Clay is lawyer enough to know that even a _senatorial hypothesis_ as to
what must have been the _understanding_ of Maryland and Virginia about
congressional exercise of constitutional power, _abrogates no grant_,
and that to plead it in a court of law, would be of small service except
to jostle "their Honors'" gravity! He need not be told that the
constitution gives Congress "power to exercise exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever over such District." Nor that the legislatures of
Maryland and Virginia constructed their acts of cession with this clause
_before their eyes_, and that both of them declared those acts made "in
_pursuance_" of said clause. Those states were aware that the United
States in their constitution had left nothing to be "_implied_" as to
the power of Congress over the District;--an admonition quite sufficient
one would think to put them on their guard, and induce them to eschew
vague implications and resort to _stipulations_. Full well did they know
also that those were times when, in matters of high import, _nothing_
was left to be "implied." The colonies were then panting from a twenty
years' conflict with the mother country, about bills of rights,
charters, treaties, constitutions, grants, limitations, and _acts of
cession_. The severities of a long and terrible discipline had taught
them to guard at all points _legislative grants_, that their exact
import and limit might be self-evident--leaving no scope for a blind
"faith," that _somehow_ in the lottery of chances there would be no
blanks, but making all sure by the use of explicit terms, and wisely
chosen words, and _just enough_ of them. The Constitution of the United
States with its amendments, those of the individual states, the national
treaties, the public documents of the general and state governments at
that period, show the universal conviction of legislative bodies, that
when great public interest were at stake, nothing should be left to be
"implied."

Further: suppose Maryland and Virginia had expressed their "implied
faith" in _words_, and embodied it in their acts of cession as a
proviso, declaring that Congress should not "exercise exclusive
legislation in _all_ cases whatsoever over the District," but that the
"case" of _slavery_ should be an exception: who does not know that
Congress, if it had accepted the cession on those terms, would have
violated the Constitution; and who that has ever studied the free mood
of those times in its bearings on slavery--proofs of which are given in
scores on the preceding pages--can for an instant believe that the
people of the United States would have altered their Constitution for
the purpose of providing for slavery an inviolable sanctuary; that when
driven in from its outposts, and everywhere retreating discomfited
before the march of freedom, it might be received into everlasting
habitations on the common homestead and hearth-stone of this free
republic? Besides, who can believe that Virginia made such a condition,
or cherished such a purpose, when at that very moment, Washington,
Jefferson, Wythe, Patrick Henry, St. George Tucker, and almost all her
illustrious men, were advocating the abolition of slavery by law. When
Washington had said, two years before, Maryland and Virginia "must have
laws for the gradual abolition of slavery and at a period _not remote_;"
and when Jefferson in his letter to Price, three years before the
cession, had said, speaking of Virginia, "This is the next state to
which we may turn our eyes for the interesting spectacle of justice in
conflict with avarice and oppression--a conflict in which THE SACRED
SIDE IS GAINING DAILY RECRUITS;" when voluntary emancipations on the
soil were then progressing at the rate of between one and two thousand
annually, (See Judge Tucker's "Dissertation on Slavery," p. 73;) when
the public sentiment of Virginia had undergone, and was undergoing so
mighty a revolution that the idea of the continuance of slavery as a
permanent system could not be _tolerated_, though she then contained
about half the slaves in the Union. Was this the time to stipulated for
the _perpetuity_ of slavery under the exclusive legislation of Congress?
and that too at the _same_ session of Congress when _every one_ of her
delegation voted for the abolition of slavery in the North West
Territory; a territory which she had herself ceded to Congress, and
along with it had surrendered her jurisdiction over many of her
citizens, inhabitants of that territory, who held slaves there--and
whose slaves were emancipated by that act of Congress, in which all her
delegation with one accord participated?

Now in view of the universal belief then prevalent, that slavery in this
country was doomed to short life, and especially that in Maryland and
Virginia it would be _speedily_ abolished--are we to be told that those
states _designed_ to bind Congress _never_ to terminate it? Are we to
adopt the monstrous conclusion that this was the intent of the Ancient
Dominion--thus to _bind_ the United States by an "implied faith," and
that when the United States _accepted_ the cession, she did solemnly
thus plight her troth, and that Virginia did then so _understand_ it?
Verily one would think that honorable senators supposed themselves
deputed to do our _thinking_ as well as our legislation, or rather, that
they themselves were absolved from such drudgery by virtue of their
office!

Another absurdity of this dogma about "implied faith" is, that where
there was no power to exact an _express_ pledge, there was none to
demand an _implied_ one, and where there was no power to _give_ the one,
there was none to give the _other_. We have shown already that Congress
could not have accepted the cession with such a condition. To have
signed away a part of its constitutional grant of power would have been
a _breach_ of the Constitution. Further, the Congress which accepted the
cession was competent to pass a resolution pledging itself not to _use
all_ the power over the District committed to it by the Constitution.
But here its power ended. Its resolution would only bind _itself_. Could
it bind the _next_ Congress by its authority? Could the members of one
Congress say to the members of another, because we do not choose to
exercise all the authority vested in us by the Constitution, therefore
you _shall_ not? This would have been a prohibition to do what the
Constitution gives power to do. Each successive Congress would still
have gone to the Constitution for its power, brushing away in its course
the cobwebs stretched across its path by the officiousness of an
impertinent predecessor. Again, the legislatures of Virginia and
Maryland, had no power to bind Congress, either by an express or an
implied pledge, never to abolish slavery in the District. Those
legislatures had no power to bind _themselves_ never to abolish slavery
within their own territories--the ceded parts included. Where then would
they get power to bind _another_ not to do what they had no power to
bind themselves not to do? If a legislature could not in this respect
control the successive legislatures of its own State, could it control
the successive Congresses of the United States?

But perhaps we shall be told, that the "implied faith" in the acts of
cession of Maryland and Virginia was _not_ that Congress should _never_
abolish slavery in the District, but that it should not do it until
_they_ had done it within their bounds! Verily this "faith" comes little
short of the faith of miracles! "A good rule that works both ways."
First, Maryland and Virginia have "good faith" that Congress will _not_
abolish until _they_ do; and then just as "good faith" that Congress
_will_ abolish _when_ they do! Excellently accommodated! Did those
States suppose that Congress would legislate over the national domain,
the common jurisdiction of _all_, for Maryland and Virginia alone? And
who, did they suppose, would be judges in the matter?--themselves
merely? or the whole Union?

This "good faith implied in the cession" is no longer of doubtful
interpretation. The principle at the bottom of it, when fairly stated,
is this:--That the Government of the United States are bound in "good
faith" to do in the District of Columbia, without demurring, just what
and when, Maryland and Virginia do in their own States. In short, that
the general government is eased of all the burdens of legislation within
its exclusive jurisdiction, save that of hiring a scrivener to copy off
the acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures as fast as they are
passed, and engross them, under the title of "Laws of the United States,
for the District of Columbia!" A slight additional expense would also be
incurred in keeping up an express between the capitols of those States
and Washington city, bringing Congress from time to time its
"_instructions_" from head quarters--instructions not to be disregarded
without a violation of that "good faith implied in the cession," &c.

This sets in strong light the advantages of "our glorious Union," if the
doctrine of Mr. Clay and the thirty-six Senators be orthodox. The people
of the United States have been permitted to set up at their own expense,
and on their own territory, two great _sounding boards_ called "Senate
Chamber" and "Representatives' Hall," for the purpose of sending abroad
"by authority" _national_ echoes of _state_ legislation!--permitted also
to keep in their pay a corps of pliant _national_ musicians, with
peremptory instructions to sound on any line of the staff according as
Virginia and Maryland may give the _sovereign_ key note!

Though this may have the seeming of mere raillery, yet an analysis of
the resolution and of the discussions upon it, will convince every fair
mind that it is but the legitimate carrying out of the _principle_
pervading both. They proceed virtually upon the hypothesis that the will
and pleasure of Virginia and Maryland are _paramount_ to those of the
_Union_. If the main design of setting apart a federal district had been
originally the accommodation of Maryland, Virginia, and the south, with
the United States as an _agent_ to consummate the object, there could
hardly have been higher assumption or louder vaunting. The sole object
of _having_ such a District was in effect totally perverted in the
resolution of Mr. Clay, and in the discussions of the entire southern
delegation, upon its passage. Instead of taking the ground, that the
benefit of the whole Union was the sole _object_ of a federal district,
that it was designed to guard and promote the interests of _all_ the
states, and that it was to be legislated over _for this end_--the
resolution proceeds upon an hypothesis _totally the reverse_. It takes a
single point of _state_ policy, and exalts it above NATIONAL interests,
utterly overshadowing them; abrogating national _rights_; making void a
clause of the Constitution; humbling the general government into a
subject--crouching for favors to a superior, and that too _on its own
exclusive jurisdiction_. All the attributes of sovereignty vested in
Congress by the Constitution it impales upon the point of an alleged
_implication_. And this is Mr. Clay's peace-offering, to appease the
lust of power and the ravenings of state encroachment! A "compromise,"
forsooth! that sinks the general Government on _its own territory_ into
a mere colony, with Virginia and Maryland for its "mother country!" It
is refreshing to turn from these shallow, distorted constructions and
servile cringings, to the high bearing of other southern men in other
times; men, who in their character of legislators and lawyers, disdained
to accommodate their interpretations of constitutions and charters to
geographical lines, or to bend them to the purposes of a political
canvass. In the celebrated case of Cohens vs. the State of Virginia,
Hon. William Pinkney, late of Baltimore, and Hon. Walter Jones, of
Washington city, with other eminent constitutional lawyers, prepared an
elaborate written opinion, from which the following is an extract: "Nor
is there any danger to be apprehended from allowing to Congressional
legislation with regard to the District of Columbia, its FULLEST EFFECT.
Congress is responsible to the States, and to the people for that
legislation. It is in truth the legislation of the states over a
district placed under their control for _their own benefit_, not for
that of the District, except as the prosperity of the District is
involved, and necessary to the _general advantage_."--[Life of Pinkney,
p.  612.]

The profound legal opinion, from which this is an extract, was
elaborated at great length many years since, by a number of the most
distinguished lawyers in the United States, whose signatures are
appended to it. It is specific and to the point. It asserts, 1st, that
Congressional legislation over the District, is "the legislation of the
_States_ and the _people_," (not of _two_ states, and a mere _fraction_
of the people;) 2d. "Over a District placed under _their_ control," i.e.
under the control of the _whole_ of the States, not under the control of
_two twenty-sixths_ of them. 3d. That it was thus put under their
Control "_for THEIR OWN benefit_," the benefit of all the States
_equally_; not to secure special benefits to Maryland and Virginia, (or
what it might be _conjectured_ they would regard as benefits.) 4th. It
concludes by asserting that the design of this exclusive control of
Congress over the District was "not for the benefit of the _District_,"
except as that is _connected_ with, and _a means of promoting_ the
_general_ advantage. If this is the case with the _District_, which is
_directly_ concerned, it is pre-eminently so with Maryland and Virginia,
who are but _indirectly_ interested, and would be but remotely affected
by it. The argument of Mr. Madison in the Congress of '89, an extract
from which has been given on a preceding page, lays down the same
principle; that though any matter "_may be a local affair, yet if it
involves national EXPENSE OR SAFETY, it becomes of concern to every part
of the union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of those
charged with the general administration of the government_." Cong. Reg.
vol. 1. p. 310, 11.

But these are only the initiatory absurdities of this "good faith
_implied_." The thirty-six senators aptly illustrate the principle, that
error not only conflicts with truth, but is generally at issue with
itself. For if it would be a violation of "good faith" to Maryland and
Virginia, for Congress to abolish slavery in the District, it would be
_equally_ a violation for Congress to do it _with the consent_, or even
at the earnest and unanimous petition of the people of the District: yet
for years it has been the southern doctrine, that if the people of the
District demand of Congress relief in this respect, it has power, as
their local legislature, to grant it, and by abolishing slavery there,
carry out the will of the citizens. But now new light has broken in! The
optics of the thirty-six have pierced the millstone with a deeper
insight, and discoveries thicken faster than they can be telegraphed!
Congress has no power, O no, not a modicum, to help the slaveholders of
the District, however loudly they may clamor for it. The southern
doctrine, that Congress is to the District a mere local Legislature to
do its pleasure, is tumbled from the genitive into the vocative! Hard
fate--and that too at the hands of those who begat it! The reasonings of
Messrs. Pinckney, Wise, and Leigh, are now found to be wholly at fault,
and the chanticleer rhetoric of Messrs. Glascock and Garland stalks
featherless and crest-fallen. For, Mr. Clay's resolution sweeps by the
board all those stereotyped common-places, as "Congress a local
Legislature," "consent of the District," "bound to consult the wishes of
the District," &c. &c., which for the last two sessions of Congress have
served to eke out scanty supplies. It declares, that _as slavery existed
in Maryland and Virginia at the time of the cession, and as it still
continues in both those states, it could not be abolished in the
District without a violation of 'that good faith_,' &c.

But let us see where this principle of the _thirty-six_ will lead us. If
"implied faith" to Maryland and Virginia _restrains_ Congress from the
abolition of slavery in the District, it _requires_ Congress to do in
the District what those states have done within their bounds, i.e.,
restrain _others_ from abolishing it. Upon the same principle Congress
is _bound_, by the doctrine of Mr. Clay's resolution, to _prohibit
emancipation_ within the District. There is no _stopping place_ for this
plighted "faith." Congress must not only refrain from laying violent
hands on slavery, _itself_, and see to it that the slaveholders
themselves do not, but it is bound to keep the system up to the Maryland
and Virginia standard of vigor!

Again, if the good faith of Congress to Virginia and Maryland requires
that slavery should exist in the District, while it exists in those
states, it requires that it should exist there _as_ it exists in those
states. If to abolish _every_ form of slavery in the District would
violate good faith, to abolish _the_ form existing in those states, and
to substitute a totally different one, would also violate it. The
Congressional "good faith" is to be kept not only with _slavery_, but
with the _Maryland and Virginia systems_ of slavery. The faith of those
states not being in the preservation of _a_ system, but of _their_
system; otherwise Congress, instead of _sustaining_, would counteract
their policy--principles would be brought into action there conflicting
with their system, and thus the true spirit of the "implied" pledge
would be violated. On this principle, so long as slaves are "chattels
personal" in Virginia and Maryland, Congress could not make them _real
estate_, inseparable from the soil, as in Louisiana; nor could it permit
slaves to read, nor to worship God according to conscience; nor could it
grant them trial by jury, nor legalize marriage; nor require the master
to give sufficient food and clothing; nor prohibit the violent sundering
of families--because such provisions would conflict with the existing
slave laws of Virginia and Maryland, and thus violate the "good faith
implied," &c. So the principle of the resolution binds Congress in all
these particulars: 1st. Not to abolish slavery in the District _until_
Virginia and Maryland abolish. 2d. Not to abolish any _part_ of it that
exists in those states. 3d. Not to abolish any _form_ or _appendage_ of
it still existing in those states. 4th. _To abolish_ when they do. 5th.
To increase or abate its rigors _when, how_, and _as_ the same are
modified by those states. In a word, Congressional action in the
District is to float passively in the wake of legislative action on the
subject in those states.

But here comes a dilemma. Suppose the legislation of those states should
steer different courses--then there would be _two_ wakes! Can Congress
float in both? Yea, verily! Nothing is too hard for it! Its
obsequiousness equals its "power of legislation in _all_ cases
whatsoever." It can float _up_ on the Virginia tide, and ebb down on the
Maryland at the same time. What Maryland does, Congress will do in the
Maryland part. What Virginia does, Congress will do in the Virginia
part. Though Congress might not always be able to run at the bidding of
both _at once_, especially in different directions, yet if it obeyed
orders cheerfully, and "kept in its place," according to its "good faith
implied," impossibilities might not be rigidly exacted. True, we have
the highest sanction for the maxim that no _man_ can serve two
masters--but if "corporations have _no_ souls," analogy would absolve
Congress on that score, or at most give it only _a very small soul_--not
large enough to be at all in the way, as an _exception_ to the universal
rule laid down in the maxim!

In following out the absurdities of this "_implied_ good faith," it will
be seen at once that the doctrine of Mr. Clay's Resolution extends to
_all the subjects_ of _legislation_ existing in Maryland and Virginia,
which exist also within the District. Every system, "institution," law,
and established usage there, is placed beyond Congressional control
equally with slavery, and by the same "implied faith." The abolition of
the lottery system in the District as an _immorality_, was a flagrant
breach of this "good faith" to Maryland and Virginia, as the system
"still continued in those states." So to abolish imprisonment for debt,
and capital punishment, to remodel the bank system, the power of
corporations, the militia law, laws of limitation, &c., in the District,
_unless Virginia and Maryland took the lead_, would violate the "good
faith implied in the cession," &c.

That in the acts of cession no such "good faith" was "implied by
Virginia and Maryland" as is claimed in the Resolution, we argue from
the fact, that in 1784 Virginia ceded to the United States all her
northwest territory, with the special proviso that her citizens
inhabiting that territory should "have their _possessions_ and _titles_
confirmed to them, and be _protected_ in the enjoyment of their _rights_
and liberties." (See Journals of Congress, vol. 9, p. 63.) The cession
was made in the form of a deed, and signed by Thomas Jefferson, Samuel
Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe. Many of these inhabitants _held
slaves_. Three years after the cession, the Virginia delegation in
Congress _proposed_ the passage of an ordinance which should abolish
slavery, in that territory, and declare that it should never thereafter
exist there. All the members of Congress from Virginia and Maryland
voted for this ordinance. Suppose some member of Congress had during the
passage of the ordinance introduced the following resolution: "Resolved,
That when the northwest territory was ceded by Virginia to the United
States, domestic slavery existed in that State, including the ceded
territory, and as it still continues in that State, it could not be
abolished within the territory without a violation of that good faith,
which was implied in the cession and in the acceptance of the
territory." What would have been the indignant response of Grayson,
Griffin, Madison, and the Lees, in the Congress of '87, to such a
resolution, and of Carrington, Chairman of the Committee, who reported
the ratification of the ordinance in the Congress of '89, and of Page
and Parker, who with every other member of the Virginia delegation
supported it!

But to enumerate all the absurdities into which the thirty-six Senators
have plunged themselves, would be to make a quarto inventory. We decline
the task; and in conclusion, merely add that Mr. Clay, in presenting
this resolution, and each of the thirty-six Senators who voted for it,
entered on the records of the Senate, and proclaimed to the world, a
most unworthy accusation against the MILLIONS of American citizens who
have during nearly half a century petitioned the national legislature to
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia,--charging them either with
the ignorance or the impiety of praying the nation to violate its
"PLIGHTED FAITH." The resolution virtually indicts at the bar of public
opinion, and brands with odium, all the Manumission Societies, the
_first_ petitioners for the abolition of slavery in the District, and
for a long time the only ones, petitioning from year to year through
evil report and good report, still petitioning, by individual societies
and in their national conventions.

But as if it were not enough to table the charge against such men as
Benjamin Rush, William Rawle, John Sergeant, Robert Vaux, Cadwallader
Colden, and Peter A. Jay,--to whom we may add Rufus King, James
Hillhouse, William Pinkney, Thomas Addis Emmett, Daniel D. Tompkins, De
Witt Clinton, James Kent, and Daniel Webster, besides eleven hundred
citizens of the District itself, headed by their Chief Justice and
judges--even the sovereign States of Pennsylvania, New-York,
Massachusetts, and Vermont, whose legislatures have either memorialized
Congress to abolish slavery in the District, or instructed their
Senators to move such a measure, must be gravely informed by Messrs.
Clay, Norvell, Niles, Smith, Pierce, Benton, Black, Tipton, and other
honorable Senators, either that their perception is so dull, they know
not what of they affirm, or that their moral sense is so blunted they
can demand without compunction a violation of the nation's faith!

We have spoken already of the concessions unwittingly made in this
resolution to the true doctrine of Congressional power over the
District. For that concession, important as it is, we have small thanks
to render. That such a resolution, passed with such an _intent_, and
pressing at a thousand points on relations and interests vital to the
free states, should be hailed, as it has been, by a portion of the
northern press as a "compromise" originating in deference to northern
interests, and to be received by us as a free-will offering of
disinterested benevolence, demanding our gratitude to the mover,--may
well cover us with shame. We deserve the humiliation and have well
earned the mockery. Let it come!

If, after having been set up at auction in the public sales-room of the
nation, and for thirty years, and by each of a score of "compromises,"
treacherously knocked off to the lowest bidder, and that without money
and without price, the North, plundered and betrayed, _will not_, in
this her accepted time, consider the things that belong to her peace
before they are hidden from her eyes, then let her eat of the fruit of
her own way, and be filled with her own devices! Let the shorn and
blinded giant grind in the prison-house of the Philistines, till taught
the folly of intrusting to Delilahs the secret and the custody of his
strength.

Have the free States bound themselves by an oath never to profit by the
lessons of experience? If lost to _reason_, are they dead to _instinct_
also? Can nothing rouse them to cast about for self preservation? And
shall a life of tame surrenders be terminated by suicidal sacrifice?

A "COMPROMISE!" Bitter irony! Is the plucked and hood-winked North to be
wheedled by the sorcery of another Missouri compromise? A compromise in
which the South gained all, and the North lost all, and lost it for
ever. A compromise which embargoed the free laborer of the North and
West, and clutched at the staff he leaned upon, to turn it into a
bludgeon and fell him with its stroke. A compromise which wrested from
liberty her boundless birthright domain, stretching westward to the
sunset, while it gave to slavery loose reins and a free course, from the
Mississippi to the Pacific.

The resolution, as it finally passed, is here inserted. The original
Resolution, as moved by Mr. Clay, was inserted at the head of this
postscript with the impression that it was the _amended_ form. It will
be seen however, that it underwent no material modification.

"Resolved, That the interference by the citizens of any of the states,
with the view to the abolition of slavery in the District, is
endangering the rights and security of the people of the District; and
that any act or measure of Congress designed to abolish slavery in the
District, would be a violation of the faith implied in the cessions by
the states of Virginia and Maryland, a just cause of alarm to the people
of the slaveholding states, and have a direct and inevitable tendency to
disturb and endanger the Union."

The vote upon the Resolution stood as follows:

_Yeas_.--Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benton, Black, Buchanan, Brown, Calhoun,
Clay, of Alabama, Clay, of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert,
Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell,
Pierce, Preston, Rives, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smith, of Connecticut,
Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, White, Williams, Wright, Young.

_Nays_.--Messrs. DAVIS, KNIGHT, McKEAN, MORRIS, PRENTISS, RUGGLES,
SMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, WEBSTER.






NO. 5

THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER



       *       *       *       *       *





THE

POWER OF CONGRESS

OVER THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.



       *       *       *       *       *

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE NEW-YORK EVENING POST, UNDER THE SIGNATURE
OF "WYTHE."


       *       *       *       *       *

WITH ADDITIONS BY THE AUTHOR.

FOURTH EDITION.


       *       *       *       *       *



NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, No. 143 NASSAU
STREET. 1838.

       *       *       *       *       *

This No. contains 3-1/2 sheets.--Postage, under 100 miles, 6 cts. over
100, 10 cts.



POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

A civilized community presupposes a government of law. If that
government be a republic, its citizens are the sole _sources_, as well
as the _subjects_ of its power. Its constitution is their bill of
directions to their own agents--a grant authorizing the exercise of
certain powers, and prohibiting that of others. In the Constitution of
the United States, whatever else may be obscure, the clause granting
power to Congress over the Federal District may well defy
misconstruction. Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 18: "The Congress shall have
power to exercise exclusive legislation, _in all cases whatsoever_, over
such District." Congress may make laws for the District "in all
_cases_," not of all _kinds_. The grant respects the _subjects_ of
legislation, _not_ the moral nature of the laws. The law-making power
every where, is subject to _moral_ restrictions, whether limited by
constitutions or not. No legislature can authorize murder, nor make
honesty penal, nor virtue a crime, nor exact impossibilities. In these
and similar respects, the power of Congress is held in check by
principles existing in the nature of things, not imposed by the
Constitution, but presupposed and assumed by it. The power of Congress
over the District is restricted only by those principles that limit
ordinary legislation, and, in some respects, it has even wider scope.

In common with the legislatures of the States, Congress cannot
constitutionally pass ex post facto laws in criminal cases, nor suspend
the writ of habeas corpus, nor pass a bill of attainder, nor abridge the
freedom of speech and of the press, nor invade the right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, nor enact
laws respecting an establishment of religion. These are general
limitations. Congress cannot do these things _any where_. The exact
import, therefore, of the clause "in all cases whatsoever," is, _on all
subjects within the appropriate sphere of legislation_. Some
legislatures are restrained by constitutions from the exercise of powers
strictly within the proper sphere of legislation. Congressional power
over the District has no such restraint. It traverses the whole field of
legitimate legislation. All the power which any legislature has within
its own jurisdiction, Congress holds over the District of Columbia.

It has been asserted that the clause in question respects merely police
regulations, and that its sole design was to enable Congress to protect
itself against popular tumults. But if the framers of the Constitution
aimed to provide for a _single_ case only, why did they provide for
"_all_ cases whatsoever?" Besides, this clause was opposed in many of
the state conventions, because the grant of power was not restricted to
police regulations _alone_. In the Virginia Convention, George Mason,
the father of the Virginia Constitution, said, "This clause gives an
unlimited authority in every possible case within the District. He would
willingly give them exclusive power as far as respected the police and
good government of the place, but he would give them no more." Mr.
Grayson said, that control over the _police_ was all-sufficient, and
that the "Continental Congress never had an idea of exclusive
legislation in all cases." Patrick Henry said. "Is it consistent with
any principle of prudence or good policy, to grant _unlimited, unbounded
authority?_" Mr. Madison said in reply: "I did conceive that the clause
under consideration was one of those parts which would speak its own
praise. When any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves
authority to make laws to execute it. * * * * The powers which are found
necessary to be given, are therefore delegated _generally_, and
particular and minute specification is left to the legislature. * * * It
is not within the limits of human capacity to delineate on paper all
those particular cases and circumstances, in which legislation by the
general legislature would be necessary." Governor Randolph said:
"Holland has no ten miles square, but she has the Hague where the
deputies of the States assemble. But the influence which it has given
the province of Holland, to have the seat of government within its
territory, subject in some respects to its control, has been injurious
to the other provinces. The wisdom of the Convention is therefore
manifest in granting to Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the place
of their session." [_Deb. Va. Con._, p. 320.] In the forty-third number
of the "Federalist," Mr. Madison says: "The indispensable necessity of
_complete_ authority at the seat of government, carries its own
evidence with it."

Finally, that the grant in question is to be interpreted according to
the obvious import of its _terms_, is proved by the fact, that Virginia
proposed an amendment to the United States' Constitution at the time of
its adoption, providing that this clause "should be so construed as to
give power only over the _police and good government_ of said District,"
_which amendment was rejected_.

The former part of the clause under consideration, "Congress shall have
power to exercise _exclusive_ legislation," gives _sole_ jurisdiction,
and the latter part, "in all cases whatsoever," defines the _extent_ of
it. Since, then, Congress is the _sole_ legislature within the District,
and since its power is limited only by the checks common to all
legislatures, it follows that what the law-making power is intrinsically
competent to do _any_ where, Congress is competent to do in the District
of Columbia. Having disposed of preliminaries, we proceed to state and
argue the _real_ question at issue.

IS THE LAW-MAKING POWER COMPETENT TO ABOLISH SLAVERY WHEN NOT RESTRICTED
IN THAT PARTICULAR BY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS--or, IS THE ABOLITION OF
SLAVERY WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE SPHERE OF LEGISLATION?

1. In every government, absolute sovereignty exists _somewhere_. In the
United States it exists primarily with the _people_, and _ultimate_
sovereignty _always_ exists with them. In each of the States, the
legislature possesses a _representative_ sovereignty, delegated by the
people through the Constitution--the people thus committing to the
legislature a portion of their sovereignty, and specifying in their
constitutions the amount of the grant and its conditions. That the
_people_ in any state where slavery exists, have the power to abolish
it, none will deny. If the legislature have not the power, it is because
_the people_ have reserved it to themselves. Had they lodged with the
legislature "power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever," they would have parted with their sovereignty over the
legislation of the State, and so far forth, the legislature would have
become _the people_, clothed with all their functions, and as such
competent, _during the continuance of the grant_, to do whatever the
people might have done before the surrender of their power:
consequently, they would have the power to abolish slavery. The
sovereignty of the District of Columbia exists _somewhere_--where is it
lodged? The citizens of the District have no legislature of their own,
no representation in Congress, and no political power whatever. Maryland
and Virginia have surrendered to the United States their "full and
absolute right and entire sovereignty," and the people of the United
States have committed to Congress by the Constitution, the power to
"exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such
District."

Thus, the sovereignty of the District of Columbia, is shown to reside
solely in the Congress of the United States; and since the power of the
people of a state to abolish slavery within their own limits, results
from their entire sovereignty within that state, so the power of
Congress to abolish slavery in the District, results from its entire
sovereignty within the District. If it be objected that Congress can
have no more power over the District, than was held by the legislatures
of Maryland and Virginia, we ask what clause of the constitution
graduates the power of Congress by the standard of those legislatures?
Was the United States' constitution worked into its present shape under
the measuring line and square of Virginia and Maryland? and is its power
to be bevelled down till it can run in the grooves of state legislation?
There is a deal of prating about constitutional power over the District,
as though Congress were indebted for it to Maryland and Virginia. The
powers of those states, whether prodigies or nullities, have nothing to
do with the question. As well thrust in the powers of the Grand Lama to
join issue upon, or twist papal bulls into constitutional tether, with
which to curb congressional action. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES gives power to Congress, and takes it away, and _it alone_.
Maryland and Virginia adopted the Constitution _before_ they ceded to
the United States the territory of the District. By their acts of
cession, they abdicated their own sovereignty over the District, and
thus made room for that provided by the United States' constitution,
which sovereignty was to commence as soon as a cession of territory by
states, and its acceptance by Congress, furnished a sphere for its
exercise. That the abolition of slavery is within the sphere of
legislation, I argue.

2. FROM THE FACT, THAT SLAVERY, AS A LEGAL SYSTEM, IS THE CREATURE OF
LEGISLATION. The law, by _creating_ slavery, not only affirmed its
_existence_ to be within the sphere and under the control of
legislation, but also, the conditions and terms of its existence, and
the _question_ whether or not it should exist. Of course legislation
would not travel _out_ of its sphere, in abolishing what is _within_ it,
and what had been recognized to be within it, by its own act. Cannot
legislatures repeal their own laws? If law can take from a man his
rights, it can give them back again. If it can say, "your body belongs
to your neighbor," it can say, "it belongs to _yourself_." If it can
annul a man's right to himself, held by express grant from his Maker,
and can create for another an _artificial_ title to him, can it not
annul the artificial title, and leave the original owner to hold himself
by his original title?

3. THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED WITHIN THE
APPROPRIATE SPHERE OF LEGISLATION. Almost every civilized nation has
abolished slavery by law. The history of legislation since the revival
of letters, is a record crowded with testimony to the universally
admitted competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery. It is so
manifestly an attribute not merely of absolute sovereignty, but even of
ordinary legislation, that the competency of a legislature to exercise
it, may well nigh be reckoned among the legal axioms of the civilized
world. Even the night of the dark ages was not dark enough to make this
invisible.

The Abolition decree of the great council of England was passed in 1102.
The memorable Irish decree, "that all the English slaves in the whole of
Ireland, be immediately emancipated and restored to their former
liberty," was issued in 1171. Slavery in England was abolished by a
general charter of emancipation in 1381. Passing over many instances of
the abolition of slavery by law, both during the middle ages and since
the reformation, we find them multiplying as we approach our own times.
In 1776 slavery was abolished in Prussia by special edict. In St.
Domingo, Cayenne, Guadaloupe, and Martinique, in 1794, where more than
600,000 slaves were emancipated by the French government. In Java, 1811;
in Ceylon, 1815; in Buenos Ayres, 1816; in St. Helena, 1819; in
Colombia, 1821; by the Congress of Chili in 1821; in Cape Colony, 1823;
in Malacca, 1825; in the southern provinces of Birmah, 1826; in Bolivia,
1826; in Peru, Guatemala, and Monte Video, 1828; in Jamaica, Barbados,
the Bermudas, the Bahamas, Anguilla, Mauritius, St. Christopers, Nevis,
the Virgin Islands, (British), Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica, St.
Vincents, Grenada, Berbice, Tobago, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Honduras,
Demerara, Essequibo and the Cape of Good Hope, on the 1st of August,
1834. But waving details, suffice it to say, that England, France,
Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Russia, Austria, Prussia, and Germany, have
all and often given their testimony to the competency of the legislative
power to abolish slavery. In our own country, the Legislature of
Pennsylvania passed an act of abolition in 1780, Connecticut in 1784;
Rhode Island, 1784; New-York, 1799; New-Jersey, in 1804; Vermont, by
Constitution, in 1777; Massachusetts, in 1780; and New-Hampshire,
in 1784.

When the competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery has thus
been recognized every where and for ages, when it has been embodied in
the highest precedents, and celebrated in the thousand jubilees of
regenerated liberty, is it an achievement of modern discovery, that such
a power is a nullity?--that all these acts of abolition are void, and
that the millions disenthralled by them, are, either themselves or their
posterity, still legally in bondage?

4. LEGISLATIVE POWER HAS ABOLISHED SLAVERS IN ITS PARTS. The law of
South Carolina prohibits the working of slaves more than fifteen hours
in the twenty-four. In other words, it takes from the slaveholder his
power over nine hours of the slave's time daily; and if it can take nine
hours it may take twenty-four. The laws of Georgia prohibit the working
of slaves on the first day of the week; and if they can do it for the
first, they can for the six following. The law of North Carolina
prohibits the "immoderate" correction of slaves. If it has power to
prohibit _immoderate_ correction, it can prohibit _moderate_
correction--_all_ correction, which would be virtual emancipation; for,
take from the master the power to inflict pain, and he is master no
longer. Cease to ply the slave with the stimulus of fear, and he
is free.

The Constitution of Mississippi gives the General Assembly power to make
laws "to oblige the owners of slaves to _treat them with humanity_." The
Constitution of Missouri has the same clause, and an additional one
making it the DUTY of the legislature to pass such laws as may be
necessary to secure the _humane_ treatment of the slaves. This grant to
those legislatures, empowers them to decide what _is_ and what is _not_
"humane treatment." Otherwise it gives no "power"--the clause is mere
waste paper, and flouts in the face of a befooled legislature. A clause
giving power to require "humane treatment" covers all the _particulars_
of such treatment--gives power to exact it in _all respects--requiring_
certain acts, and _prohibiting_ others--maiming, branding, chaining
together, separating families, floggings for learning the alphabet, for
reading the Bible, for worshiping God according to conscience--the
legislature has power to specify each of these acts--declare that it is
not "_humane_ treatment," and PROHIBIT it.--The legislature may also
believe that driving men and women into the field, and forcing them to
work without pay, is not "humane treatment," and being constitutionally
bound "to _oblige_" masters to practise "humane treatment"--they have
the _power_ to _prohibit such_ treatment, and are bound to do it.

The law of Louisiana makes slaves real estate, prohibiting the holder,
if he be also a _land_ holder, to separate them from the soil.[A] If it
has power to prohibit the sale _without_ the soil, it can prohibit the
sale _with_ it; and if it can prohibit the _sale_ as property, it can
prohibit the _holding_ as property. Similar laws exist in the French,
Spanish, and Portuguese colonies. The law of Louisiana requires the
master to give his slaves a certain amount of food and clothing. If it
can oblige the master to give the slave _one_ thing, it can oblige him
to give him another: if food and clothing, then wages, liberty, his own
body. By the laws of Connecticut, slaves may receive and hold property,
and prosecute suits in their own name as plaintiffs: [This last was also
the law of Virginia in 1795. See Tucker's "Dissertation on Slavery," p.
73.] There were also laws making marriage contracts legal, in certain
contingencies, and punishing infringements of them, ["_Reeve's Law of
Baron and Femme_," p. 340-1.]

[Footnote A: Virginia made slaves real estate by a law passed in 1705.
(_Beverly's Hist. of Va._, p. 98.) I do not find the precise time when
this law was repealed, probably when Virginia became the chief slave
breeder for the cotton-growing and sugar-planting country, and made
young men and women "from fifteen to twenty-five" the main staple
production of the State.]

Each of the laws enumerated above, does, _in principle_, abolish
slavery; and all of them together abolish it _in fact_. True, not as a
_whole_, and at a _stroke_, nor all in one place; but in its _parts_, by
piecemeal, at divers times and places; thus showing that the abolition
of slavery is within the boundary of legislation.

In the "Washington (D.C.) City Laws," page 138, is "AN ACT to prevent
horses from being cruelly beaten or abused." Similar laws have been
passed by corporations in many of the slave states, and throughout the
civilized world, such acts are punishable either as violations of common
law or of legislative enactments. If a legislature can pass laws "to
prevent _horses_ from being cruelly abused," it can pass laws to prevent
_men_ from being cruelly abused, and if it can _prevent_ cruel abuse, it
can define _what it is_. It can declare that to make men _work without
pay_ is cruel abuse, and can PROHIBIT it.

5. THE COMPETENCY OF THE LAW-MAKING POWER TO ABOLISH SLAVERY, HAS BEEN
RECOGNIZED BY ALL THE SLAVEHOLDING STATES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR BY
IMPLICATION. Some States recognize it in their _Constitutions_, by
giving the legislature power to emancipate such slaves as may "have
rendered the state some distinguished service," and others by express
prohibitory restrictions. The Constitution of Mississippi, Arkansas, and
other States, restrict the power of the legislature in this respect. Why
this express prohibition, if the law-making power _cannot_ abolish
slavery? A stately farce indeed, with appropriate rites to induct into
the Constitution a special clause, for the express purpose of
restricting a nonentity!--to take from the law-making power what it
_never had_, and what _cannot_ pertain to it! The legislatures of those
States have no power to abolish slavery, simply because their
Constitutions have expressly _taken away_ that power. The people of
Arkansas, Mississippi, &c. well knew the competency of the law-making
power to abolish slavery, and hence their zeal to _restrict_ it.

The slaveholding States have recognised this power in their _laws_.
Virginia passed a law in 1786 to prevent the importation of Slaves, of
which the following is an extract: "And be it further enacted that every
slave imported into this commonwealth contrary to the true intent and
meaning of this act, shall upon such importation become _free_." By a
law of Virginia, passed Dec. 17, 1792, a slave brought into the state
and kept _there a year_, was _free_. The Maryland Court of Appeals,
Dec., 1813 [case of Stewart vs. Oakes,] decided that a slave owned in
Maryland, and sent by his master into Virginia to work at different
periods, making one year in the whole, became _free_, being
_emancipated_ by the above law. North Carolina and Georgia in their acts
of cession, transferring to the United States the territory now
constituting the States of Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi, made it a
condition of the grant, that the provisions of the ordinance of '87
should be secured to the inhabitants, _with the exception of the sixth
article which prohibits slavery_; thus conceding, both the competency of
law to abolish slavery, and the power of Congress to do it, within its
jurisdiction. (These acts show the prevalent belief at that time, in the
slaveholding States, that the general government had adopted a line of
policy aiming at the exclusion of slavery from the entire territory of
the United States, not included within the original States, and that
this policy would be pursued unless prevented by specific and formal
stipulation.)

Slaveholding States have asserted this power _in their judicial
decisions_. In numerous cases their highest courts have decided that if
the legal owner of slaves takes them into those States where slavery has
been abolished either by law or by the constitution, such removal
emancipates them, such law or constitution abolishing their slavery.
This principle is asserted in the decision of the Supreme Court of
Louisiana, Lunsford vs. Coquillon, 14 Martin's La. Reps. 401. Also by
the Supreme Court of Virginia, Hunter vs. Fulcher, 1 Leigh's Reps. 172.
The same doctrine was laid down by Judge Washington, of the U. S. Sup.
Court, Butler vs. Hopper, Washington's C. C. Reps. 508; also, by the
Court of Appeals in Kentucky, Rankin vs. Lydia, 2 Marshall's Reps. 407;
see also, Wilson vs. Isbell, 5 Call's Reps. 425, Spotts vs. Gillespie, 6
Randolph's Reps. 566. The State vs. Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. 60,
Marie Louise vs. Mariot, 8 La. Reps. 475. In this case, which was tried
in 1836, the slave had been taken by her master to France and brought
back; Judge Matthews, of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, decided that
"residence for one moment" under the laws of France emancipated her.

6. EMINENT STATESMEN, THEMSELVES SLAVEHOLDERS, HAVE CONCEDED THIS POWER.
Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, says: "There
is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan
adopted for the abolition of slavery; but there is only one proper and
effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by
_legislative_ authority." In a letter to Lafayette, May 10, 1786, he
says: "It (the abolition of slavery) certainly might, and assuredly
ought to be effected, and that too by _legislative_ authority." In a
letter to John Fenton Mercer, Sept. 9, 1786, he says: "It is among my
first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country
may be abolished by _law_." In a letter to Sir John Sinclair, he says:
"There are in Pennsylvania, _laws_ for the gradual abolition of slavery,
which neither Maryland nor Virginia have at present, but which nothing
is more certain than that they _must have_, and at a period not remote."
Jefferson, speaking of movements in the Virginia Legislature in 1777,
for the passage of a law emancipating the slaves, says: "The principles
of the amendment were agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born
after a certain day; but it was found that the public mind would not
bear the proposition, yet the day is not far distant when _it must bear
and adopt it_."--Jefferson's Memoirs, v. i. p. 35. It is well known that
Jefferson, Pendleton, Mason, Wythe and Lee, while acting as a committee
of the Virginia House of Delegates to revise the State Laws, prepared a
plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves by law. These men were
the great lights of Virginia. Mason, the author of the Virginia
Constitution; Pendleton, the President of the memorable Virginia
Convention in 1787, and President of the Virginia Court of Appeals;
Wythe was the Blackstone of the Virginia bench, for a quarter of a
century Chancellor of the State, the professor of law in the University
of William and Mary, and the preceptor of Jefferson, Madison, and Chief
Justice Marshall. He was the author of the celebrated remonstrance to
the English House of Commons on the subject of the stamp act. As to
Jefferson, his _name_ is his biography.

Every slaveholding member of Congress from the States of Maryland,
Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, voted for the
celebrated ordinance of 1787, which abolished the slavery then existing
in the Northwest Territory. Patrick Henry, in his well known letter to
Robert Pleasants, of Virginia, January 18, 1773, says: "I believe a time
will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable
evil." William Pinkney, of Maryland, advocated the abolition of slavery
by law, in the legislature of that State, in 1789. Luther Martin urged
the same measure both in the Federal Convention, and in his report to
the Legislature of Maryland. In 1796, St. George Tucker, of Virginia,
professor of law in the University of William and Mary, and Judge of the
General Court, published a dissertation on slavery, urging the abolition
of slavery by _law_.

John Jay, while New-York was yet a slave State, and himself in law a
slaveholder, said in a letter from Spain, in 1786, "An excellent law
might be made out of the Pennsylvania one, for the gradual abolition of
slavery. Were I in your legislature, I would present a bill for the
purpose, and I would never cease moving it till it became a law, or I
ceased to be a member."

Governor Tompkins, in a message to the Legislature of New-York, January
8, 1812, said: "To devise the means for the gradual and ultimate
_extermination_ from amongst us of slavery, is a work worthy the
_representatives_ of a polished and enlightened nation."

The Virginia Legislature asserted this power in 1832. At the close of a
month's debate, the following proceedings were had. I extract from an
editorial article in the Richmond Whig, Jan. 26, 1832.

"The report of the Select Committee, adverse to legislation on the
subject of Abolition, was in these words: _Resolved_, as the opinion of
this Committee, that it is INEXPEDIENT FOR THE PRESENT, to make any
_legislative enactments for the abolition of slavery_." This Report Mr.
Preston moved to reverse, and thus to declare that it _was_ expedient,
_now_ to make legislative enactments for the abolition of slavery. This
was meeting the question in its strongest form. It demanded action, and
immediate action. On this proposition the vote was 58 to 73. Many of the
most decided friends of abolition voted against the amendment, because
they thought public opinion not sufficiently prepared for it, and that
it might prejudice the cause to move too rapidly. The vote on Mr.
Witcher's motion to postpone the whole subject indefinitely, indicates
the true state of opinion in the House. That was the test question, and
was so intended and proclaimed by its mover. That motion was
_negatived_, 71 to 60; showing a majority of 11, who by that vote,
declared their belief that at the proper time, and in the proper mode,
Virginia ought to commence a system of gradual abolition.

7. THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE ASSERTED THIS POWER. The
ordinance of '87, declaring that there should be "neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude," in the North Western Territory, abolished the
slavery then existing there. The Sup. Court of Mississippi, [Harvey vs.
Decker, Walker's Mi. Reps. 36,] declared that the ordinance of '87
emancipated the slaves then held there. In this decision the question is
argued ably and at great length. The Supreme Court of La. made the same
decision in the case of Forsyth vs. Nash, 4 Martin's La. Reps. 385. The
same doctrine was laid down by Judge Porter, (late United States Senator
from La.,) in his decision at the March term of the La. Supreme Court,
1830, Merry vs. Chexnaider, 20 Martin's Reps. 699.

That the ordinance abolished the slavery then existing there is also
shown by the fact, that persons holding slaves in the territory
petitioned for the repeal of the article abolishing slavery, assigning
_that_ as a reason. "The petition of the citizens of Randolph and St.
Clair counties in the Illinois country, stating that they were in
possession of slaves, and praying the repeal of that act (the 6th
article of the ordinance of '87) and the passage of a law legalizing
slavery there." [Am. State papers, Public Lands, v. 1. p. 69.] Congress
passed this ordinance before the United States' Constitution was
adopted, when it derived all its authority from the articles of
Confederation, which conferred powers of legislation far more restricted
than those committed to Congress over the District and Territories by
the United States' Constitution. Now, we ask, how does the Constitution
_abridge_ the powers which Congress possessed under the articles of
confederation?

The abolition of the slave trade by Congress, in 1808, is another
illustration of the competency of legislative power to abolish slavery.
The African slave trade has become such a mere _technic_, in common
parlance, that the fact of its being _proper slavery_ is overlooked. The
buying and selling, the transportation, and the horrors of the middle
passage, were mere _incidents_ of the slavery in which the victims were
held. Let things be called by their own names. When Congress abolished
the African slave trade, it abolished SLAVERY--supreme slavery--power
frantic with license, trampling a whole hemisphere scathed with its
fires, and running down with blood. True, Congress did not, in the
abolition of the slave trade, abolish all the slavery within its
jurisdiction, but it did abolish _all_ the slavery _in one_ part of its
jurisdiction. What has rifled it of power to abolish slavery in
_another_ part of its jurisdiction, especially in that part where it has
"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever?"

8. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES THIS POWER BY THE
MOST CONCLUSIVE IMPLICATION. In Art. 1, sec. 3, clause 1, it prohibits
the abolition of the slave trade previous to 1808: thus implying the
power of Congress to do it at once, but for the restriction; and its
power to do it _unconditionally_, when that restriction ceased. Again;
In Art. 4, sec. 2, "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 said service or
labor." This clause was inserted, as all admit, to prevent the runaway
slave from being emancipated by the _laws_ of the free states. If these
laws had _no power_ to emancipate, why this constitutional guard to
prevent it?

The insertion of the clause, was the testimony of the eminent jurists
that framed the Constitution, to the existence of the _power_, and their
public proclamation, that the abolition of slavery was within the
appropriate sphere of legislation. The right of the owner to that which
is rightfully property, is founded on a principle of _universal law_,
and is recognized and protected by all civilized nations; property in
slaves is, by general consent, an _exception_; hence slaveholders
insisted upon the insertion of this clause in the United States'
Constitution, that they might secure by an _express provision_, that
from which protection is withheld, by the acknowledged principles of
universal law.[A] By demanding this provision, slaveholders consented
that their slaves should not be recognized as property by the United
States' Constitution, and hence they found their claim, on the fact of
their being "_persons_, and _held_ to service."

[Footnote A: The fact, that under the articles of Confederation,
slaveholders, whose slaves had escaped into free states, had no legal
power to force them back,--that _now_ they have no power to recover, by
process of law, their slaves who escape to Canada, the South American
States, or to Europe--the case already cited, in which the Supreme Court
of Louisiana decided, that residence "_for one moment_," under the laws
of France emancipated an American slave--the case of Fulton, _vs._
Lewis, 3 Har. and John's Reps., 56, where the slave of a St. Domingo
slaveholder, who brought him to Maryland in '93, was pronounced free by
the Maryland Court of Appeals--are illustrations of the acknowledged
truth here asserted, that by the consent of the civilized world, and on
the principles of universal law, slaves are not "_property_," and that
whenever held as property under _law_, it is only by _positive
legislative acts_, forcibly setting aside the law of nature, the common
law, and the principles of universal justice and right between man and
man,--principles paramount to all law, and from which alone, law derives
its intrinsic authoritative sanction.]

9. CONGRESS HAS UNQUESTIONABLE POWER TO ADOPT THE COMMON LAW, AS THE
LEGAL SYSTEM, WITHIN ITS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.--This has been done,
with certain restrictions, in most of the States, either by legislative
acts or by constitutional implication. THE COMMON LAW KNOWS NO SLAVES.
Its principles annihilate slavery wherever they touch it. It is a
universal, unconditional, abolition act. Wherever slavery is a legal
system, it is so only by _statute_ law, and in violation of the common
law. The declaration of Lord Chief Justice Holt, that, "by the common
law, no man can have property in another," is an acknowledged axiom, and
based upon the well known common law definition of property. "The
subjects of dominion or property are _things_, as contra-distinguished
from _persons_." Let Congress adopt the common law in the District of
Columbia, and slavery there is abolished. Congress may well be at home
in common law legislation, for the common law is the grand element of
the United States' Constitution. All its _fundamental_ provisions are
instinct with its spirit; and its existence, principles, and paramount
authority, are presupposed and assumed throughout the whole. The
preamble of the Constitution plants the standard of the Common Law
immovably in its foreground. "We, the people of the United States, in
order to ESTABLISH JUSTICE, &c., do ordain and establish this
Constitution;" thus proclaiming _devotion_ to JUSTICE, as the
controlling motive in the organization of the Government, and its secure
establishment the chief object of its aims. By this most solemn
recognition, the common law, that grand legal embodyment of "justice"
and fundamental right--was made the groundwork of the Constitution, and
intrenched behind its strongest munitions. The second clause of Sec. 9,
Art. 1; Sec. 4, Art. 2, and the last clause of Sec. 2, Art. 3, with
Articles 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the Amendments, are also express
recognitions of the common law as the presiding Genius of the
Constitution.

By adopting the common law within its exclusive jurisdiction Congress
would carry out the principles of our glorious Declaration, and follow
the highest precedents in our national history and jurisprudence. It is
a political maxim as old as civil legislation, that laws should be
strictly homogeneous with the principles of the government whose will
they express, embodying and carrying them out--being indeed the
_principles themselves_, in preceptive form--representatives alike of
the nature and power of the Government--standing illustrations of its
genius and spirit, while they proclaim and enforce its authority. Who
needs be told that slavery makes war upon the principles of the
Declaration, and the spirit of the Constitution, and that these and the
principles of the common law gravitate towards each other with
irrepressible affinities, and mingle into one? The common law came
hither with our pilgrim fathers; it was their birthright, their panoply,
their glory, and their song of rejoicing in the house of their
pilgrimage. It covered them in the day of their calamity, and their
trust was under the shadow of its wings. From the first settlement of
the country, the genius of our institutions and our national spirit have
claimed it as a common possession, and exulted in it with a common
pride. A century ago, Governor Pownall, one of the most eminent
constitutional jurists of colonial times, said of the common law, "In
all the colonies the common law is received as the foundation and main
body of their law." In the Declaration of Rights, made by the
Continental Congress at its first session in '74, there was the
following resolution: "Resolved, That the respective colonies are
entitled to the common law of England, and especially to the great and
inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage
according to the course of that law." Soon after the organization of the
general government, Chief Justice Ellsworth, in one of his decisions on
the bench of the U. S. Sup. Court, said: "The common law of this country
remains the same as it was before the revolution." Chief Justice
Marshall, in his decision in the case of Livingston _vs._ Jefferson,
said: "When our ancestors migrated to America, they brought with them
the common law of their native country, so far as it was applicable to
their new situation, and I do not conceive that the revolution in any
degree changed the relations of man to man, or the law which regulates
them. In breaking our political connection with the parent state, we did
not break our connection with each other." [_Hall's Law Journal, new
series_.] Mr. Duponceau, in his "Dissertation on the Jurisdiction of
Courts in the United States," says, "I consider the common law of
England the _jus commune_ of the United States. I think I can lay it
down as a correct principle, that the common law of England, as it was
at the time of the Declaration of Independence, still continues to be
the national law of this country, so far as it is applicable to our
present state, and subject to the modifications it has received here in
the course of nearly half a century." Chief Justice Taylor of North
Carolina, in his decision in the case of the State _vs._ Reed, in 1823,
Hawkes' N.C. Reps. 454, says, "a law of _paramount, obligation to the
statute_, was violated by the offence--COMMON LAW, founded upon the law
of nature, and confirmed by revelation." The legislation of the United
States abounds in recognitions of the principles of the common law,
asserting their paramount binding power. Sparing details, of which our
national state papers are full, we illustrate by a single instance. It
was made a condition of the admission of Louisiana into the Union, that
the right of trial by jury should be secured to all her citizens,--the
United States government thus employing its power to enlarge the
jurisdiction of the common law in this its great representative.

Having shown that the abolition of slavery is within the competency of
the law-making power, when unrestricted by constitutional provisions,
and that the legislation of Congress over the District is thus
unrestricted, its power to abolish slavery there is established. We
argue it further, from the fact that,

10. SLAVERY NOW EXISTS IN THE DISTRICT BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS. In the act
of 16th July, 1790, Congress accepted portions of territory offered by
the states of Maryland and Virginia, and enacted that the laws, as they
then were, should continue in force, "until Congress shall otherwise by
law provide." Under these laws, adopted by Congress, and in effect
re-enacted and made laws of the District, the slaves there are now held.

Is Congress so impotent in its own "exclusive jurisdiction" that it
cannot "otherwise by law provide?" If it can say, what _shall_ be
considered property, it can say what shall _not_ be considered property.
Suppose a legislature should enact that marriage contracts should be
mere bills of sale, making a husband the proprietor of his wife, as his
_bona fide_ property; and suppose husbands should herd their wives in
droves for the market as beasts of burden, or for the brothel as victims
of lust, and then prate about their inviolable legal property, and deny
the power of the legislature, which stamped them "property," to undo its
own wrong, and secure to wives by law the rights of human beings. Would
such cant about "legal rights" be heeded where reason and justice held
sway, and where law, based upon fundamental morality, received homage?
If a frantic legislature pronounces woman a chattel, has it no power,
with returning reason, to take back the blasphemy? Is the impious edict
irrepealable? Be it, that with legal forms it has stamped wives "wares."
Can no legislation blot out the brand? Must the handwriting of Deity on
human nature be expunged for ever? Has LAW no power to stay the erasing
pen, and tear off the scrawled label that covers up the IMAGE OF GOD?

II. THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN,
TILL RECENTLY, UNIVERSALLY CONCEDED.

1. It has been assumed by Congress itself. The following record stands
on the journals of the House of Representatives for 1804, p. 225: "On
motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following
resolution: 'Resolved, That from and after the 4th day of July, 1805,
all blacks and people of color that shall be born within the District of
Columbia, or whose mothers shall be the property of any person residing
within the said District, shall be free, the males at the age of ----,
and the females at the age of ----. The main question being taken that
the House do agree to said motions as originally proposed, it was
negatived by a majority of 46.'" Though the motion was lost, it was on
the ground of its alleged _inexpediency_ alone. In the debate which
preceded the vote, the power of Congress was conceded. In March, 1816,
the House of Representatives passed the following resolution: "Resolved,
That a committee be appointed to inquire into the existence of an
inhuman and illegal traffic in slaves, carried on in and through the
District of Columbia, and to report whether any and what measures are
necessary for _putting a stop to the same_."

On the 9th of January, 1829, the House of Representatives passed the
following resolution by a vote of 114 to 66: "Resolved, That the
Committee on the District of Columbia, be instructed to inquire into the
_expediency_ of providing by _law_ for the gradual abolition of slavery
within the District, in such a manner that the interests of no
individual shall be injured thereby." Among those who voted in the
affirmative were Messrs. Barney of Md., Armstrong of Va., A.H. Shepperd
of N.C., Blair of Tenn., Chilton and Lyon of Ky., Johns of Del., and
others from slave states.

2. IT HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS, ON THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.--In a report of the committee on the District, Jan. 11, 1837,
by their chairman, Mr. Powell of Va., there is the following
declaration: "The Congress of the United States, has by the constitution
exclusive jurisdiction over the District, and has power upon this
subject (_slavery_,) as upon all other subjects of legislation, to
exercise _unlimited discretion_." Reports of Comms. 2d Sess. 19th Cong.
v. iv. No. 43. In December, 1831, the committee on the District, Mr.
Doddridge of Va., Chairman, reported, "That until the adjoining states
act on the subject, (_slavery_) it would be (not _unconstitutional_ but)
unwise and impolitic, if not unjust, for Congress to interfere." In
April, 1836, a special committee on abolition memorials reported the
following resolutions by their Chairman, Mr. Pinckney of South Carolina:
"Resolved, That Congress possesses no constitutional authority to
interfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of the
states of this confederacy."

"Resolved, That Congress _ought not to interfere_ in any way with
slavery in the District of Columbia." "Ought not to interfere,"
carefully avoiding the phraseology of the first resolution, and thus in
effect conceding the constitutional power. In a widely circulated
"Address to the electors of the Charleston District," Mr. Pinkney is
thus denounced by his own constituents: "He has proposed a resolution
which is received by the plain common sense of the whole country as a
concession that Congress has authority to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia."

3. IT HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY THE CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT. A petition for
the gradual abolition of slavery in the District, signed by nearly
eleven hundred of its citizens, was presented to Congress, March 24,
1827. Among the signers to this petition, were Chief Justice Cranch,
Judge Van Ness, Judge Morsel, Prof. J.M. Staughton, and a large number
of the most influential inhabitants of the District. Mr. Dickson, of New
York, asserted on the floor of Congress in 1835, that the signers to
this petition owned more than half the property in the District. The
accuracy of this statement has never been questioned.

THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY GRAND JURIES OF THE DISTRICT. The grand
jury of the county of Alexandria, at the March term, 1802, presented the
domestic slaves trade as a grievance, and said, "We consider these
grievances demanding _legislative_ redress." Jan. 19, 1829, Mr.
Alexander, of Virginia, presented a representation of the grand jury in
the city of Washington, remonstrating against "any measure for the
abolition of slavery within said District, unless accompanied by
measures for the removal of the emancipated from the same;" thus, not
only conceding the power to emancipate slaves, but affirming an
additional power, that of _excluding them when free_. Journal H. R.
1828-9, p. 174.

4. THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY STATE LEGISLATURES. In 1828 the
Legislature of Pennsylvania instructed their Senators in Congress "to
procure, if practicable, the passage of a law to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia." Jan. 28, 1829, the House of Assembly of New York
passed a resolution, that their "Senators in Congress be instructed to
make every possible exertion to effect the passage of a law for the
abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia." In February, 1837,
the Senate of Massachusetts "Resolved, That Congress having exclusive
legislation in the District of Columbia, possess the right to abolish
slavery and the slave trade therein." The House of Representatives
passed the following resolution at the same session: "Resolved, That
Congress having exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia,
possess the right to abolish slavery in said District." November 1,
1837, the Legislature of Vermont, "Resolved that Congress have the full
power by the constitution to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the
District of Columbia, and in the territories."

In May, 1838, the Legislature of Connecticut passed a resolution
asserting the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District
of Columbia.

In January, 1836, the Legislature of South Carolina "Resolved, That we
should consider the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia as
a violation of the rights of the citizens of that District derived from
the _implied_ conditions on which that territory was ceded to the
General Government." Instead of denying the constitutional power, they
virtually admit its existence, by striving to smother it under an
_implication_. In February, 1836, the Legislature of North Carolina
"Resolved, That, although by the Constitution _all legislative power_
over the District of Columbia is vested in the Congress of the United
States, yet we would deprecate any legislative action on the part of
that body towards liberating the slaves of that District, as a breach of
faith towards those States by whom the territory was originally ceded.
Here is a full concession of the _power_. February 2, 1836, the Virginia
Legislature passed unanimously the following resolution: "Resolved, by
the General Assembly of Virginia, that the following article be proposed
to the several states of this Union, and to Congress, as an amendment of
the Constitution of the United States:" "The powers of Congress shall not
be so construed as to authorize the passage of any law for the
emancipation of slaves in the District of Columbia, without the consent
of the individual proprietors thereof, unless by the sanction of the
Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland, and under such conditions as they
shall by law prescribe."

Fifty years after the formation of the United States' constitution the
states are solemnly called upon by the Virginia Legislature, to amend
that instrument by a clause asserting that, in the grant to Congress of
"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District, the
"case" of slavery is not included!! What could have dictated such a
resolution but the conviction that the power to abolish slavery is an
irresistible inference from the constitution _as it is?_ The fact that
the same legislature, passed afterward a resolution, though by no means
unanimously, that Congress does not possess the power, abates not a
title of the testimony in the first resolution. March 23d, 1824, "Mr.
Brown presented the resolutions of the General Assembly of Ohio,
recommending to Congress the consideration of a system for the gradual
emancipation of persons of color held in servitude in the United
States." On the same day, "Mr. Noble, of Indiana, communicated a
resolution from the legislature of that state, respecting the gradual
emancipation of slaves within the United States." Journal of the United
States' Senate, for 1824-5, p.231.

The Ohio and Indiana resolutions, by taking for granted the _general_
power of Congress over the subject of slavery, do virtually assert its
_special_ power within its _exclusive_ jurisdiction.

5. THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY BODIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SLAVE
STATES. The petition of eleven hundred citizens of the District, has
been already mentioned. "March 5,1830, Mr. Washington presented a
memorial of inhabitants of the county of Frederick, in the state of
Maryland, praying that provision be made for the gradual abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia." Journal H.R. 1829-30, p. 358.

March 30, 1828. Mr. A.H. Shepperd, of North Carolina, presented a
memorial of citizens of that state, "praying Congress to take measures
for the entire abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia."
Journal H.R. 1829-30, p. 379.

January 14, 1822. Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, presented a memorial of
citizens of that state, praying that "provision may be made, whereby all
slaves that may hereafter be born in the District of Columbia, shall be
free at a certain period of their lives." Journal H.R. 1821-22, p.142.

December 13, 1824. Mr. Saunders of North Carolina, presented a memorial
of the citizens of that state, praying "that measures may be taken for
the gradual abolition of slavery in the United States." Journal H.R.
1824-25, p.27.

December 16, 1828. "Mr. Barnard presented the memorial of the American
Convention for promoting the abolition of slavery, held in Baltimore,
praying that slavery may be abolished in the District of Columbia."
Journal U.S. Senate, 1828-29, p.24.

6. DISTINGUISHED STATESMEN AND JURISTS IN THE SLAVEHOLDING STATES, HAVE
CONCEDED THIS POWER. The testimony Of Messrs. Doddridge, and Powell, of
Virginia, Chief Justice Cranch, and Judges Morsel and Van Ness, of the
District, has already been given. In the debate in Congress on the
memorial of the Society of Friends, in 1790, Mr. Madison, in speaking of
the territories of the United States, explicitly declared, from his own
knowledge of the views of the members of the convention that framed the
constitution, as well as from the obvious import of its terms, that in
the territories, "Congress have certainly the power to regulate the
subject of slavery." Congress can have no more power over the
territories than that of "exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever," consequently, according to Mr. Madison, "it has certainly
the power to regulate the subject of slavery in the" _District_. In
March, 1816, Mr. Randolph of Virginia, introduced a resolution for
putting a stop to the domestic slave trade within the District. December
12, 1827, Mr. Barney, of Maryland, presented a memorial for abolition in
the District, and moved that it be printed. Mr. McDuffie, of S.C.,
objected to the printing, but "expressly admitted the right of Congress
to grant to the people of the District any measure which they might deem
necessary to free themselves from the deplorable evil."--[See letter of
Mr. Claiborne of Miss. to his constituents published in the Washington
Globe, May 9, 1836.] The sentiments of Mr. Clay of Kentucky, on the
subject are well known. In a speech before the U.S. Senate, in 1836, he
declared the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District
"unquestionable." Messrs. Blair, of Tennessee, and Chilton, Lyon, and
R.M. Johnson, of Kentucky, A.H. Shepperd, of N.C., Messrs. Armstrong and
Smyth of Va., Messrs. Dorsey, Archer, and Barney, of Md., and Johns, of
Del., with numerous others from slave states have asserted the power of
Congress to abolish slavery in the District. In the speech of Mr. Smyth,
of Virginia, on the Missouri question, January 28, 1820, he says on this
point: "If the future freedom of the blacks is your real object, and not
a mere pretence, why do you begin _here_? Within the ten miles square,
you have _undoubted power_ to exercise exclusive legislation. _Produce a
bill to emancipate the slaves in the District of Columbia_, or, if you
prefer it, to emancipate those born hereafter."

To this may be added the testimony of the present Vice President of the
United States, Hon. Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky. In a speech before
the U.S. Senate, February 1, 1820, (National Intelligencer, April 29,
1829,) he says: "In the District of Columbia, containing a population of
30,000 souls, and probably as many slaves as the whole territory of
Missouri, THE POWER OF PROVIDING FOR THEIR EMANCIPATION RESTS WITH
CONGRESS ALONE. Why then, this heart-rending sympathy for the slaves of
Missouri, and this cold insensibility, this eternal apathy, towards the
slaves in the District of Columbia?"

It is quite unnecessary to add, that the most distinguished northern
statesmen of both political parties, have always affirmed the power of
Congress to abolish slavery in the District. President Van Buren in his
letter of March 6, 1836, to a committee of Gentlemen in North Carolina,
says, "I would not, from the light now before me, feel myself safe in
pronouncing that Congress does not possess the power of abolishing
slavery in the District of Columbia." This declaration of the President
is consistent with his avowed sentiments touching the Missouri question,
on which he coincided with such men as Daniel D. Thompkins, De Witt
Clinton, and others, whose names are a host.[A] It is consistent, also
with his recommendation in his last message, in which speaking of the
District, he strongly urges upon Congress "a thorough and careful
revision of its local government," speaks of the "entire independence"
of the people of the District "upon Congress," recommends that a
"uniform system of local government" be adopted, and adds, that
"although it was selected as the seat of the General Government, the
site of its public edifices, the depository of its archives, and the
residences of officers intrusted with large amounts of public property,
and the management of public business, yet it never has been subjected
to, or received, that _special_ and _comprehensive_ legislation which
these circumstances peculiarly demanded."

[Footnote A: Mr. Van Buren, when a member of the Senate of New-York,
voted for the following preamble and resolutions, which passed
unanimously:--Jan. 28th, 1820. "Whereas the inhibiting the further
extension of slavery in the United States, is a subject of deep concern
to the people of this state: and whereas, we consider slavery as an evil
much to be deplored, and that _every constitutional barrier should be
interposed to prevent its further extension_: and that the constitution
of the United States _clearly gives Congress the right_ to require new
states, not comprised within the original boundary of the United States,
to _make the prohibition of slavery_ a condition of their admission into
the Union: Therefore,

    Resolved, That our Senators be instructed, and our members of
    Congress be requested, to oppose the admission as a state into the
    Union, of any territory not comprised as aforesaid, without making
    _the prohibition of slavery_ therein an indispensible condition of
    admission."
]

The tenor of Mr. Tallmadge's speech on the right of petition, and of Mr.
Webster's on the reception of abolition memorials, may be taken as
universal exponents of the sentiments of northern statesmen as to the
power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.

An explicit declaration, that an "_overwhelming majority_" of the
_present_ Congress concede the power to abolish slavery in the District
has just been made by Robert Barnwell Rhett, a member of Congress from
South Carolina, in a letter published in the Charleston Mercury of Dec.
27, 1837. The following is an extract:

"The time has arrived when we must have new guaranties under the
constitution, or the Union must be dissolved. _Our views of the
constitution are not those of the majority_. AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY
_think that by the constitution, Congress may abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia--may abolish the slave trade between the States;
that is, it may prohibit their being carried out of the State in which
they are--and prohibit it in all the territories, Florida among them.
They think_, NOT WITHOUT STRONG REASONS, _that the power of Congress
extends to all of these subjects_."

_Direct testimony_ to show that the power of Congress to abolish slavery
in the District, has always till recently been _universally conceded_,
is perhaps quite superfluous. We subjoin, however, the following:

The Vice-President of the United States in his speech on the Missouri
question, quoted above, after contending that the restriction of slavery
in Missouri would be unconstitutional, declares, that the power of
Congress over slavery in the District "COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED." In the
speech of Mr. Smyth, of Va., also quoted above, he declares the power of
Congress to abolish slavery in the District to be "UNDOUBTED."

Mr. Sutherland, of Penn., in a speech in the House of Representatives,
on the motion to print Mr. Pinckney's Report, is thus reported in the
Washington Globe, of May 9th, '36. "He replied to the remark that the
report conceded that Congress had a right to legislate upon the subject
in the District of Columbia, and said that SUCH A RIGHT HAD NEVER BEEN,
TILL RECENTLY, DENIED."

The American Quarterly Review, published at Philadelphia, with a large
circulation and list of contributors in the slave states, holds the
following language in the September No. 1833, p. 55: "Under this
'exclusive jurisdiction,' granted by the constitution, Congress has
power to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of
Columbia. It would hardly be necessary to state this as a distinct
proposition, had it not been occasionally questioned. The truth of the
assertion, however, is too obvious to admit of argument--and we believe
has NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY PERSONS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE
CONSTITUTION."

OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS CONSIDERED.

We now proceed to notice briefly the main arguments that have been
employed in Congress and elsewhere against the power of Congress to
abolish slavery in the District. One of the most plausible is, that "the
conditions on which Maryland and Virginia ceded the District to the
United States, would be violated, if Congress should abolish slavery
there." The reply to this is, that Congress had no power to _accept_ a
cession coupled with conditions restricting that "power of exclusive
legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District," which was
given it by the constitution.

To show the futility of the objection, we insert here the acts of
cession. The cession of Maryland was made in November, 1788, and is as
follows: "An act to cede to Congress a district of ten miles square in
this state for the seat of the government of the United States."

"Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, that the
representatives of this state in the House of Representatives of the
Congress of the United States, appointed to assemble at New-York, on the
first Wednesday of March next, be, and they are; hereby authorized and
required on the behalf of this state, to cede to the Congress of the
United States, any district in this state, not exceeding ten miles
square, which the Congress may fix upon, and accept for the seat of
government of the United States." Laws of Md., v. 2., c. 46.

The cession of Virginia was made on the 3d of December, 1788, in the
following words:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That a tract of country, not
exceeding ten miles square, or any lesser quantity, to be located within
the limits of the State, and in any part thereof; as Congress may, by
law, direct, shall be, and the same is hereby forever ceded and
relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, in
full and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil, as
of persons residing or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and
effect of the eighth section of the first article of the government of
the constitution of the United States."

But were there no provisos to these acts? The Maryland act had _none_.
The Virginia act had this proviso: "Sect. 2. Provided, that nothing
herein contained, shall be construed to vest in the United States any
right of property in the soil, or to affect the rights of individuals
_therein_, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred by such
individuals to the United States."

This specification touching the soil was merely definitive and
explanatory of that clause in the act of cession, "_full and absolute
right_." Instead of restraining the power of Congress on _slavery_ and
other subjects, it even gives it freer course; for exceptions to _parts_
of a rule, give double confirmation to those parts not embraced in the
exceptions. If it was the _design_ of the proviso to restrict
congressional action on the subject of _slavery_, why is the _soil
alone_ specified? As legal instruments are not paragons of economy in
words, might not "John Doe," out of his abundance, and without spoiling
his style, have afforded an additional word--at least a hint--that
slavery was _meant_, though nothing was said about it?

But again, Maryland and Virginia, in their acts of cession, declare them
to be made "in pursuance of" that clause of the constitution which gives
to Congress "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the ten
miles square--thus, instead of _restricting_ that clause, both States
_confirm_ it. Now, their acts of cession either accorded with that
clause of the constitution, or they conflicted with it. If they
conflicted with it, _accepting_ the cessions was a violation of the
constitution. The fact that Congress accepted the cessions, proves that
in its views their _terms_ did not conflict with its constitutional
grant of power. The inquiry whether these acts of cession were
consistent or inconsistent with the United Status' constitution, is
totally irrelevant to the question at issue. What with the CONSTITUTION?
That is the question. Not, what with Virginia, or Maryland, or--equally
to the point--John Bull! If Maryland and Virginia had been the
authorized interpreters of the constitution for the Union, these acts of
cession could hardly have been more magnified than they have been
recently by the southern delegation in Congress. A true understanding of
the constitution can be had, forsooth, only by holding it up in the
light of Maryland and Virginia legislation!

We are told, again, that those States would not have ceded the District
if they had supposed the constitution gave Congress power to abolish
slavery in it.

This comes with an ill grace from Maryland and Virginia. They _knew_ the
constitution. They were parties to it. They had sifted it, clause by
clause, in their State conventions. They had weighed its words in the
balance--they had tested them as by fire; and, finally, after long
pondering, they adopted the constitution. And _afterward_, self-moved,
they ceded the ten miles square, and declared the cession made "in
pursuance of" that oft-cited clause, "Congress shall have power to
exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such
District." And now verily "they would not have ceded if they had
_supposed_!" &c. Cede it they _did_, and in "full and absolute right
both of soil and persons." Congress accepted the cession--state power
over the District ceased, and congressional power over it
commenced,--and now, the sole question to be settled is, the _amount of
power over the District lodged in Congress by the constitution_. The
constitution--THE CONSTITUTION--that is the point. Maryland and Virginia
"suppositions" must be potent suppositions to abrogate a clause of the
United States' Constitution! That clause either gives Congress power to
abolish slavery in the District, or it does _not_--and that point is to
be settled, not by state "suppositions," nor state usages, nor state
legislation, but _by the terms of the clause themselves_.

Southern members of Congress, in the recent discussions, have conceded
the power of a contingent abolition in the District, by suspending it
upon the _consent_ of the people. Such a doctrine from _declaimers_ like
Messrs. Alford, of Georgia, and Walker, of Mississippi, would excite no
surprise; but that it should be honored with the endorsement of such men
as Mr. Rives and Mr. Calhoun, is quite unaccountable. Are attributes of
sovereignty mere creatures of contingency? Is delegated authority mere
conditional permission? Is a constitutional power to be exercised by
those who hold it, only by popular sufferance? Must it lie helpless at
the pool of public sentiment, waiting the gracious troubling of its
waters? Is it a lifeless corpse, save only when popular "consent" deigns
to puff breath into its nostrils? Besides, if the consent of the people
of the District be necessary, the consent of the _whole_ people must be
had--not that of a majority, however large. Majorities, to be
authoritative, must be _legal_--and a legal majority without legislative
power, or right of representation, or even the electoral franchise,
would be truly an anomaly! In the District of Columbia, such a thing as
a majority in a legal sense is unknown to law. To talk of the power of a
majority, or the will of a majority there, is mere mouthing. A majority?
Then it has an authoritative will, and an organ to make it known, and an
executive to carry it into effect--Where are they? We repeat it--if the
consent of the people of the District be necessary, the consent of
_every one_ is necessary--and _universal_ consent will come only with
the Greek Kalends and a "perpetual motion." A single individual might
thus perpetuate slavery in defiance of the expressed will of a whole
people. The most common form of this fallacy is given by Mr. Wise, of
Virginia, in his speech, February 16, 1835, in which he denied the power
of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, unless the inhabitants
owning slaves petitioned for it!! Southern members of Congress at the
present session (1837-8) ring changes almost daily upon the same
fallacy. What! pray Congress _to use_ a power which it _has not_? "It is
required of a man according to what he _hath_," saith the Scripture. I
commend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would that he had got his
_logic_ of him! If Congress does not possess the power, why taunt it
with its weakness, by asking its exercise? Petitioning, according to Mr.
Wise, is, in matters of legislation, omnipotence itself; the very
_source_ of all constitutional power; for, _asking_ Congress to do what
it _cannot_ do, gives it the power!--to pray the exercise of a power
that is _not, creates_ it! A beautiful theory! Let us work it both ways.
If to petition for the exercise of a power that is _not_, creates it--to
petition against the exercise of a power that _is_, annihilates it. As
southern gentlemen are partial to summary processes, pray, sirs, try the
virtue of your own recipe on "exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever;" a better subject for experiment and test of the
prescription could not be had. But if the petitions of the citizens of
the District give Congress the _right_ to abolish slavery, they impose
the _duty_; if they confer constitutional _authority_, they create
constitutional _obligation_. If Congress _may_ abolish because of an
expression of their will, it _must_ abolish at the bidding of that will.
If the people of the District are a _source of power_ to Congress, their
_expressed will_ has the force of a constitutional provision, and has
the same binding power upon the National Legislature. To make Congress
dependent on the District for authority, is to make it a _subject_ of
its authority, restraining the exercise of its own discretion, and
sinking it into a mere organ of the District's will. We proceed to
another objection.

"_The southern states would not have ratified the constitution, if they
had supposed that it gave this power_." It is a sufficient answer to
this objection, that the northern states would not have ratified it, if
they had supposed that it _withheld_ the power. If "suppositions" are to
take the place of the constitution--coming from both sides, they
neutralize each other. To argue a constitutional question by _guessing_
at the "suppositions" that might have been made by the parties to it
would find small favor in a court of law. But even a desperate shift is
some easement when sorely pushed. If this question is to be settled by
"suppositions," suppositions shall be forthcoming, and that
without stint.

First, then, I affirm that the North ratified the constitution,
"supposing" that slavery had begun to wax old, and would speedily vanish
away, and especially that the abolition of the slave trade, which by the
constitution was to be surrendered to Congress after twenty years, would
plunge it headlong.

Would the North have adopted the constitution, giving three-fifths of
the "slave property" a representation, if it had "supposed" that the
slaves would have increased from half a million to two millions and a
half by 1838--and that the census of 1840 would give to the slave states
thirty representatives of "slave property?"

If they had "supposed" that this representation would have controlled
the legislation of the government, and carried against the North every
question vital to its interests, would Hamilton, Franklin, Sherman,
Gerry, Livingston, Langdon, and Rufus King have been such madmen, as to
sign the constitution, and the Northern States such suicides as to
ratify it? Every self-preserving instinct would have shrieked at such an
infatuate immolation. At the adoption of the United States constitution,
slavery was regarded as a fast waning system. This conviction was
universal. Washington, Jefferson, Henry, Grayson, Tucker, Madison,
Wythe, Pendleton, Lee, Blair, Mason, Page, Parker, Randolph, Iredell,
Spaight, Ramsey, Pinkney, Martin, McHenry, Chase, and nearly all the
illustrious names south of the Potomac, proclaimed it before the sun. A
reason urged in the convention that formed the United States'
constitution, why the word slave should not be used in it, was, _that
when slavery should cease_ there might remain upon the National Charter
no record that it had ever been. (See speech of Mr. Burrill, of R.I., on
the Missouri question.)

I now proceed to show by testimony, that at the date of the United
States' constitution, and for several years before and after that
period, slavery was rapidly on the wane; that the American Revolution
with the great events preceding, accompanying, and following it, had
wrought an immense and almost universal change in the public sentiment
of the nation on the subject, powerfully impelling it toward the entire
abolition of the system--and that it was the _general belief_ that
measures for its abolition throughout the Union, would be commenced by
the States generally before the lapse of many years. A great mass of
testimony establishing this position might be presented, but narrow
space, and the importance of speedy publication, counsel brevity. Let
the following proofs suffice. First, a few dates as points of
observation.

In 1757, Commissioners from seven colonies met at Albany, resolved upon
a Union and proposed a plan of general government. In 1765, delegates
from nine colonies met at New York and sent forth a bill of rights. The
first _general_ Congress met in 1774. The first Congress of the
_thirteen_ colonies met in 1775. The revolutionary war commenced in '75.
Independence was declared in '76. The articles of confederation were
adopted by the thirteen states in '77 and '78. Independence acknowledged
in '83. The convention for forming the U.S. constitution was held in
'87, the state conventions for considering it in '87 and '88. The first
Congress under the constitution in '89.

Dr. Rush, of Pennsylvania, one of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence, in a letter to Granville Sharpe, May 1, 1773, says: "A
spirit of humanity and religion begins to awaken in several of the
colonies in favor of the poor negroes. Great events have been brought
about by small beginnings. _Anthony Bènèzet stood alone a few years_
_ago in opposing negro slavery in Philadelphia_, and NOW THREE-FOURTHS
OF THE PROVINCE AS WELL AS OF THE CITY CRY OUT AGAINST IT."--[Stuart's
Life of Granville Sharpe, p. 21.]

In the preamble to the act prohibiting the importation of slaves into
Rhode Island, June, 1774, is the following: "Whereas the inhabitants of
America are generally engaged in the preservation of their own rights
and liberties, among which that of personal freedom must be considered
the greatest, and as those who are desirous of enjoying all the
advantages of liberty themselves, _should be willing to extend personal
liberty to others_, therefore," &c.

October 20, 1774, the Continental Congress passed the following: "We,
for ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom we
represent, _firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of virtue,
honor, and love of our country_, as follows:"

"2d Article. _We will neither import nor purchase any slaves imported_
after the first day of December next, after which time we will _wholly
discontinue_ the slave trade, and we will neither be concerned in it
ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels nor _sell our commodities or
manufactures_ to those who are concerned in it."

The Continental Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and the
necessity for taking up arms, say: "_If it were possible_ for men who
exercise their reason to believe that the divine Author of our existence
intended a part of the human race _to hold an absolute property in_, and
_unbounded power over others_," &c.

In 1776, Dr. Hopkins, then at the head of New England divines,
in "An Address to the owners of negro slaves in the American colonies,"
says: "The conviction of the unjustifiableness of this practice (slavery)
has been _increasing_, and _greatly spreading of late_, and _many_
who have had slaves, have found themselves so unable to justify their
own conduct in holding them in bondage, as to be induced to _set them
at liberty_.       *       *       *       *       *      Slavery is _in
every instance_, wrong, unrighteous, and oppressive--a very great and
crying sin--_there being nothing of the kind equal to it on the face of
the earth_."

The same year the American Congress issued a solemn MANIFESTO to the
world. These were its first words: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, 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." _Once_, these were words
of power; _now_, "a rhetorical flourish."

The Virginia Gazette of March 19, 1767, in an essay on slavery says:
"_There cannot be in nature, there is not in all history, an instance in
which every right of man is more flagrantly violated_. Enough I hope has
been effected to prove that slavery is a violation of justice and
religion."

The celebrated Patrick Henry of Virginia, in a letter, Jan. 18, 1773, to
Robert Pleasants, afterwards president of the Virginia Abolition
Society, says: "Believe me, I shall honor the Quakers for their noble
efforts to abolish slavery. It is a debt we owe to the purity of our
religion to show that it is at variance with that law that warrants
slavery. I exhort you to persevere in so worthy a resolution."

The Pennsylvania Chronicle of Nov. 21, 1768, says: "Let every black that
shall henceforth be born amongst us be deemed free. One step farther
would be to emancipate the whole race, restoring that liberty we have so
long unjustly detained from them. Till some step of this kind be taken
we shall justly be the derision of the whole world."

In 1779, the Continental Congress ordered a pamphlet to be published,
entitled, "Observations on the American Revolution," from which the
following is an extract: "The great principle (of government) is and
ever will remain in force, _that men are by Nature free_; and so long as
we have any idea of divine _justice_, we must associate that of _human
freedom_. It is _conceded on all hands, that the right to be free_ CAN
NEVER BE ALIENATED."

Extract from the Pennsylvania act for the abolition of slavery, passed
March 1, 1780: * * * "We conceive that it is our duty, and we rejoice
that it is in our power, to extend a portion of that freedom to others
which has been extended to us. Weaned by a long course of experience
from those narrow prejudices and partialities we had imbibed, we find
our hearts enlarged with kindness and benevolence towards men of all
conditions and nations: * * * Therefore be it enacted, that no child
born hereafter be a slave," &c.

Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, written just before the close of
the Revolutionary War, says: "I think a change already perceptible since
the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is
abating, that of the slave is rising from the dust, his condition
mollifying, _and the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of
heaven_, FOR A TOTAL EMANCIPATION."

In a letter to Dr. Price, of London, who had just published a pamphlet
in favor of the abolition of slavery, Mr. Jefferson, then minister at
Paris, (August 7, 1785,) says: "From the mouth to the head of the
Chesapeake, _the bulk of the people will approve of your pamphlet in
theory_, and it will find a respectable minority ready to _adopt it in
practice_--a minority which, for weight and worth of character,
_preponderates against the greater number_." Speaking of Virginia, he
says: "This is the next state to which we may turn our eyes for the
interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with avarice and
oppression,--a conflict in which the SACRED SIDE IS GAINING DAILY
RECRUITS. Be not, therefore, discouraged--what you have written will do
a _great deal of good_; and could you still trouble yourself with our
welfare, no man is more able to give aid to the laboring side. The
College of William and Mary, since the remodelling of its plan, is the
place where are collected together all the young men of Virginia, under
preparation for public life. They are there under the direction (most of
them) of a Mr. Wythe, one of the most virtuous of characters, and _whose
sentiments on the subject of slavery are unequivocal_. I am satisfied,
if you could resolve to address an exhortation to those young men with
all that eloquence of which you are master, that _its influence on the
future decision of this important question would be great, perhaps
decisive_. Thus. you see, that so far from thinking you have cause to
repent of what you have done, _I wish you to do more, and I wish it on
an assurance of its effect_."--Jefferson's Posthumous Works, vol. 1,
p. 268.

In 1786, John Jay drafted and signed a petition to the Legislature of
New York, on the subject of slavery, beginning with these words: "Your
memorialists being deeply affected by the situation of those, who,
although, FREE BY THE LAWS OF GOD, are held in slavery by the laws of
the State," &c. This memorial bore also the signatures of the celebrated
Alexander Hamilton; Robert R. Livingston, afterwards Secretary of
Foreign Affairs of the United States, and Chancellor of the State of New
York; James Duane, Mayor of the City of New York, and many others of the
most eminent individuals in the State.

In the preamble of an instrument, by which Mr. Jay emancipated a slave
in 1784, is the following passage:

"Whereas, the children of men are by nature equally free, and cannot,
without injustice, be either reduced to or HELD in slavery."

In his letter while Minister at Spain, in 1786, he says, speaking of the
abolition of slavery: "Till America comes into this measure, her prayers
to heaven will be IMPIOUS. I believe God governs the world; and I
believe it to be a maxim in his, as in our court, that those who ask for
equity _ought to do it_."

In 1785, the New York Manumission Society was formed. John Jay was
chosen its first President, and held the office five years. Alexander
Hamilton was its second President, and after holding the office one
year, resigned upon his removal to Philadelphia as Secretary of the
United States' Treasury. In 1787, the Pennsylvania Abolition Society was
formed. Benjamin Franklin, warm from the discussions of the convention
that formed the U.S. constitution, was chosen President, and Benjamin
Rush Secretary--both signers of the Declaration of Independence. In
1789, the Maryland Abolition Society was formed. Among its officers were
Samuel Chase, Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Luther Martin, a
member of the convention that formed the U.S. constitution. In 1790, the
Connecticut Abolition Society was formed. The first President was Rev.
Dr. Stiles, President of Yale College, and the Secretary, Simeon
Baldwin, (late Judge Baldwin of New Haven.) In 1791, this Society sent a
memorial to Congress, from which the following is an extract:

"From a sober conviction of the unrighteousness of slavery, your
petitioners have long beheld, with grief, our fellow men doomed to
perpetual bondage, in a country which boasts of her freedom. Your
petitioners were led, by motives, we conceive, of general philanthropy,
to associate ourselves for the protection and assistance of this
unfortunate part of our fellow men; and, though this Society has been
_lately_ established, it has now become _generally extensive_ through
this state, and, we fully believe, _embraces, on this subject, the
sentiments of a large majority of its citizens_."

The same year the Virginia Abolition Society was formed. This Society,
and the Maryland Society, had auxiliaries in different parts of those
States. Both societies sent up memorials to Congress. The memorial of
the Virginia Society is headed--"The memorial of the _Virginia Society_,
for promoting the Abolition of Slavery," &c. The following is
an extract:

"Your memorialists, fully believing that slavery is not only an odious
degradation, but an _outrageous violation of one of the most essential
rights of human nature, and utterly repugnant to the precepts of the
gospel_," &c.

About the same time a Society was formed in New-Jersey. It had an acting
committee of five members in each county in the State. The following is
an extract from the preamble to its constitution:

"It is our boast, that we live under a government, wherein _life,
liberty_, and the _pursuit of happiness_, are recognized as the
universal rights of men. We _abhor that inconsistent, illiberal, and
interested policy, which withholds those rights from an unfortunate and
degraded class of our fellow creatures_."

Among other distinguished individuals who were efficient officers of
these Abolition Societies, and delegates from their respective state
societies, at the annual meetings of the American convention for
promoting the abolition of slavery, were Hon. Uriah Tracy, United
States' Senator, from Connecticut; Hon. Zephaniah Swift, Chief Justice
of the same State; Hon. Cesar A. Rodney, Attorney General of the United
States; Hon. James A. Bayard, United States' Senator, from Delaware;
Governor Bloomfield, of New-Jersey; Hon. Wm. Rawle, the late venerable
head of the Philadelphia bar; Dr. Caspar Wistar, of Philadelphia;
Messrs. Foster and Tillinghast, of Rhode Island; Messrs. Ridgely,
Buchanan, and Wilkinson, of Maryland; and Messrs. Pleasants, McLean, and
Anthony, of Virginia.

In July, 1787, the old Congress passed the celebrated ordinance
abolishing slavery in the northwestern territory, and declaring that it
should never thereafter exist there. This ordinance was passed while the
convention that formed the United States' constitution was in session.
At the first session of Congress under the constitution, this ordinance
was ratified by a special act. Washington, fresh from the discussions of
the convention, in which _more than forty days had been spent in
adjusting the question of slavery, gave it his approval_. The act passed
with only one dissenting voice, (that of Mr. Yates, of New York,) _the
South equally with the North avowing the fitness and expediency of the
measure on general considerations, and indicating thus early the line of
national policy, to be pursued by the United States' Government on the
subject of slavery_.

In the debates in the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, afterward
a Judge of the United States' Supreme Court, said, "_When the entire
abolition of slavery takes place_, it will be an event which must be
pleasing to every generous mind and every friend of human nature." Mr.
Galloway said, "I wish to see this abominable trade put an end to. I
apprehend the clause (touching the slave trade) means _to bring forward
manumission_." Luther Martin, of Maryland, a member of the convention
that formed the United States' Constitution, said, "We ought to
authorize the General Government to make such regulations as shall be
thought most advantageous for _the gradual abolition of slavery_, and
the _emancipation of the slaves_ which are already in the States." Judge
Wilson, of Pennsylvania, one of the framers of the constitution, said,
in the Pennsylvania convention of '87, [Deb. Pa. Con. p. 303, 156:] "I
consider this (the clause relative to the slave trade) as laying the
foundation for _banishing slavery out of this country_. It will produce
the same kind of gradual change which was produced in Pennsylvania; the
new States which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress
in this particular, and _slaves will never be introduced_ among them. It
presents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights of mankind will
be acknowledged and established _throughout the Union_. Yet the lapse of
a few years, and Congress will have power to _exterminate slavery_
within our borders." In the Virginia convention of '87, Mr. Mason,
author of the Virginia constitution, said, "The augmentation of slaves
weakens the States, and such a trade is _diabolical_ in itself, and
disgraceful to mankind. As much as I value a union of all the States, I
would not admit the Southern States, (i.e., South Carolina and Georgia,)
into the union, _unless they agree to a discontinuance of this
disgraceful trade_." Mr. Tyler opposed with great power the clause
prohibiting the abolition of the slave trade till 1808, and said, "My
earnest desire is, that it shall be handed down to posterity that I
oppose this wicked clause." Mr. Johnson said, "The principle of
emancipation _has begun since the revolution. Let us do what we will, it
will come round_."--[Deb. Va. Con. p. 463.] Patrick Henry, arguing the
power of Congress under the United States' constitution to abolish
slavery in the States, said, in the same convention, "Another thing will
contribute to bring this event (the abolition of slavery) about. Slavery
is _detested_. We feel its fatal effects; we deplore it with all the
pity of humanity." Governor Randolph said: "They insist that the
_abolition of slavery will result from this Constitution_. I hope that
there is no one here, who will advance _an objection so dishonorable_ to
Virginia--I hope that at the moment they are securing the rights of
their citizens, an objection will not be started, that those unfortunate
men now held in bondage, _by the operation of the general government_
may be made free!" [_Deb. Va. Con._ p. 421.] In the Mass. Con. of '88,
Judge Dawes said, "Although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet
_it has received a mortal wound_, and will die of consumption."--[_Deb.
Mass. Con._ p. 60.] General Heath said that, "Slavery was confined to
the States _now existing_, it _could not be extended_. By their
ordinance, Congress had declared that the new States should be
republican States, _and have no slavery_."--p. 147.

In the debate, in the first Congress, February 11th and 12th, 1789, on
the petitions of the Society of Friends, and the Pennsylvania Abolition
Society, Mr. Parker, of Virginia, said, "I cannot help expressing the
pleasure I feel in finding _so considerable a part_ of the community
attending to matters of such a momentous concern to the _future
prosperity_ and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty,
as a citizen of the Union, to _espouse their cause_."

Mr. Page, of Virginia, (afterwards Governor)--"Was _in favor_ of the
commitment: he hoped that the designs of the respectable memorialists
would not be stopped at the threshold, in order to preclude a fair
discussion of the prayer of the memorial. He placed himself in the case
of a slave, and said, that on hearing that Congress had refused to
listen to the decent suggestions of the respectable part of the
community, he should infer, that the general government, _from which was
expected great good would result to_ EVERY CLASS _of citizens_, had shut
their ears against the voice of humanity, and he should despair of any
alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in prospect; if any
thing could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke like this,
impressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. But if he was told,
that application was made in his behalf, and that Congress were willing
to hear what could be urged in favor of discouraging the practice of
importing his fellow-wretches, he would trust in their justice and
humanity, and _wait the decision patiently_."

Mr. Scott of Pennsylvania: "I cannot, for my part, conceive how any
person _can be said to acquire a property in another. I do not know how
far I might go, if I was one of the judges of the United States, and
those people were to come before me and claim their emancipation, but I
am sure I would go as far as I could_."

Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, said, "He _saw the disposition of the
House_, and he feared it would be referred to a committee, maugre all
their opposition."

Mr. Baldwin of Georgia said that the clause in the U.S. Constitution
relating to direct taxes "was intended to prevent Congress from laying
any special tax upon negro slaves, _as they might, in this way, so
burthen the possessors of them, as to induce a_ GENERAL EMANCIPATION."

Mr. Smith of South Carolina, said, "That on entering into this
government, they (South Carolina and Georgia) apprehended that the other
states, * * * _would, from motives of humanity and benevolence, be led
to vote for a general emancipation_."

In the debate, at the same session, May 13th, 1789, on the petition of
the society of Friends respecting the slave trade, Mr. Parker, of
Virginia, said, "He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their power
_to restore to human nature its inherent privileges_. The inconsistency
in our principles, with which we are justly charged _should be
done away_."

Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, said, "IT WAS THE FASHION OF THE DAY
TO FAVOR THE LIBERTY OF THE SLAVES. * * * * * Will Virginia
set her negroes free? _When this practice comes to be tried, then
the sound of liberty will lose those charms which make it grateful to the
ravished ear_."

Mr. Madison of Virginia,--"The dictates of humanity, the principles
of the people, the national safety and happiness, and prudent policy,
require it of us. * * * * * * * I conceive the constitution
in this particular was formed in order that the Government, whilst it
was restrained from laying a total prohibition, might be able to _give
some testimony of the sense of America_, with respect to the African
trade. * * * * * * It is to be hoped, that by expressing a
national disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save
ourselves from reproaches, AND OUR PROSPERITY THE IMBECILITY EVER
ATTENDANT ON A COUNTRY FILLED WITH SLAVES."

Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, said, "he highly commended the part the
Society of Friends had taken; it was the cause of humanity they had
interested themselves in."--Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12.

A writer in the "Gazette of the Unites States," Feb. 20th, 1790, (then
the government paper,) who opposes the abolition of slavery, and avows
himself a _slaveholder_, says, "I have seen in the papers accounts of
_large associations_, and applications to Government for _the abolition
of slavery_. Religion, humanity, and the generosity natural to a free
people, are the _noble principles which dictate those measures_. SUCH
MOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY EULOGIUM WORDS CAN BESTOW."

In the convention that formed the constitution of Kentucky in 1790, the
effort to prohibit slavery was nearly successful. A decided majority of
that body would undoubtedly have voted for its exclusion, but for the
great efforts and influence of two large slaveholders--men of commanding
talents and sway--Messrs. Breckenridge and Nicholas. The following
extract from a speech made in that convention by a member of it, Mr.
Rice a native Virginian, is a specimen of the _free discussion_ that
prevailed on that "delicate subject." Said Mr. Rice: "I do a man greater
injury, when I deprive him of his liberty, than when I deprive him of
his property. It is vain for me to plead that I have the sanction of
law; for this makes the injury the greater--it arms the community
against him, and makes his case desperate. The owners of such slaves
then are _licensed robbers_, and not the just proprietors of what they
claim. Freeing them is not depriving them of property, but _restoring it
to the right owner_. The master is the enemy of the slave; he _has made
open war upon him_, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT ON in unremitted efforts.
Can any one imagine, then, that the slave is indebted to his master, and
_bound to serve him?_ Whence can the obligation arise? What is it
founded upon? What is my duty to an enemy that is carrying on war
against me? I do not deny, but in some circumstances, it is the duty of
the slave to serve; but it is a duty he owes himself, and not
his master."

President Edwards, the younger, said, in a sermon preached before the
Connecticut Abolition Society, Sept. 15, 1791: "Thirty years ago,
scarcely a man in this country thought either the slave trade or the
slavery of negroes to be wrong; but now how many and able advocates in
private life, in our legislatures, in Congress, have appeared, and have
openly and irrefragably pleaded the rights of humanity in this as well
as other instances? And if we judge of the future by the past, _within
fifty years from this time, it will be as shameful for a man to hold a
negro slave, as to be guilty of common robbery or theft_."

In 1794, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted its
"Scripture proofs," notes, and comments. Among these was the following:

"1 Tim. i. 10. The law is made for manstealers. This crime among the
Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment. Exodus xxi.
16. And the apostle here classes them with _sinners of the first rank_.
The word he uses, in its original import comprehends all who are
concerned in bringing any of the human race into slavery, or in
_retaining_ them in it. _Stealers of men_ are all those who bring off
slaves or freemen, and _keep_, sell, or buy them."

In 1794, Dr. Rush declared: "Domestic slavery is repugnant to the
principles of Christianity. It prostrates every benevolent and just
principle of action in the human heart. It is rebellion against the
authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and
efficacy of the death of a common Saviour. It is an usurpation of the
prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe, who has solemnly
claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."

In 1795, Mr. Fiske, then an officer of Dartmouth College, afterward a
Judge in Tennessee, said, in an oration published that year, speaking of
slaves: "I steadfastly maintain, that we must bring them to _an equal
standing, in point of privileges, with the whites!_ They must enjoy all
the rights belonging to human nature."

When the petition on the abolition of the slave trade was under
discussion in the Congress of '89, Mr. Brown, of North Carolina, said,
"The emancipation of the slaves _will be effected_ in time; it ought to
be a gradual business, but he hoped that Congress would not
_precipitate_ it to the great injury of the southern States." Mr.
Hartley, of Pennsylvania, said, in the same debate, "_He was not a
little surprised to hear the cause of slavery advocated in that house_."
WASHINGTON, in a letter to Sir John Sinclair, says, "There are, in
Pennsylvania, laws for the gradual abolition of slavery which neither
Maryland nor Virginia have at present, but which _nothing is more
certain_ than that they _must have_, and at a period NOT REMOTE." In
1782, Virginia passed her celebrated manumission act. Within nine years
from that time nearly eleven thousand slaves were voluntarily
emancipated by their masters. [Judge Tucker's "Dissertation on Slavery,"
p. 72.] In 1787, Maryland passed an act legalizing manumission. Mr.
Dorsey, of Maryland, in a speech in Congress, December 27th, 1826,
speaking of manumissions under that act, said, that "_The progress of
emancipation was astonishing_, the State became crowded with a free
black population."

The celebrated William Pinkney, in a speech before the Maryland House of
Delegates, in 1789, on the emancipation of slaves, said, "Sir, by the
eternal principles of natural justice, _no master in the state has a
right to hold his slave in bandage for a single hour_... Are we
apprehensive that these men will become more dangerous by becoming
freemen? Are we alarmed, lest by being admitted into the enjoyment of
civil rights, they will be inspired with a deadly enmity against the
rights of others? Strange, unaccountable paradox! How much more rational
would it be, to argue that the natural enemy of the privileges of a
freeman, is he who is robbed of them himself!"

Hon. James Campbell, in an address before the Pennsylvania Society of
Cincinnati, July 4, 1787, said, "Our separation from Great Britain has
extended the empire of _humanity_. The time _is not far distant_ when
our sister states, in imitation of our example, _shall turn their
vassals into freemen_." The Convention that formed the United States'
constitution being then in session, attended on the delivery of this
oration with General Washington at their head.

A Baltimore paper of September 8th, 1780, contains the following notice
of Major General Gates: "A few days ago passed through this town the
Hon. General Gates and lady. The General, previous to leaving Virginia,
summoned his numerous family of slaves about him, and amidst their tears
of affection and gratitude, gave them their FREEDOM."

In 1791, the university of William and Mary, in Virginia, conferred upon
Granville Sharpe the degree of Doctor of Laws. Sharpe was at that time
the acknowledged head of British abolitionists. His indefatigable
exertions, prosecuted for years in the case of Somerset, procured that
memorable decision in the Court of King's Bench, which settled the
principle that no slave could be held in England. He was most
uncompromising in his opposition to slavery, and for twenty years
previous he had spoken, written, and accomplished more against it than
any man living.

In the "Memoirs of the Revolutionary War in the Southern Department," by
Gen. Lee, of Va., Commandant of the Partizan Legion, is the following:
"The Constitution of the United States, adopted lately with so much
difficulty, has effectually provided against this evil (by importation)
after a few years. It is much to be lamented that having done so much in
this way, _a provision had not been made for the gradual abolition of
slavery_."--pp. 233, 4.

Mr. Tucker, of Virginia, Judge of the Supreme Court of that state, and
professor of law in the University of William and Mary, addressed a
letter to the General Assembly of that state, in 1796, urging the
abolition of slavery, from which the following is an extract. Speaking
of the slaves in Virginia, he says: "Should we not, at the time of the
revolution, have broken their fetters? Is it not our duty _to embrace
the first moment_ of constitutional health and vigor to effectuate so
desirable an object, and to remove from us a stigma with which our
enemies will never fail to upbraid us, nor our consciences to
reproach us?"

Mr. Faulkner, in a speech before the Virginia House of Delegates, Jan.
20, 1832, said: "The idea of a gradual emancipation and removal of the
slaves from this commonwealth, is coeval with the declaration of our
independence from the British yoke. When Virginia stood sustained in her
legislation by the pure and philosophic intellect of Pendleton, by the
patriotism of Mason and Lee, by the searching vigor and sagacity of
Wythe, and by the all-embracing, all-comprehensive genius of Thomas
Jefferson! Sir, it was a committee composed of those five illustrious
men, who, in 1777, submitted to the general assembly of this state, then
in session, _a plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves of this
commonwealth_."

Hon. Benjamin Watkins Leigh, late United States' senator from Virginia,
in his letters to the people of Virginia, in 1832, signed Appomattox, p.
43, says: "I thought, till very lately, that it was known to every body
that during the revolution, _and for many years after, the abolition of
slavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest statesmen_, who
entertained, with respect, all the schemes which wisdom or ingenuity
could suggest for accomplishing the object. Mr. Wythe, to the day of his
death, _was for a simple abolition, considering the objection to color
as founded in prejudice_. By degrees, all projects of the kind were
abandoned. Mr. Jefferson _retained_ his opinion, and now we have these
projects revived."

Governor Barbour, of Virginia, in his speech in the U.S. Senate, on the
Missouri question, Jan. 1820, said: "We are asked why has Virginia
changed her policy in reference to slavery? That the sentiments of our
most distinguished men, for thirty years _entirely corresponded_ with
the course which the friends of the restriction (of slavery in Missouri)
now advocated; and that the Virginia delegation, one of whom was the
late President of the United States, voted for the restriction (of
slavery) in the northwestern territory, and that Mr. Jefferson has
delineated a gloomy picture of the baneful effects of slavery. When it
is recollected that the Notes of Mr. Jefferson were written during the
progress of the revolution, it is no matter of surprise that the writer
should have imbibed a large portion of that enthusiasm which such an
occasion was so well calculated to produce. As to the consent of the
Virginia delegation to the restriction in question, whether the result
of a disposition to restrain the slave-trade indirectly, or the
influence of that enthusiasm to which I have just alluded, * * * * it is
not now important to decide. We have witnessed its effects. The
liberality of Virginia, or, as the result may prove, her folly, which
submitted to, or, if you will, PROPOSED _this measure_ (abolition of
slavery in the N.W. territory) has eventuated in effects which speak a
monitory lesson. _How is the representation from this quarter on the
present question_?"

Mr. Imlay, in his early history of Kentucky, p. 185, says: "We have
disgraced the fair face of humanity, and trampled upon the sacred
privileges of man, at the very moment that we were exclaiming against
the tyranny of your (the English) ministry. But in contending for the
birthright of freedom, we have learned to feel _for the bondage of
others_, and in the libations we offer to the goddess of liberty, we
contemplate an _emancipation of the slaves of this country_, as
honorable to themselves as it will be glorious to us."

In the debate in Congress, Jan. 20, 1806, on Mr. Sloan's motion to lay a
tax on the importation of slaves, Mr. Clark of Va. said: "He was no
advocate for a system of slavery." Mr. Marion, of S. Carolina, said: "He
never had purchased, nor should he ever purchase a slave." Mr. Southard
said: "Not revenue, but an expression of the _national sentiment_ is the
principal object." Mr. Smilie--"I rejoice that the word (slave) is not
in the constitution; its not being there does honor to the worthies who
would not suffer it to become a _part_ of it." Mr. Alston, of N.
Carolina--"In two years we shall have the power to prohibit the trade
altogether. Then this House will be unanimous. No one will object to our
exercising our full constitutional powers." National Intelligencer,
Jan. 24, 1806.

These witnesses need no vouchers to entitle them to credit; nor their
testimony comments to make it intelligible--their _names_ are their
_endorsers_, and their strong words their own interpreters. We waive all
comments. Our readers are of age. Whosoever hath ears to _hear_, let him
HEAR. And whosoever will not hear the fathers of the revolution, the
founders of the government, its chief magistrates, judges, legislators
and sages, who dared and perilled all under the burdens, and in the heat
of the day that tried men's souls--then "neither will he be persuaded
though THEY rose from the dead."

Some of the points established by this testimony are--The universal
expectation that Congress, state legislatures, seminaries of learning,
churches, ministers of religion, and public sentiment widely embodied in
abolition societies, would act against slavery, calling forth the moral
sense of the nation, and creating a power of opinion that would abolish
the system throughout the Union. In a word, that free speech and a free
press would be wielded against it without ceasing and without
restriction. Full well did the South know, not only that the national
government would probably legislate against slavery wherever the
constitution placed it within its reach, but she knew also that Congress
had already marked out the line of national policy to be pursued on the
subject--had committed itself before the world to a course of action
against slavery, wherever she could move upon it without encountering a
conflicting jurisdiction--that the nation had established by solemn
ordinance a memorable precedent for subsequent action, by abolishing
slavery in the northwest territory, and by declaring that it should
never thenceforward exist there; and this too, as soon as by cession of
Virginia and other states, the territory came under congressional
control. The South knew also that the sixth article in the ordinance
prohibiting slavery, was first proposed by the largest slaveholding
state in the confederacy--that in the Congress of '84, Mr. Jefferson, as
chairman of the committee on the N.W. territory, reported a resolution
abolishing slavery there--that the chairman of the committee that
reported the ordinance of '87 was also a slaveholder--that the ordinance
was enacted by Congress during the session of the convention that formed
the United States' Constitution--that the provisions of the ordinance
were, both while in prospect and when under discussion, matters of
universal notoriety and _approval_ with all parties, and when finally
passed, received the vote of _every member of Congress from each of the
slaveholding states_. The South also had every reason for believing that
the first Congress under the constitution would _ratify_ that
ordinance--as it did unanimously.

A crowd of reflections, suggested by the preceding testimony, presses
for utterance. The right of petition ravished and trampled by its
constitutional guardians, and insult and defiance hurled in the faces of
the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE while calmly remonstrating _with their_ SERVANTS
for violence committed on the nation's charter and their own dearest
rights! Added to this "the right of peaceably assembling" violently
wrested--the rights of minorities, _rights_ no longer--free speech
struck dumb--free _men_ outlawed and murdered--free presses cast into
the streets and their fragments strewed with shoutings, or flourished in
triumph before the gaze of approving crowds as proud mementos of
prostrate law! The spirit and power of our fathers, where are they?
Their deep homage always and every where rendered to FREE THOUGHT, with
its _inseparable signs--free speech and a free press_--their reverence
for justice, liberty, _rights_ and all-pervading law, where are they?

But we turn from these considerations--though the times on which we have
fallen, and those toward which we are borne with headlong haste, call
for their discussion as with the voices of departing life--and proceed
to topics relevant to the argument before us.

The seventh article of the amendments to the constitution is alleged to
withhold from Congress the power to abolish slavery in the District. "No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law." All the slaves in the District have been "deprived of
liberty" by legislative acts. Now, these legislative acts "depriving"
them "of liberty," were either "due process of law," or they were _not_.
If they _were_, then a legislative act, taking from the master that
"property" which is the identical "liberty" previously taken from the
slave, would be "due process of law" _also_, and of course a
_constitutional_ act; but if the legislative acts "depriving" them of
"liberty" were _not_ "due process of law," then the slaves were deprived
of liberty _unconstitutionally_, and these acts are _void_. In that case
the _constitution emancipates them_.

If the objector reply, by saying that the import of the phrase "due
process of law," is _judicial_ process solely, it is granted, and that
fact is our rejoinder; for no slave in the District _has_ been deprived
of his liberty by "a judicial process," or, in other words, by "due
process of law;" consequently, upon the objector's own admission, every
slave in the District has been deprived of liberty _unconstitutionally_,
and is therefore _free by the constitution_. This is asserted only of
the slaves under the "exclusive legislation" of Congress.

The last clause of the article under consideration is quoted for the
same purpose: "Nor shall private property he taken for public use
without just compensation." Each of the state constitutions has a clause
of similar purport. The abolition of slavery in the District by
Congress, would not, as we shall presently show; violate this clause
either directly or by implication. Granting for argument's sake, that
slaves are "private property," and that to emancipate them, would be to
"take private property" for "public use," the objector admits the power
of Congress to do _this_, provided it will do something _else_, that is,
_pay_ for them. Thus, instead of denying the _power_, the objector not
only admits, but _affirms_ it, as the ground of the inference that
compensation must accompany it. So far from disproving the existence of
_one_ power, he asserts the existence of _two_--one, the power to take
the slaves from their masters, the other, the power to take the property
of the United States to pay for them.

If Congress cannot constitutionally impair the right of private
property, or take it without compensation, it cannot constitutionally,
_legalize_ the perpetration of such acts, by _others_, nor _protect_
those who commit them. Does the power to rob a man of his earnings, rob
the earner of his _right_ to them? Who has a better right to the
_product_ than the producer?--to the _interest_, than the owner of the
_principal_?--to the hands and arms, than he from whose shoulders they
swing?--to the body and soul, than he whose they are? Congress not only
impairs but annihilates the right of private property, while it
withholds from the slaves of the District their title to _themselves_.
What! Congress powerless to protect a man's right to _himself_, when it
can make inviolable the right to a _dog_! But, waiving this, I deny that
the abolition of slavery in the District would violate this clause. What
does the clause prohibit? The "taking" of "private property" for "public
use." Suppose Congress should emancipate the slaves in the District,
what would it "_take_?" Nothing. What would it _hold_? Nothing. What
would it put to "public use?" Nothing. Instead of _taking_ "private
property," Congress, by abolishing slavery, would say "_private
property_ shall not be taken; and those who have been robbed of it
already, shall be kept out of it no longer; and every man's right to his
own body shall be protected." True, Congress may not arbitrarily take
property, _as_ property, from one man and give it to another--and in the
abolition of slavery no such thing is done. A legislative act changes
the _condition_ of the slave--makes him his own _proprietor_, instead of
the property of another. It determines a question of _original right_
between two classes of persons--doing an act of justice to one, and
restraining the other from acts of injustice; or, in other words,
preventing one from robbing the other, by granting to the injured party
the protection of just and equitable laws.

Congress, by an act of abolition, would change the condition of seven
thousand "persons" in the District, but would "take" nothing. To
construe this provision so as to enable the citizens of the District to
hold as property, and in perpetuity, whatever they please, or to hold it
as property in all circumstances--all necessity, public welfare, and the
will and power of the government to the contrary notwithstanding--is a
total perversion of its whole _intent_. The _design_ of the provision,
was to throw up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right
to "take property" for _State uses_ is one thing;--the right so to
adjust the _tenures_ by which property is held, that _each may have his
own secured to him_, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of
legislation. Besides, if Congress were to "take" the slaves in the
District, it would be _adopting_, not abolishing slavery--becoming a
slaveholder itself, instead of requiring others to be such no longer.
The clause in question, prohibits the "taking" of individual property
for public use, to be employed or disposed of _as_ property for
governmental purposes. Congress, by abolishing slavery in the District,
would do no such thing. It would merely change the _condition_ of that
which has been recognized as a qualified property by congressional acts,
though previously declared "persons" by the constitution. More than this
is done continually by Congress and every other Legislature. Property
the most absolute and unqualified, is annihilated by legislative acts.
The embargo and non-intercourse act, levelled at a stroke a forest of
shipping, and sunk millions of capital. To say nothing of the power of
Congress to take hundreds of millions from the people by direct
taxation, who doubts its power to abolish at once the whole tariff
system, change the seat of Government, arrest the progress of national
works, prohibit any branch of commerce with the Indian tribes or with
foreign nations, change the locality of forts, arsenals, magazines and
dock yards; abolish the Post Office system, and the privilege of patents
and copyrights? By such acts Congress might, in the exercise of its
acknowledged powers, annihilate property to an incalculable amount, and
that without becoming liable to claims for compensation.

Finally, this clause prohibits the taking for public use of
"_property_." The constitution of the United States does not recognize
slaves as "PROPERTY" any where, and it does not recognize them in _any
sense_ in the District of Columbia. All allusions to them in the
constitution recognize them as "persons." Every reference to them points
_solely_ to the element of _personality_; and thus, by the strongest
implication, declares that the constitution _knows_ them only as
"persons," and _will_ not recognize them in any other light. If they
escape into free States, the constitution authorizes their being taken
back. But how? Not as the property of an "owner," but as "persons;" and
the peculiarity of the expression is a marked recognition of their
_personality_--a refusal to recognize them as chattels--"persons _held_
to service." Are _oxen "held_ to service?" That can be affirmed only of
_persons_. Again, slaves give political power as "persons." The
constitution, in settling the principle of representation, requires
their enumeration in the census. How? As property? Then why not include
race horses and game cocks? Slaves, like other inhabitants, are
enumerated as "persons." So by the constitution, the government was
pledged to non-interference with "the migration or importation of such
_persons_" as the States might think proper to admit until 1808, and
authorized the laying of a tax on each "person" so admitted. Further,
slaves are recognized as _persons_ by the exaction of their _allegiance_
to the government. For offences against the government slaves are tried
as _persons_; as persons they are entitled to counsel for their defence,
to the rules of evidence, and to "due process of law," and as _persons_
they are punished. True, they are loaded with cruel disabilities in
courts of law, such as greatly obstruct and often inevitably defeat the
ends of justice, yet they are still recognized as _persons_. Even in the
legislation of Congress, and in the diplomacy of the general government,
notwithstanding the frequent and wide departures from the integrity of
the constitution on this subject, slaves are not recognized as
_property_ without qualification. Congress has always refused to grant
compensation for slaves killed or taken by the enemy, even when these
slaves had been impressed into the United States' service. In half a
score of cases since the last war, Congress has rejected such
applications for compensation. Besides, both in Congressional acts, and
in our national diplomacy, slaves and property are not used as
convertible terms. When mentioned in treaties and state papers it is in
such a way as to distinguish them from mere property, and generally by a
recognition of their _personality_. In the invariable recognition of
slaves as _persons_, the United States' constitution caught the mantle
of the glorious Declaration, and most worthily wears it. It recognizes
all human beings as "men," "persons," and thus as "equals." In the
original draft of the Declaration, as it came from the hand of
Jefferson, it is alleged that Great Britain had "waged a cruel war
against _human_ nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life
and liberty in the persons of a distant people, carrying them into
slavery, * * determined to keep up a market where MEN should be bought
and sold,"--thus disdaining to make the charter of freedom a warrant for
the arrest of _men_, that they might be shorn both of liberty
and humanity.

The celebrated Roger Sherman, one of the committee of five appointed to
draft the Declaration of Independence, and a member of the convention
that formed the United States' constitution, said, in the first Congress
after its adoption: "The constitution _does not consider these persons,
(slaves,) as a species of property_."--[Lloyd's Cong. Reg. v. 1, p.
313.] That the United States' Constitution does not make slaves
"property," is shown in the fact, that no person, either as a citizen of
the United States, or by having his domicile within the United States'
government, can hold slaves. He can hold them only by deriving his power
from _state_ laws, or from the laws of Congress, if he hold slaves
within the District. But no person resident within the United States'
jurisdiction, and _not_ within the District, nor within a state whose
laws support slavery, nor "held to service" under the laws of such a
state or district, having escaped therefrom, _can be held as a slave_.

Men can hold _property_ under the United States' government though
residing beyond the bounds of any state, district, or territory. An
inhabitant of the Iowa Territory can hold property there under the laws
of the United States, but he cannot hold _slaves_ there under the United
States' laws, nor by virtue of the United States' Constitution, nor upon
the ground of his United States' citizenship, nor by having his domicile
within the United States' jurisdiction. The constitution no where
recognizes the right to "slave property," _but merely the fact that the
states have jurisdiction each in its own limits, and that there are
certain "persons" within their jurisdictions "held to service" by their
own laws_.

Finally, in the clause under consideration "private property" is not to
be taken "without just compensation." "JUST!" If justice is to be
appealed to in determining the _amount_ of compensation, let her
determine the _grounds_ also. If it be her province to say _how much_
compensation is "just," it is hers to say whether _any_ is
"just,"--whether the slave is "just" property _at all_, rather than a
"_person_". Then, if justice adjudges the slave to be "private
property," it adjudges him to be _his own_ property, since the right to
one's self is the first right--the source of all others--the original
stock by which they are accumulated--the principal, of which they are
the interest. And since the slave's "private property" has been "taken,"
and since "compensation" is impossible--there being no _equivalent_ for
one's self--the least that can be done is to restore to him his original
private property.

Having shown that in abolishing slavery, "property" would not be "taken
for public use," it may be added that, in those states where slavery has
been abolished by law, no claim for compensation has been allowed.
Indeed the manifest absurdity of demanding it seems to have quite
forestalled the _setting up_ of such a claim.

The abolition of slavery in the District instead of being a legislative
anomaly, would proceed upon the principles of every day legislation. It
has been shown already, that the United States' Constitution does not
recognize slaves as "property." Yet ordinary legislation is full of
precedents, showing that even _absolute_ property is in many respects
wholly subject to legislation. The repeal of the law of entailments--all
those acts that control the alienation of property, its disposal by
will, its passing to heirs by descent, with the question, who shall be
heirs, and what shall be the rule of distribution among them, or whether
property shall be transmitted at all by descent, rather than escheat to
the estate--these, with statutes of limitation, and various other
classes of legislative acts, serve to illustrate the acknowledged scope
of the law-making power, even where property _is in every sense
absolute_. Persons whose property is thus affected by public laws,
receive from the government no compensation for their losses; unless the
state has been put in possession of the property taken from them.

The preamble of the United States' Constitution declares it to be a
fundamental object of the organization of the government "to ESTABLISH
JUSTICE." Has Congress _no power_ to do that for which it was made the
depository of power? CANNOT the United States' Government fulfil the
purpose for which it was brought into being?

To abolish slavery, is to take from no rightful owner his property; but
to "establish justice" between two parties. To emancipate the slave, is
to "establish justice" between him and his master--to throw around the
person, character, conscience; liberty, and domestic relations of the
one, _the same law_ that secures and blesses the other. In other words,
to prevent by legal restraints one class of men from seizing upon
another class, and robbing them at pleasure of their earnings, their
time, their liberty, their kindred, and the very use and ownership of
their own persons. Finally, to abolish slavery is to proclaim and
_enact_ that innocence and helplessness--now _free plunder_--are
entitled to _legal protection_; and that power, avarice, and lust, shall
no longer revel upon their spoils under the license, and by the
ministration of _law_! Congress, by possessing "exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever," has a _general protective power for_ ALL the
inhabitants of the District. If it has no power to protect _one_ man in
the District it has none to protect another--none to protect _any_--and
if it _can_ protect one man and is _bound_ to do it, it _can_ protect
_every_ man--and is _bound_ to do it. All admit the power of Congress to
protect the masters in the District against their slaves. What part of
the constitution gives the power? The clause so often quoted,--"power of
legislation in all cases whatsoever," equally in the "_case_" of
defending blacks against whites, as in that of defending whites against
blacks. The power is also conferred by Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause
15--"Congress shall have power to suppress insurrections"--a power to
protect, as well blacks against whites, as whites against blacks. If the
constitution gives power to protect _one_ class against the other, it
gives power to protect _either_ against the other. Suppose the blacks in
the District should seize the whites, drive them into the fields and
kitchens, force them to work without pay, flog them, imprison them, and
sell them at their pleasure, where would Congress find power to restrain
such acts? Answer; a _general_ power in the clause so often cited, and
an _express_ one in that cited above--"Congress shall have power to
suppress insurrections." So much for a supposed case. Here follows a
real one. The whites in the District are _perpetrating these identical
acts_ upon seven thousand blacks daily. That Congress has power to
restrain these acts in _one_ case, all assert, and in so doing they
assert the power "in _all_ cases whatsoever." For the grant of power to
suppress insurrections, is an _unconditional_ grant, not hampered by
provisos as to the color, shape, size, sex, language, creed, or
condition of the insurgents. Congress derives its power to suppress this
_actual_ insurrection, from the same source whence it derived its power
to suppress the _same_ acts in the case supposed. If one case is an
insurrection, the other is. The _acts_ in both are the same; the
_actors_ only are different. In the one case, ignorant and
degraded--goaded by the memory of the past, stung by the present, and
driven to desperation by the fearful looking for of wrongs for ever to
come. In the other, enlightened into the nature of _rights_, the
principles of justice, and the dictates of the law of love, unprovoked
by wrongs, with cool deliberation, and by system, they perpetrate these
acts upon those to whom they owe unnumbered obligations for _whole
lives_ of unrequited service. On which side may palliation be pleaded,
and which party may most reasonably claim an abatement of the rigors of
law? If Congress has power to suppress such acts _at all_, it has power
to suppress them _in_ all.

It has been shown already that _allegiance_ is exacted of the slave. Is
the government of the United States unable to grant _protection_ where
it exacts _allegiance_? It is an axiom of the civilized world, and a
maxim even with savages, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal
and correlative. Are principles powerless with us which exact homage of
barbarians? _Protection is the_ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT _of every human.
being under the exclusive legislation of Congress who has not forfeited
it by crime_.

In conclusion, I argue the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the
District, from Art. 1, sec. 8, clause 1, of the constitution; "Congress
shall have power to provide for the common defence and the general
welfare of the United States." Has the government of the United States
no power under this grant to legislate within its own exclusive
jurisdiction on subjects that vitally affect its interest? Suppose the
slaves in the district should rise upon their masters, and the United
States' government, in quelling the insurrection, should kill any number
of them. Could their masters claim compensation of the government?
Manifestly not; even though no proof existed that the particular slaves
killed were insurgents. This was precisely the point at issue between
those masters, whose slaves were killed by the State troops at the time
of the Southampton insurrection, and the Virginia Legislature: no
evidence was brought to show that the slaves killed by the troops were
insurgents; yet the Virginia Legislature decided that their masters were
_not entitled to compensation._ They proceeded on the sound principle,
that the government may in self-protection destroy the claim of its
subjects even to that which has been recognized as property by its own
acts. If in providing for the common defence, the United States'
government, in the case supposed, would have power to destroy slaves
both as _property_ and _persons_, it surely might stop _half-way_,
destroy them _as property_ while it legalized their existence as
_persons_, and thus provided for the common defence by giving them a
personal and powerful interest in the government, and securing their
strength for its defence.

Like other Legislatures, Congress has power to abate nuisances--to
remove or tear down unsafe buildings--to destroy infected cargoes--to
lay injunctions upon manufactories injurious to the public health--and
thus to "provide for the common defence and general welfare" by
destroying individual property, when such property puts in jeopardy the
public weal.

Granting, for argument's sake, that slaves are "property" in the
District of Columbia--if Congress has a right to annihilate property
there when the public safety requires it, it may annihilate its
existence _as_ property when the public safety requires it, especially
if it transform into a _protection_ and _defence_ that which as
_property_ perilled the public interests. In the District of Columbia
there are, besides the United States' Capitol, the President's house,
the national offices, and archives of the Departments of State,
Treasury, War, and Navy, the General Post-office, and Patent office. It
is also the residence of the President, of all the highest officers of
the government, of both houses of Congress, and of all the foreign
ambassadors. In this same District there are also seven thousand slaves.
Jefferson, in his Notes on Va. p. 241, says of slavery, that "the State
permitting one half of its citizens to trample on the rights of the
other, transforms them into _enemies_;" and Richard Henry Lee, in the
Va. House of Burgesses in 1758, declared that to those who held them,
"_slaves must be natural enemies_." Is Congress so impotent that it
_cannot_ exercise that right pronounced both by municipal and national
law, the most sacred and universal--the right of self-preservation and
defence? Is it shut up to the _necessity_ of keeping seven thousand
"enemies" in the heart of the nation's citadel? Does the iron fiat of
the constitution doom it to such imbecility that it _cannot_ arrest the
process that _made_ them "enemies," and still goads to deadlier hate by
fiery trials, and day by day adds others to their number? Is _this_
providing for the common defence and general welfare? If to rob men of
rights excites their hate, freely to restore them and make amends, will
win their love.

By emancipating the slaves in the District, the government of the United
States would disband an army of "enemies," and enlist "for the common
defence and general welfare," a body guard of _friends_ seven thousand
strong. In the last war, a handful of British soldiers sacked Washington
city, burned the capitol, the President's house, and the national
offices and archives; and no marvel, for thousands of the inhabitants of
the District had been "TRANSFORMED INTO ENEMIES." Would _they_ beat back
invasion? If the national government had exercised its constitutional
"power to provide for the common defence and to promote the general
welfare," by turning those "enemies" into friends, then, instead of a
hostile ambush lurking in every thicket inviting assault, and secret
foes in every house paralyzing defence, an army of allies would have
rallied in the hour of her calamity, and shouted defiance from their
munitions of rocks; whilst the banner of the republic, then trampled in
dust, would have floated securely over FREEMEN exulting amidst bulwarks
of strength.

To show that Congress can abolish slavery in the District, under the
grant of power "to provide for the common defence and to promote the
general welfare," I quote an extract from a speech of Mr. Madison, of
Va., in the first Congress under the constitution, May 13, 1789.
Speaking of the abolition of the slave trade, Mr. Madison says: "I
should venture to say it is as much for the interests of Georgia and
South Carolina, as of any state in the union. Every addition they
receive to their number of slaves tends to _weaken_ them, and renders
them less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign
nations, they will be the means of _inviting_ attack instead of
repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the general government to
protect every part of the empire against danger, as well _internal_ as
external. _Every thing, therefore, which tends to increase this danger,
though it may be a local affair, yet if it involves national expense or
safety, it becomes of concern to every part of the union, and is a
proper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general
administration of the government._" Cong. Reg. vol. 1, p. 310, 11.

WYTHE.

POSTSCRIPT

My apology for adding a _postscript_, to a discussion already perhaps
too protracted, is the fact that the preceding sheets were in the hands
of the printer, and all but the concluding pages had gone through the
press, before the passage of Mr. Calhoun's late resolutions in the
Senate of the United States. A proceeding so extraordinary,--if indeed
henceforward _any_ act of Congress in derogation of freedom and in
deference to slavery, can be deemed extraordinary,--should not be passed
in silence at such a crisis as the present; especially as the passage of
one of the resolutions by a vote of 36 to 9, exhibits a shift of
position on the part of the South, as sudden as it is unaccountable,
being nothing less than the surrender of a fortress which until then,
they had defended with the pertinacity of a blind and almost infuriated
fatuity. Upon the discussions during the pendency of the resolutions,
and upon the vote, by which they were carried, I make no comment, save
only to record my exultation in the fact there exhibited, that great
emergencies are _true touchstones_, and that henceforward, until this
question is settled, whoever holds a seat in Congress will find upon,
and around him, a pressure strong enough to test him--a focal blaze that
will find its way through the carefully adjusted cloak of fair
pretension, and the sevenfold brass of two faced political intrigue, and
_no_-faced _non-committalism_, piercing to the dividing asunder of
joints and marrow. Be it known to every northern man who aspires to a
seat in our national councils, that hereafter congressional action on
this subject will be a MIGHTY REVELATOR--making secret thoughts public
property, and proclaiming on the house-tops what is whispered in the
ear--smiting off masks, and bursting open sepulchres beautiful
outwardly, and up-heaving to the sun their dead men's bones. To such we
say,--_Remember the Missouri Question, and the fate of those who then
sold the free states and their own birthright!_

Passing by the resolutions generally without remark--the attention of
the reader is specially solicited to Mr. Clay's substitute for Mr.
Calhoun's fifth resolution.

"Resolved, That when the District of Columbia was ceded by the states of
Virginia and Maryland to the United States, domestic slavery existed in
both of these states, including the ceded territory, and that, as it
still continues in both of them, it could not be abolished within the
District without a violation of that good faith, which was implied in
the cession and in the acceptance of the territory; nor, unless
compensation were made to the proprietors of slaves, without a manifest
infringement of an amendment to the constitution of the United States;
nor without exciting a degree of just alarm and apprehension in the
states recognizing slavery, far transcending in mischievous tendency,
any possible benefit which could be accomplished by the abolition."

By advocating this resolution, the south shifted its mode of defence,
not by taking a position entirely new, but by attempting to refortify an
old one--abandoned mainly long ago, as being unable to hold out against
assault however unskillfully directed. In the debate on this resolution,
the southern members of Congress silently drew off from the ground
hitherto maintained by them, viz.--that Congress has no power by the
constitution to abolish slavery in the District.

The passage of this resolution--with the vote of every southern senator,
forms a new era in the discussion of this question. We cannot join in
the lamentations of those who bewail it. We hail it, and rejoice in it.
It was as we would have had it--offered by a southern senator, advocated
by southern senators, and on the ground that it "was no
compromise"--that it embodied the true southern principle--that "this
resolution stood on as high ground as Mr. Calhoun's."--(Mr.
Preston)--"that Mr. Clay's resolution was as strong as Mr.
Calhoun's"--(Mr. Rives)--that "the resolution he (Mr. Calhoun) now
refused to support, was as strong as his own, and that in supporting it,
there was no abandonment of principle by the south."--(Mr. Walker, of
Mi.)--further, that it was advocated by the southern senators generally
as an expression of their views, and as setting the question of slavery
in the District on its _true_ ground--that finally, when the question
was taken, every slaveholding senator, including Mr. Calhoun himself,
voted for the resolution.

By passing this resolution, and with such avowals, the south has
unwittingly but explicitly, conceded the main point argued in the
preceding pages, and surrendered the whole question at issue between
them and the petitioners for abolition in the District.

The _only_ ground taken against the right of Congress to abolish slavery
in the District is, that it existed in Maryland and Virginia when the
cession was made, and "_as it still continues in both of them_, it could
not be abolished without a violation of that good faith which was
implied in the cession," &c. The argument is not that exclusive
_sovereignty_ has no power to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction,
nor that the powers of even ordinary legislation cannot do it, nor that
the clause granting Congress "exclusive legislation in all cases what
soever over such District," gives no power to do it; but that the
_unexpressed expectation_ of one of the parties that the other would not
"in all cases" use the power which said party had consented might be
used "_in all cases," prohibits_ the use of it. The only cardinal point
in the discussion, is here not only yielded, but formally laid down by
the South as the leading article in their creed on the question of
Congressional jurisdiction over slavery in the District. The reason
given why Congress should not abolish, and the sole evidence that if it
did, such abolition would be a violation of "good faith," is that
"_slavery still continues in those states_,"--thus admitting, that if
slavery did _not_ "still continue" in those States, Congress could
abolish it in the District. The same admission is made also in the
_premises_, which state that slavery existed in those states _at the
time of the cession_, &c. Admitting that if it had not existed there
then, but had grown up in the District under United States' laws,
Congress might constitutionally abolish it. Or that if the ceded parts
of those states had been the _only_ parts in which slaves were held
under their laws, Congress might have abolished in such a contingency
also. The cession in that case leaving no slaves in those states,--no
"good faith" would be "implied" in it, nor any "violated" by an act of
abolition. The resolution makes virtually this further admission, that
if Maryland and Virginia should at once abolish their slavery, Congress
might at once abolish it in the District. The principle goes even
further than this, and _requires_ Congress in such case to abolish
slavery in the District "by the _good faith implied_ in the cession and
acceptance of the territory." Since, according to the spirit and scope
of the resolution, this "implied good faith" of Maryland and Virginia
in making the cession, was, that Congress would do nothing within the
District which should counteract the policy, or discredit the
"institutions," or call in question the usages, or even in any way
ruffle the prejudices of those states, or do what _they_ might think
would unfavorably bear upon their interests; _themselves_ of course
being the judges.

But let us dissect another limb of the resolution. What is to be
understood by "that good faith which was IMPLIED?" It is of course an
admission that such a condition was not _expressed_ in the acts of
cession--that in their terms there is nothing restricting the power of
Congress on the subject of slavery in the District. This "implied
faith," then, rests on no clause or word in the United States'
Constitution, or in the acts of cession, or in the acts of Congress
accepting the cession, nor on any declarations of the legislatures of
Maryland and Virginia, nor on any _act_ of theirs, nor on any
declaration of the _people_ of those states, nor on the testimony of the
Washingtons, Jeffersons, Madisons, Chases, Martins, and Jennifers, of
those states and times. The assertion rests _on itself alone!_ Mr. Clay
_guesses_ that Maryland and Virginia _supposed_ that Congress would by
no means _use_ the power given them by the Constitution, except in such
ways as would be well pleasing in the eyes of those states; especially
as one of them was the "Ancient Dominion!" And now after half a century,
this _assumed expectation_ of Maryland and Virginia, the existence of
which is mere matter of conjecture with the 36 senators, is conjured up
and duly installed upon the judgment-seat of final appeal, before whose
nod constitutions are to flee away, and with whom, solemn grants of
power and explicit guaranties are, when weighed in the balance,
altogether lighter than vanity!

But survey it in another light. Why did Maryland and Virginia leave so
much to be "_implied?_?" Why did they not in some way _express_ what lay
so near their hearts? Had their vocabulary run so low that a single word
could not be eked out for the occasion? Or were those states so bashful
of a sudden that they dare not speak out and tell what they wanted? Or
did they take it for granted that Congress would always know their
wishes by intuition, and always take them for law? If, as honorable
senators tell us, Maryland and Virginia did verily travail with such
abounding _faith_, why brought they forth no _works_?

It is as true in legislation as in religion, that the only evidence of
"faith" is works, and that "faith" _without_ works is _dead_, i.e. has
no _power_. But here, forsooth, a blind implication with nothing
_expressed_, an "implied" faith without works, is omnipotent! Mr. Clay
is lawyer enough to know that Maryland and Virginia notions of
constitutional power, _abrogate no grant_, and that to plead them in a
court of law, would be of small service, except to jostle "their
Honors'" gravity! He need not be told that the Constitution gives
Congress "power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever over such District;" nor that Maryland and Virginia
constructed their acts of cession with this clause _before their eyes_,
and declared those acts made "in _pursuance_" of it. Those states knew
that the U.S. Constitution had left nothing to be "_implied_" as to the
power of Congress over the District; an admonition quite sufficient, one
would think, to put them on their guard, and lead them to eschew vague
implications, and to resort to _stipulations_. They knew, moreover, that
those were times when, in matters of high import, _nothing_ was left to
be "implied." The colonies were then panting from a twenty years'
conflict with the mother country, about bills of rights, charters,
treaties, constitutions, grants, limitations, and _acts of cession_. The
severities of a long and terrible discipline had taught them to guard at
all points _legislative grants_, that their exact import and limit might
be self-evident--leaving no scope for a blind "faith" that _somehow_ in
the lottery of chances, every ticket would turn up a prize. Toil,
suffering, blood, and treasure outpoured like water over a whole
generation, counselled them to make all sure by the use of explicit
terms, and well chosen words, and just enough of them. The Constitution
of the United States, with its amendments, those of the individual
states, the national treaties, and the public documents of the general
and state governments at that period, show the universal conviction of
legislative bodies, that nothing should be left to be "implied," when
great public interests were at stake.

Further: suppose Maryland and Virginia had expressed their "implied
faith" in _words_, and embodied it in their acts of cession as a
proviso, declaring that Congress should not "exercise exclusive
legislation in _all_ cases whatsoever over the District," but that the
"case" of _slavery_ should be an exception: who does not know that
Congress, if it had accepted the cession on those terms, would have
violated the Constitution; and who that has studied the free mood of
those times in its bearings on slavery--proofs of which are given in
scores on the preceding pages--[See pp. 25-37.] can be made to believe
that the people of the United States would have re-modelled their
Constitution for the purpose of providing for slavery an inviolable
sanctuary; that when driven in from its outposts, and everywhere
retreating discomfited before the march of freedom, it might be received
into everlasting habitations on the common homestead and hearth-stone of
the republic? Who can believe that Virginia made such a condition, or
cherished such a purpose, when Washington, Jefferson, Wythe, Patrick
Henry, St. George Tucker, and all her most illustrious men, were at that
moment advocating the abolition of slavery by law; when Washington had
said, two years before, that Maryland and Virginia "must have laws for
the gradual abolition of slavery, and at a period _not remote_;" and when
Jefferson in his letter to Dr. Price, three years before the cession,
had said, speaking of Virginia, "This is the next state to which we may
turn our eyes for the interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with
avarice and oppression--a conflict in which THE SACRED SIDE IS GAINING
DAILY RECRUITS;" when voluntary emancipations on the soil were then
progressing at the rate of between one and two thousand annually, (See
Judge Tucker's "Dissertation on Slavery," p. 73;) when the public
sentiment of Virginia had undergone, so mighty a revolution that the
idea of the continuance of slavery as a permanent system could not be
tolerated, though she then contained about half the slaves in the Union.
Was this the time to stipulate for the _perpetuity_ of slavery under the
exclusive legislation of Congress? and that too when at the _same_
session _every one_ of her delegation voted for the abolition of slavery
in the North West Territory; a territory which she herself had ceded to
the Union, and surrendered along with it her jurisdiction over her
citizens, inhabitants of that territory, who held slaves there--and
whose slaves were emancipated by that act of Congress, in which all her
delegation with one accord participated?

Now in view of the universal belief then prevalent, that slavery in this
country was doomed to short life, and especially that in Maryland and
Virginia it would be _speedily_ abolished--must we adopt the monstrous
conclusion that those states _designed_ to bind Congress _never_ to
terminate it?--that it was the _intent_ of the Ancient Dominion thus to
_bind_ the United States by an "implied faith," and that when the
national government _accepted_ the cession, she did solemnly thus plight
her troth, and that Virginia did then so _understand_ it? Verily,
honorable senators must suppose themselves deputed to do our _thinking_
for us as well as our legislation, or rather, that they are themselves
absolved from such drudgery by virtue of their office!

Another absurdity of this "implied faith" dogma is, that where there was
no power to exact an _express_ pledge, there was none to demand an
_implied_ one, and where there was no power to give the one, there was
none to give the other. We have shown already that Congress could not
have accepted the cession with such a condition. To have signed away a
part of its constitutional grant of power would have been a _breach_ of
the Constitution. The Congress which accepted the cession was competent
to pass a resolution pledging itself not to _use all_ the power over the
District committed to it by the Constitution. But here its power ended.
Its resolution could only bind _itself_. It had no authority to bind a
subsequent Congress. Could the members of one Congress say to those of
another, because we do not choose to exercise all the authority vested
in us by the Constitution, therefore you _shall_ not? This would, have
been a prohibition to do what the Constitution gives power to do. Each
successive Congress would still have gone to THE CONSTITUTION for its
power, brushing away in its course the cobwebs stretched across its path
by the officiousness of an impertinent predecessor. Again, the
legislatures of Virginia and Maryland, had no power to bind Congress,
either by an express or an implied pledge, never to abolish slavery in
the District. Those legislatures had no power to bind _themselves_ never
to abolish slavery within their own territories--the ceded parts
included. Where then would they get power to bind _another_ not to do
what they had no power to bind _themselves_ not to do? If a legislature
could not in this respect control the successive legislatures of its own
State, could it control the successive Congresses of the United States?

But perhaps we shall be told, that the "implied faith" of Maryland and
Virginia was _not_ that Congress should _never_ abolish slavery in the
District, but that it should not do it until _they_ had done it within
their bounds! Verily this "faith" comes little short of the faith of
miracles! Maryland and Virginia have "good faith" that Congress will not
abolish until _they_ do; and then just as "good faith" that Congress
_will_ abolish _when_ they do! Excellently accommodated! Did those
states suppose that Congress would legislate over the national domain,
for Maryland and Virginia alone? And who, did they suppose, would be
judges in the matter?--themselves merely? or the whole Union?

This "good faith implied in the cession" is no longer of doubtful
interpretation. The principle at the bottom of it, when fairly stated,
is this:--That the Government of the United States are bound in "good
faith" to do in the District of Columbia, without demurring, just what
and when, Maryland and Virginia do within their own bounds. In short,
that the general government is eased of all the burdens of legislation
within its exclusive jurisdiction, save that of hiring a scrivener to
copy off the acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures as fast as
they are passed, and engross them, under the title of "Laws of the
United States for the District of Columbia!" A slight additional expense
would also be incurred in keeping up an express between the capitols of
those States and Washington city, bringing Congress from time to time
its "_instructions_" from head quarters!

What a "glorious Union" this doctrine of Mr. Clay bequeaths to the
people of the United States! We have been permitted to set up at our own
expense, and on our own territory, two great _sounding-boards_ called
"Senate Chamber" and "Representatives' Hall," for the purpose of sending
abroad "by authority" _national_ echoes of _state_ legislation!
--permitted also to keep in our pay a corps of pliant _national_
musicians, with peremptory instructions to sound on any line of the
staff according as Virginia and Maryland may give the sovereign
key note!

A careful analysis of Mr. Clay's resolution and of the discussions upon
it, will convince every fair mind that this is but the legitimate
carrying out of the _principle_ pervading both. They proceed virtually
upon the hypothesis that the will and pleasure of Virginia and Maryland
are paramount to those of the Union. If the original design of setting
apart a federal district had been for the sole accommodation of the
south, there could hardly have been higher assumption or louder
vaunting. The only object of _having_ such a District was in effect
totally perverted in the resolution of Mr. Clay, and in the discussions
of the entire southern delegation, upon its passage. Instead of taking
the ground, that the benefit of the whole Union was the sole _object_ of
a federal district, and that it was to be legislated over _for this
end_--the resolution proceeds upon an hypothesis totally the reverse. It
takes a single point of _state_ policy, and exalts it above NATIONAL
interests, utterly overshadowing them; abrogating national rights;
making void a clause of the Constitution; humbling the general
government into a subject crouching for favors to a superior, and that
too within its own exclusive jurisdiction. All the attributes of
sovereignty vested in Congress by the Constitution, it impales upon the
point of an alleged _implication_. And this is Mr. Clay's
peace-offering, to the lust of power and the ravenings of state
encroachment! A "compromise," forsooth! that sinks the general
government on _its own territory_, into a mere colony, with Virginia and
Maryland for its "mother country!" It is refreshing to turn from these
shallow, distorted constructions and servile cringings, to the high
bearing of other southern men in other times; men, who as legislators
and lawyers, scorned to accommodate their interpretations of
constitutions and charters to geographical lines, or to bend them to the
purposes of a political canvass. In the celebrated case of Cohens _vs._
the State of Virginia, Hon. William Pinkney, late of Baltimore, and Hon.
Walter Jones, of Washington city, with other eminent constitutional
lawyers, prepared an elaborate opinion, from which the following is an
extract: "Nor is there any danger to be apprehended from allowing to
Congressional legislation with regard to the District of Columbia, its
FULLEST EFFECT. Congress is responsible to the States, and to the people
for that legislation. It is in truth the legislation of the states over
a district placed under their control FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT, not for
that of the District, except as the prosperity of the District is
involved, and _necessary to the general advantage_."--[Life of
Pinkney, p. 612.]

This profound legal opinion asserts, 1st, that Congressional legislation
over the District, is "the legislation of the _states_ and the
_people_." (not of _two_ states, and a mere _fraction_ of the people;)
2d. "Over a District placed under _their_ control," i.e. under the
control of _all_ the States, not of _two twenty-sixths_ of them. 3d.
That it was thus put under their control "_for_ THEIR OWN _benefit_."
4th. It asserts that the design of this exclusive control of Congress
over the District was "not for the benefit of the _District_," except as
that is _connected_ with, and _a means of promoting_ the _general_
advantage. If this is the case with the _District_, which is _directly_
concerned, it is pre-eminently so with Maryland and Virginia, which are
but _indirectly_ interested. The argument of Mr. Madison in the Congress
of '89, an extract from which has been given on a preceding page, lays
down the same principle; that though any matter "_may be a local affair,
yet if it involves national_ EXPENSE or SAFETY, _it becomes of concern
to every part of the union, and is a proper subject for the
consideration of those charged with the general administration of the
government_."--Cong. Reg. vol. 1. p. 310.

But these are only the initiatory absurdities of this "good faith
_implied_." Mr. Clay's resolution aptly illustrates the principle, that
error not only conflicts with truth, but is generally at issue with
itself: For if it would be a violation of "good faith" to Maryland and
Virginia, for Congress to abolish slavery in the District, it would be
_equally_ a violation for Congress to do it _with the consent_, or even
at the unanimous petition of the people of the District: yet for years
it has been the southern doctrine, that if the people of the District
demand of Congress relief in this respect, it has power, as their local
legislature, to grant it, and by abolishing slavery there, carry out the
will of the citizens. But now new light has broken in! The optics of Mr.
Clay have pierced the millstone with a deeper insight, and discoveries
thicken faster than they can be telegraphed! Congress has no power, O
no, not a modicum! to help the slaveholders of the District, however
loudly they may clamor for it. The southern doctrine, that Congress is
to the District a mere local Legislature to do its pleasure, is tumbled
from the genitive into the vocative! Hard fate--and that too at the
hands of those who begat it! The reasonings of Messrs. Pinckney and
Wise, are now found to be wholly at fault, and the chanticleer rhetoric
of Messrs. Glascock and Garland stalks featherless and crest-fallen. For
the resolution sweeps by the board all those stereotyped common-places,
such as "Congress a local Legislature," "consent of the District,"
"bound to consult the wishes of the District," with other catch phrases,
which for the last two sessions of Congress have served to eke out
scanty supplies. It declares, that as slavery existed in _Maryland and
Virginia at the time of the cession, and as_ it still continues _in both
those states_, it could not be abolished in the District without a
violation of "that good faith," &c.

But let us see where this principle will lead us. If "implied faith" to
Maryland and Virginia _restrains_ Congress from the abolition of slavery
in the District, because those states have not abolished _their_
slavery, it _requires_ Congress to do in the District what those states
have done within their own limits, i.e., restrain _others_ from
abolishing it. Upon the same principle Congress is _bound_ to _prohibit
emancipation_ within the District. There is no _stopping place_ for this
plighted "faith." Congress must not only refrain from laying violent
hands on slavery, and see to it that the slaveholders themselves do not,
but it is bound to keep the system up to the Maryland and Virginia
standard of vigor!

Again, if the good faith of Congress to Virginia and Maryland requires
that slavery should exist in the District, while it exists in those
states, it requires that it should exist there as it exists in those
states. If to abolish _every_ form of slavery in the District would
violate good faith, to abolish _the_ form existing in those states, and
to substitute a different one, would also violate it. The Congressional
"good faith" is to be kept not only with _slavery_, but with the
_Maryland and Virginia systems_ of slavery. The faith of those states
being not that Congress would maintain a system, but _their_ system;
otherwise instead of _sustaining_, Congress would counteract their
policy--principles would be brought into action there conflicting with
their system, and thus the true sprit of the "implied" pledge would be
violated. On this principle, so long as slaves are "chattels personal"
in Virginia and Maryland, Congress could not make them _real estate_ in
the District, as they are in Louisiana; nor could it permit slaves to
read, nor to worship God according to conscience; nor could it grant
them trial by jury, nor legalize marriage; nor require the master to
give sufficient food and clothing; nor prohibit the violent sundering of
families--because such provisions would conflict with the existing
slave laws of Virginia and Maryland, and thus violate the "good faith
implied," &c. So the principle of the resolution binds Congress in all
these particulars: 1st. Not to abolish slavery in the District _until_
Virginia and Maryland abolish. 2d. Not to abolish any _part_ of it that
exists in those states. 3d. Not to abolish any _form_ or _appendage_ of
it still existing in those states. 4th. To _abolish_ when they do. 5th.
To increase or abate its rigors _when, how,_ and _as_ the same are
modified by those states. In a word, Congressional action in the
District is to float passively in the wake of legislative action on the
subject in those states.

But here comes a dilemma. Suppose the legislation of those states should
steer different courses--then there would be _two_ wakes! Can Congress
float in both? Yea, verily! Nothing is too hard for it! Its
obsequiousness equals its "power of legislation in _all_ cases
whatsoever." It can float _up_ on the Virginia tide, and ebb down on the
Maryland. What Maryland does, Congress will do in the Maryland part.
What Virginia does, Congress will do in the Virginia part. Though it
might not always be able to run at the bidding of both _at once_,
especially in different directions, yet if it obeyed orders cheerfully,
and "kept in its place," according to its "good faith implied,"
impossibilities might not be rigidly exacted. True, we have the highest
sanction for the maxim that no _man_ can serve two masters--but if
"corporations have no souls," analogy would absolve Congress on that
score, or at most give it only a _very small soul_--not large enough to
be at all in the way, as an exception to the universal rule laid down in
the maxim!

In following out the absurdities of this "implied good faith," it will
be seen at once that the doctrine of Mr. Clay's Resolution extends to
_all the subjects of legislation_ existing in Maryland and Virginia,
which exist also within the District. Every system, "institution," law,
and established usage there, is placed beyond Congressional control
equally with slavery, and by the same "implied faith." The abolition of
the lottery system in the District as an immorality, was a flagrant
breach of this "good faith" to Maryland and Virginia, as the system
"still continued in those states." So to abolish imprisonment for debt,
or capital punishment, to remodel the bank system, the power of
corporations, the militia law, laws of limitation, &c., in the District,
_unless Virginia and Maryland took the lead,_ would violate the "good
faith implied in the cession."

That in the acts of cession no such "good faith" was "implied" by
Virginia and Maryland as is claimed in the Resolution, we argue from the
fact, that in 1784 Virginia ceded to the United States all her
north-west territory, with the special proviso that her citizens
inhabiting that territory should "have their _possessions_ and _titles_
confirmed to them, and be _protected_ in the enjoyment of their _rights_
and liberties." (See Journals of Congress, vol. 9, p. 63.) The cession
was made in the form of a deed, and signed by Thomas Jefferson, Samuel
Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Munroe. Many of these inhabitants _held
slaves._ Three years after the cession, the Virginia delegation in
Congress _proposed_ the passage of an ordinance which should abolish
slavery, in that territory, and declare that it should never thereafter
exist there. All the members of Congress from Virginia and Maryland
voted for this ordinance. Suppose some member of Congress had during the
passage of the ordinance introduced the following resolution: "Resolved,
that when the northwest territory was ceded by Virginia to the United
States, domestic slavery existed in that State, including the ceded
territory, and as it still continues in that State, it could not be
abolished within the territory without a violation of that good faith,
which was implied in the cession and in the acceptance of the
territory." What would have been the indignant response of Grayson,
Griffin, Madison, and the Lees, in the Congress of '87, to such a
resolution, and of Carrington, Chairman of the Committee, who reported
the ratification of the ordinance in the Congress of '89, and of Page
and Parker, who with every other member of the Virginia delegation
supported it?

But to enumerate all the absurdities into which those interested for
this resolution have plunged themselves, would be to make a quarto
inventory. We decline the task; and in conclusion merely add, that Mr.
Clay, in presenting it, and each of the thirty-six Senators who voted
for it, entered on the records of the Senate, and proclaimed to the
world, a most unworthy accusation against the millions of American
citizens who have during nearly half a century petitioned the national
legislature to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia,--charging
them either with the ignorance or the impiety of praying the nation to
violate its "Plighted Faith." The resolution virtually indicts at the
bar of public opinion, and brands with odium, all the early Manumission
Societies, the _first_ petitioners for the abolition of slavery in the
District, and for a long time the only ones, petitioning from year to
year through evil report and good report, still petitioning, by
individual societies and in their national conventions.

But as if it were not enough to table the charge against such men as
Benjamin Rush, William Rawle, John Sergeant, Roberts Vaux, Cadwallader
Colden, and Peter A. Jay,--to whom we may add Rufus King, James
Hillhouse, William Pinkney, Thomas Addis Emmett, Daniel D. Tompkins, De
Witt Clinton, James Kent, and Daniel Webster, besides eleven hundred
citizens of the District itself, headed by their Chief Justice and
Judges--even the sovereign States of Pennsylvania, New-York,
Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut, whose legislatures have either
memorialized Congress to abolish slavery in the District, or instructed
their Senators to move such a measure, must be gravely informed by
Messrs. Clay, Norvell, Niles, Smith, Pierce, Benton, Black, Tipton, and
other honorable Senators, either that their perception is so dull, they
know not whereof they affirm, or that their moral sense is so blunted
they can demand without compunction a violation of the nation's faith!

We have spoken already of the concessions unwittingly made in this
resolution to the true doctrine of Congressional power over the
District. For that concession, important as it is; we have small thanks
to render. That such a resolution, passed with such an _intent_, and
pressing at a thousand points on relations and interests vital to the
free states, should be hailed, as it has been, by a portion of the
northern press as a "compromise" originating in deference to northern
interests, and to be received by us as a free-will offering of
disinterested benevolence, demanding our gratitude to the mover,--may
well cover us with shame. We deserve the humiliation and have well
earned the mockery. Let it come!

If, after having been set up at auction in the public sales-room of the
nation, and for thirty years, and by each of a score of "compromises,"
treacherously knocked off to the lowest bidder, and that without money
and without price, the North, plundered and betrayed, _will not_, in
this her accepted time, consider the things that belong to her peace
before they are hidden from her eyes, then let her eat of the fruit of
her own way, and be filled with her own devices! Let the shorn and
blinded giant grind in the prison-house of the Philistines, till taught
by weariness and pain the folly of entrusting to Delilahs the secret and
the custody of his strength.

Have the free States bound themselves by an oath never to profit by the
lessons of experience? If lost to reason, are they dead to _instinct_
also? Can nothing rouse them to cast about for self preservation? And
shall a life of tame surrenders be terminated by suicidal sacrifice?

A "COMPROMISE!" Bitter irony! Is the plucked and hoodwinked North to be
wheedled by the sorcery of another Missouri compromise? A compromise in
which the South gained all, and the North lost all, and lost it forever.
A compromise which embargoed the free laborer of the North and West,
and, clutched at the staff he leaned upon, to turn it into a bludgeon
and fell him with its stroke. A compromise which wrested from liberty
her boundless birthright domain, stretching westward to the sunset,
while it gave to slavery loose reins and a free coarse, from the
Mississippi to the Pacific.

The resolution, as it finally passed, is here inserted.

"Resolved, That the interference by the citizens of any of the states,
with the view to the abolition of slavery in the District, is
endangering the rights and security of the people of the District; and
that any act or measure of Congress designed to abolish slavery in the
District, would be a violation of the faith implied in the cessions by
the states of Virginia and Maryland, a just cause of alarm to the people
of the slaveholding states, and have a direct and inevitable tendency to
disturb and endanger the Union."

The vote upon the resolution stood as follows:

_Yeas_.--Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benton, Black, Buchanan, Brown, Calhoun,
Clay of Alabama, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert,
Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas. Niles, Norvell,
Pierce, Preston, Rives, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smith, of Connecticut,
Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, White, Williams, Wright, Young--36.

_Nays_.--Messrs. DAVIS, KNIGHT, McKEAN, MORRIS, PRENTISS, RUGGLES,
SMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, WEBSTER--9.

       *       *       *       *       *




ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. NO. 6.

NARRATIVE OF JAMES WILLIAMS, AN AMERICAN SLAVE.

ONE DOLLAR PER 100] [143 NASSAU ST. N.Y.

       *       *       *       *       *



PREFACE.

"American Slavery," said the celebrated John Wesley, "is the _vilest_
beneath the sun!" Of the truth of this emphatic remark, no other proof
is required, than an examination of the statute books of the American
slave states. Tested by its own laws, in all that facilitates and
protects the hateful process of converting a man into a "_chattel
personal_;" in all that stamps the law-maker, and law-upholder with
meanness and hypocrisy, it certainly has no present rival of its "bad
eminence," and we may search in vain the history of a world's despotism
for a parallel. The civil code of Justinian never acknowledged, with
that of our democratic despotisms, the essential equality of man. The
dreamer in the gardens of Epicurus recognized neither in himself, nor in
the slave who ministered to his luxury, the immortality of the spiritual
nature. Neither Solon nor Lycurgus taught the inalienability of human
rights. The Barons of the Feudal System, whose maxim was emphatically
that of Wordsworth's robber,

   "That he should take who had the power,
   And he should keep who can."

while trampling on the necks of their vassals, and counting the life of
a man as of less value than that of a wild beast, never appealed to God
for the sincerity of their belief, that all men were created equal. It
was reserved for American slave-holders to present to the world the
hideous anomaly of a code of laws, beginning with the emphatic
declaration of the inalienable rights of all men to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness, and closing with a deliberate and systematic
denial of those rights, in respect to a large portion of their
countrymen; engrossing on the same parchment the antagonist laws of
liberty and tyranny. The very nature of this unnatural combination has
rendered it necessary that American slavery, in law and in practice,
should exceed every other in severity and cool atrocity. The masters of
Greece and Rome permitted their slaves to read and write and worship the
gods of paganism in peace and security, for there was nothing in the
laws, literature, or religion of the age to awaken in the soul of the
bondman a just sense of his rights as a man. But the American
slaveholder cannot be thus lenient. In the excess of his benevolence, as
a political propagandist, he has kindled a fire for the oppressed of the
old world to gaze at with hope, and for crowned heads and dynasties to
tremble at; but a due regard to the safety of his "peculiar
institution," compels him to put out the eyes of his own people, lest
they too should see it. Calling on all the world to shake off the
fetters of oppression, and wade through the blood of tyrants to freedom,
he has been compelled to smother, in darkness and silence, the minds of
his own bondmen, lest they too should hear and obey the summons, by
putting the knife to his own throat.--Proclaiming the truths of Divine
Revelation, and sending the Scriptures to the four quarters of the
earth, he has found it necessary to maintain heathenism at home by
special enactments; and to make the second offence of teaching his
slaves the message of salvation punishable with _death_!

What marvel then that American slavery even on the _statute book_
assumes the right to transform moral beings into brutes:[A] that it
legalizes man's usurpation of Divine authority; the substitution of the
will of the master, for the moral government of God: that it annihilates
the rights of conscience; debars from the enjoyment of religious rights
and privileges by specific enactments; and enjoins disobedience to the
Divine lawgiver: that it discourages purity and chastity, encourages
crime, legalizes concubinage; and, while it places the slave entirely in
the hands of his master, provides no real protection for his life or
his person.

[Footnote A: The _cardinal principle_ of slavery, that a slave is not to
be ranked among sentient beings, but among things, as an article of
property, a chattel personal, obtains as undoubted law, in all the slave
states. (Judge Stroud's Sketch of Slave Laws, p. 22.)]

But it may be said, that these laws afford no certain evidence of the
actual condition of the slaves: that, in judging the system by its code,
no allowance is made for the humanity of individual masters. It was a
just remark of the celebrated Priestley, that "_no people ever were
found to be better than their laws, though many have been known to be
worse._" All history and common experience confirm this. Besides,
admitting that the legal severity of a system may be softened in the
practice of the humane, may it not also be aggravated by that of the
avaricious and cruel?

But what are the testimony and admissions of slaveholders themselves on
this point? In an Essay published in Charleston, S.C., in 1822, and
entitled "A Refutation of the Calumnies circulated against the Southern
and Western States," by the late Edwin C. Holland, Esq., it is stated,
that "all slaveholders have laid down non-resistance, and perfect and
uniform _obedience_ to their orders as fundamental principles in the
government of their slaves:" that this is "a _necessary_ result of the
relation," and "_unavoidable_." Robert J. Turnbull, Esq., of South
Carolina, in remarking upon the management of slaves, says, "The only
principle upon which may authority over them, (the slaves,) can be
maintained is _fear_, and he who denies this has little knowledge of
them." To this may be added the testimony of Judge Ruffin, of North
Carolina, as quoted in Wheeler's Law of Slavery, p. 217. "The slave, to
remain a slave, must feel that there is _no appeal from his master_. No
man can anticipate the provocations which the slave would give, nor the
consequent wrath of the master, prompting him to BLOODY VENGEANCE on the
turbulent traitor, a vengeance _generally_ practised with impunity by
reason of its _privacy_."

In an Essay on the "improvement of negroes on plantations," by Rev.
Thomas S. Clay, a slaveholder of Bryan county, Georgia, and Printed at
the request of the Georgia Presbytery, in 1833, we are told "that the
present economy of the slave system is _to get all you can_ from the
slave, and give him in return _as little as will barely support him in a
working condition_!" Here, in a few words, the whole enormity of slavery
is exposed to view: "to _get all you can_ from the slave"--by means of
whips and forks and irons--by every device for torturing the body,
without destroying its capability of labor; and in return give him as
little of his coarse fare as will keep him, like a mere beast of burden,
in a "_working condition_;" this is slavery, as explained by the
slaveholder himself. Mr. Clay further says: "_Offences against the
master_ are more severely punished than violations of the law of God, a
fault which affects the slave's personal character a good deal. As
examples we may notice, that _running away_ is more severely punished
than adultery." "He (the slave) only knows his master as lawgiver and
executioner, and the _sole object of punishment_ held up to his view, is
to make him _a more obedient and profitable slave_."

Hon. W.B. Seabrook, in an address before the Agricultural Society of St.
John's, Colleton, published by order of the Society, at Charleston, in
1834, after stating that "as Slavery exists in South Carolina, the
action of the citizens should rigidly conform to that state of things:"
and, that "no _abstract opinions of the rights of man_ should be allowed
in any instance to modify the _police system of a plantation_," proceeds
as follows. "_He_ (the slave) _should be practically treated as a
slave_; and thoroughly taught the true cardinal principle on which our
peculiar institutions are founded, viz.; that to his owner he is bound
by the law of God and man; and that no human authority can sever the
link which unites them. The great aim of the slaveholder, then, should
be to keep his people in strict _subordination_. In this, it may in
truth be said, lies his _entire duty_." Again, in speaking of the
punishments of slaves, he remarks: "If to our army the disuse of THE
LASH has been prejudicial, to the slaveholder it would operate to
deprive him of the MAIN SUPPORT of his authority. For the first class of
offences, I consider imprisonment in THE STOCKS[A] at night, with or
without hard labor by day, as a powerful auxiliary in the cause of
_good_ government." "_Experience_ has convinced me that there is no
punishment to which the slave looks with more horror, than that upon
which I am commenting, (the stocks,) and none which has been attended
with happier results."

[Footnote A: Of the nature of this punishment in the stocks, something
may be learned by the following extract of a letter from a gentleman in
Tallahassee, Florida, to the editor of the Ohio Atlas, dated June 9,
1835: "A planter, a professer of religion, in conversing upon the
universality of whipping, remarked, that a planter in G____, who had
whipped a great deal, at length got tired of it, and invented the
following _excellent_ method of punishment, which I saw practised while
I was paying him a visit. The negro was placed in a sitting position,
with his hands made fast above his head, and his feet in the stocks, so
that he could not move any part of the body. The master retired,
intending to leave him till morning, but we were awakened in the night
by the groans of the negro, which were so doleful that we feared he was
dying. We went to him, and found him covered with a cold sweat, and
almost gone. He could not have lived an hour longer. Mr. ---- found the
'stocks' such an effective punishment, that it almost superseded
the whip."]

There is yet another class of testimony quite as pertinent as the
foregoing, which may at any time be gleaned from the newspapers of the
slave states--the advertisements of masters for their runaway slaves,
and casual paragraphs coldly relating cruelties, which would disgrace a
land of Heathenism. Let the following suffice for a specimen:

       *       *       *       *       *

To the Editors of the Constitutionalist.

_Aiken, S.C., Dec._ 20, 1836.

I have just returned from an inquest I held over the dead body of a
negro man, a runaway, that was shot near the South Edisto, in this
district, (Barnwell,) on Saturday morning last. He came to his death by
his own recklessness. He refused to be taken alive; and said that other
attempts to take him had been made, and he was determined that he would
not be taken. When taken he was nearly naked--had a large dirk or knife
and a heavy club. He was at first, (when those who were in pursuit of
him found it absolutely necessary,) shot at with small shot, with the
intention of merely crippling him. He was shot at several times, and at
last he was so disabled as to be compelled to surrender. He kept in the
run of a creek in a very dense swamp all the time that the neighbors
were in pursuit of him. As soon as the negro was taken, the best medical
aid was procured, but he died on the same evening. One of the witnesses
at the inquisition stated that the negro boy said that he was from
Mississippi, and belonged to so many persons he did not know who his
master was; but again he said his master's name was _Brown_. He said his
own name was Sam; and when asked by another witness who his master was,
he muttered something like Augusta or Augustine. The boy was apparently
above 35 or 40 years of age--about six feet high--slightly yellow in the
face--very long beard or whiskers--and very stout built, and a stern
countenance; and appeared to have been run away a long time.

WILLIAM H. PRITCHARD,

_Coroner, (ex officio,) Barnwell Dist., S.C._

The Mississippi and other papers will please copy the above.--_Georgia
Constitutionalist_.

       *       *       *       *       *

$100 REWARD.--Ran away from the subscriber, living on Herring Bay, Ann
Arundel county, Md., on Saturday, 28th January, negro man Elijah, who
calls himself Elijah Cook, is about 21 years of age, well made, of a
very dark complexion has an impediment in his speech, and _a scar on his
left cheek bone, apparently occasioned by a shot_.

J. SCRIVENER. Annapolis (Md.) Rep., Feb., 1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

$40 REWARD.--Ran away from my residence near Mobile, two negro men,
Isaac and Tim. Isaac is from 25 to 30 years old, dark complexion, scar
on the right side of the head, and also one on the right side of the
body, occasioned by BUCK SHOT. Tim is 22 years old, dark complexion,
scar on the right cheek, as also another on the back of the neck.
Captains and owners of steamboats, vessels, and water crafts of every
description, are cautioned against taking them on board under the
penalty of the law; and all other persons against harboring or in any
manner favoring the escape of said negroes under like penalty.

_Mobile, Sept_. 1. SARAH WALSH. Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser, Sept. 29,
1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

$200 REWARD.--Ran away from the subscriber, about three years ago, a
certain negro man named Ben, (commonly known by the name of Ben Fox.) He
is about five feet five or six inches high, chunky made, yellow
complexion, and has but one eye. Also, one other negro, by the name of
Rigdon, who ran away on the 8th of this month. He is stout made, tall,
and very black, with large lips.

I will give the reward of one hundred dollars for each of the above
negroes, to be delivered to me or confined in the jail of Lenoir or
Jones county, or _for the killing of them so that I can see them_.
Masters of vessels and all others are cautioned against harboring,
employing, or carrying them away, under the penalty of the law.

W.D. COBB. _Lenoir county, N.C., Nov_. 12, 1836.

       *       *       *       *       *

"A negro who had absconded from his master, and for who a reward was
offered of $100, has been apprehended and committed to prison in
Savannah, Georgia. The Editor who states the fact, adds, with as much
coolness as though there was no barbarity in the matter, that he did not
surrender until he was considerably _maimed by the dogs_[A] that had
been set on him,--desperately fighting them, one of which he cut badly
with a sword."

_New-York Commercial Advertiser, June_, 8, 1827.

[Footnote A: In regard to the use of bloodhounds, for the recapture of
runaway slaves, we insert the following from the New-York Evangelist,
being an extract of a letter from Natchez (Miss.) under date of January
31, 1835: "An instance was related to me in Claiborne County, in
Mississippi. A runaway was heard about the house in the night. The hound
was put upon his track, and in the morning was found watching the dead
body of the negro. The dogs are trained to this service when young. A
negro is directed to go into the woods and secure himself upon a tree.
When sufficient time has elapsed for doing this, the hound is put upon
his track. The blacks are compelled to worry them until they make them
their implacable enemies: and it is common to meet with dogs which will
take no notice of whites, though entire strangers, but will suffer no
blacks beside the house servants to enter the yard."]

       *       *       *       *       *

From the foregoing evidence on the part of slaveholders themselves, we
gather the following facts:

1. That perfect obedience is required of the slave--that he is made to
feel that there is no appeal from his master.

2. That the authority of the master is only maintained by fear--a
"_reign of terror_."

3. That "the economy of slavery is to _get all you can_ from the slave,
and give him in return as little as will barely support him in a working
condition."

4. That runaway slaves may be shot down with impunity by any white
person.

5. That masters offer rewards for "_killing_" their slaves, "_so that
they may see them_!"

6. That slaves are branded with hot irons, and very much scarred with
the whip.

7. That _iron collars_, with projecting prongs, rendering it almost
impossible for the wearer to lie down, are fastened upon the _necks
of women_.

8. That the LASH is the MAIN SUPPORT of the slaveholder's authority:
but, that the _stocks_ are "a powerful auxiliary" to his government.

9. That runaway slaves are chased with dogs--men hunted like beasts of
prey.

Such is American Slavery in practice.

The testimony thus far adduced is only that of the slaveholder and
wrong-doer himself: the admission of men who have a direct interest in
keeping out of sight the horrors of their system. It is besides no
voluntary admission. Having "framed iniquity by law," it is out of their
power to hide it. For the recovery of their runaway property, they are
compelled to advertise in the public journals, and that it may be
identified, they are under the necessity of describing the marks of the
whip on the backs of women, the iron collars about the neck--the
gun-shot wounds, and the traces of the branding-iron. Such testimony
must, in the nature of things, be partial and incomplete. But for a full
revelation of the secrets of the prison-house, we must look to the slave
himself. The Inquisitors of Goa and Madrid never disclosed the peculiar
atrocities of their "hall of horrors." It was the escaping heretic, with
his swollen and disjointed limbs, and bearing about him the scars of
rack and fire, who exposed them to the gaze and abhorrence of
Christendom.

The following pages contain the simple and unvarnished story of an
AMERICAN SLAVE,--of one, whose situation, in the first place, as a
favorite servant in an aristocratic family in Virginia; and afterwards
as the sole and confidential driver on a large plantation in Alabama,
afforded him rare and peculiar advantages for accurate observation of
the practical workings of the system. His intelligence, evident candor,
and grateful remembrance of those kindnesses, which in a land of
Slavery, made his cup of suffering less bitter; the perfect accordance
of his statements, (made at different times, and to different
individuals),[B] one with another, as well as those statements
themselves, all afford strong confirmation of the truth and accuracy of
his story. There seems to have been no effort, on his part to make his
picture of Slavery one of entire darkness--he details every thing of a
mitigating character which fell under his observation; and even the
cruel deception of his master has not rendered him unmindful of his
early kindness.

[Footnote B: The reader is referred to JOHN G. WHITTIER, of
Philadelphia, or to the following gentlemen, who have heard the whole,
or a part of his story, from his own lips: Emmor Kimber, of Kimberton,
Pa., Lindley Coates, of Lancaster Co., do.; James Mott, of Philadelphia,
Lewis Tappan, Elizur Wright Jun., Rev. Dr. Follen, and James G. Birney,
of New York. The latter gentleman, who was a few years ago, a citizen of
Alabama, assures us that the statements made to him by James Williams,
were such as he had every reason to believe, from his own knowledge of
slavery in that State.]

The editor is fully aware that he has not been able to present this
affecting narrative in the simplicity and vivid freshness with which it
fell from the lips of the narrator. He has, however, as closely as
possible, copied his manner, and in many instances his precise language.
THE SLAVE HAS SPOKEN FOR HIMSELF. Acting merely as his amanuensis, he
has carefully abstained from comments of his own.[A]

[Footnote A: As the narrator was unable to read or write, it is quite
possible that the orthography of some of the names of individuals
mentioned in his story may not be entirely correct. For instance, the
name of his master may have been either Larrimer, or Larrrimore.]

The picture here presented to the people of the free states, is, in many
respects, a novel one. We all know something of Virginia and Kentucky
Slavery. We have heard of the internal slave trade--the pangs of
separation--the slave ship with its "cargo of despair" bound for the
New-Orleans market--the weary journey of the chained Coffle to the
cotton country. But here, in a great measure, we have lost sight of the
victims of avarice and lust. We have not studied the dreadful economy of
the cotton plantation, and know but little of the secrets of its
unlimited despotism.

But in this narrative the scenes of the plantation rise before us, with
a distinctness which approaches reality. We hear the sound of the horn
at daybreak, calling the sick and the weary to toil unrequited. Woman,
in her appealing delicacy and suffering, about to become a mother, is
fainting under the lash, or sinking exhausted beside her cotton row. We
hear the prayer for mercy answered with sneers and curses. We look on
the instruments of torture, and the corpses of murdered men. We see the
dogs, reeking hot from the chase, with their jaws foul with human blood.
We see the meek and aged Christian scarred with the lash, and bowed down
with toil, offering the supplication of a broken heart to his Father in
Heaven, for the forgiveness of his brutal enemy. We hear, and from our
inmost hearts repeat the affecting interrogatory of the aged slave,
_"How long, Oh Lord! how long!"_

The editor has written out the details of this painful narrative with
feelings of sorrow. If there be any who feel a morbid satisfaction in
dwelling upon the history of outrage and cruelty, he at least is not one
of them. His taste and habits incline him rather to look to the pure and
beautiful in our nature--the sunniest side of humanity--its kindly
sympathies--its holy affections--its charities and its love. But, it is
because he has seen that all which is thus beautiful and excellent in
mind and heart, perishes in the atmosphere of slavery: it is because
humanity in the slave sinks down to a level with the brute and in the
master gives place to the attributes of a fiend--that he has not felt at
liberty to decline the task. He cannot sympathize with that abstract and
delicate philanthropy, which hesitates to bring itself in contact with
the sufferer, and which shrinks from the effort of searching out the
extent of his afflictions. The emblem of Practical Philanthropy is the
Samaritan stooping over the wounded Jew. It must be no fastidious hand
which administers the oil and the wine, and binds up the
unsightly gashes.

Believing, as he does, that this narrative is one of truth; that it
presents an unexaggerated picture of Slavery as it exists on the cotton
plantations of the South and West, he would particularly invite to its
perusal, those individuals, and especially those professing Christians
at the North, who have ventured to claim for such a system, the sanction
and approval of the Religion of Jesus Christ. In view of the facts here
presented, let these men seriously inquire of themselves, whether in
advancing such a claim, they are not uttering a higher and more
audacious blasphemy than any which ever fell from the pens of Voltaire
and Paine. As if to cover them with confusion, and leave them utterly
without excuse for thus libelling the character of a just God, these
developments are making, and the veil rising, which for long years of
sinful apathy has rested upon the abominations of American Slavery.
Light is breaking into it's dungeons, disclosing the wreck of buried
intellect--of hearts broken--of human affections outraged--of souls
ruined. The world will see it as God has always seen it; and when He
shall at length make inquisition for blood, and His vengeance kindle
over the habitations of cruelty, with a destruction more terrible than
that of Sodom and Gomorrah, His righteous dealing will be justified of
man, and His name glorified among the nations, and there will be a voice
of rejoicing in Earth and in Heaven. ALLELUIA!--THE PROMISE IS
FULFILLED!--FOR THE SIGHING OF THE POOR AND THE OPPRESSION OF THE NEEDY,
GOD HATH RISEN!

It is the earnest desire of the Editor, that this narrative may be the
means, under God, of awakening in the hearts of all who read it, a
sympathy for the oppressed which shall manifest itself in immediate,
active, self-sacrificing exertion for their deliverance; and, while it
excites abhorrence of his crimes, call forth pity for the oppressor. May
it have the effect to prevent the avowed and associated friends of the
slave, from giving such an undue importance to their own trials and
grievances, as to forget in a great measure the sorrows of the slave.
Let its cry of wo, coming up from the plantations of the South, suppress
every feeling of selfishness in our hearts. Let our regret and
indignation at the denial of the right of petition, be felt only because
we are thereby prevented from pleading in the Halls of Congress for the
"suffering and the dumb." And let the fact, that we are shut out from
half the territory of our country, be lamented only because it prevents
us from bearing personally to the land of Slavery, the messages of hope
for the slave, and of rebuke and warning for the oppressor.

_New-York, 24th 1st mo._, 1838.

       *       *       *       *       *



NARRATIVE

I was born in Powhatan County, Virginia, on the plantation of George
Larrimore. Sen., at a place called Mount Pleasant, on the 16th of May
1805. May father was the slave of an orphan family whose name I have
forgotten, and was under the care of a Mr. Brooks, guardian of the
family. He was a native of Africa, and was brought over when a mere
child, with his mother. My mother was the slave of George Larrimore,
Sen. She was nearly white, and is well known to have been the daughter
of Mr. Larrimore himself. She died when myself and my twin brother
Meshech were five years of age--I can scarcely remember her. She had in
all eight children, of whom only five are now living. One, a brother,
belongs to the heirs of the late Mr. Brockenbrough of Charlottesville;
of whom he hires his time, and pays annually $120 for it. He is a member
of the Baptist church, and used to preach occasionally. His wife is a
free woman from Philadelphia, and being able to read and write, taught
her husband. The whites do not know that he can write, and have often
wondered that he could preach so well without learning. It is the
practice when a church is crowded, to turn the blacks out of their
seats. My brother did not like this, and on one occasion preached a
sermon from a text, showing that all are of one blood. Some of the
whites who heard it, said that such preaching would raise an
insurrection among the negroes. Two of them told him that if he would
prove his doctrine by Scripture, they would let him go, but if he did
not, he should have nine and thirty lashes. He accordingly preached
another sermon and spoke with a great deal of boldness. The two men who
were in favor of having him whipped, left before the sermon was over;
those who remained, acknowledged that he had proved his doctrine, and
preached a good sermon, and many of them came up and shook hands with
him. The two opposers, Scott and Brockley, forbid my brother, after
this, to come upon their estates. They were both Baptists, and my
brother had before preached to their people. During the cholera at
Richmond, my brother preached a sermon, in which he compared the
pestilence to the plagues, which afflicted the Egyptian slaveholders,
because they would not let the people go. After the sermon some of the
whites threatened to whip him. Mr. Valentine, a merchant on Shocko Hill
prevented them; and a young lawyer named Brooks said it was wrong to
threaten a man for preaching the truth. Since the insurrection of Nat.
Turner he has not been allowed to preach much.

My twin brother was for some time the property of Mr. John Griggs, of
Richmond, who sold him about three years since, to an Alabama Cotton
Planter, with whom he staid one year, and then ran away and in all
probability escaped into the free states or Canada, as he was seen near
the Maryland line. My other brother lives in Fredericksburg, and belongs
to a Mr. Scott, a merchant formerly of Richmond. He was sold from Mr.
Larrimore's plantation because his wife was a slave of Mr. Scott. My
only sister is the slave of John Smith, of King William. Her husband was
the slave of Mr. Smith, when the latter lived in Powhatan county, and
when he removed to King William, she was taken with her husband.

My old master, George Larrimore, married Jane Roane, the sister of a
gentleman named John Roane, one of the most distinguished men in
Virginia, who in turn married a sister of my master. One of his sisters
married a Judge Scott, and another married Mr. Brockenbrough of
Charlottesville. Mr. Larrimore had three children; George, Jane, and
Elizabeth. The former was just ten days older than myself; and I was his
playmate and constant associate in childhood. I used to go with him to
his school, and carry his books for him as far as the door, and meet him
there when the school was dismissed. We were very fond of each other,
and frequently slept together. He taught me the letters of the alphabet,
and I should soon have acquired a knowledge of reading, had not George's
mother discovered her son in the act of teaching me. She took him aside
and severely reprimanded him. When I asked him, not long after, to tell
me more of what he had learned at school, he said that his mother had
forbidden him to do so any more, as her father had a slave, who was
instructed in reading and writing, and on that account proved very
troublesome. He could, they said, imitate the hand-writing of the
neighboring planters, and used to write passes and certificates of
freedom for the slaves, and finally wrote one for himself, and went off
to Philadelphia, from whence her father received from him a saucy
letter, thanking him for his education.

The early years of my life went by pleasantly. The bitterness of my lot
I had not yet realized. Comfortably clothed and fed, kindly treated by
my old master and mistress and the young ladies, and the playmate and
confidant of my young master, I did not dream of the dark reality of
evil before me.

When he was fourteen years of age, master George went to his uncle
Brockenbrough's at Charlottesville, as a student of the University.
After his return from College, he went to Paris and other parts of
Europe, and spent three or four years in study and travelling. In the
mean time I was a waiter in the house, dining-room servant, &c. My old
master visited and received visits from a great number of the principal
families in Virginia. Each summer, with his family, he visited the
Sulphur Springs and the mountains. While George was absent, I went with
him to New-Orleans, in the winter season, on account of his failing
health. We spent three days in Charleston, at Mr. McDuffie's, with whom
my master was on intimate terms. Mr. McDuffie spent several days on one
occasion at Mt. Pleasant. He took a fancy to me, and offered my master
the servant whom he brought with him and $500 beside, for me. My master
considered it almost an insult, and said after he was gone, that Mr.
McDuffie needed money to say the least, as much as he did.

He had a fine house in Richmond, and used to spend his winters there
with his family, taking me with him. He was not there much at other
times, except when the Convention of 1829 for amending the State
Constitution, was held in that city. He had a quarrel with Mr. Neal of
Richmond Co., in consequence of some remarks upon the subject of
Slavery. It came near terminating in a duel. I recollect that during the
sitting of the Convention, my master asked me before several other
gentlemen, if I wished to be free and go back to my own country. I
looked at him with surprise, and inquired what country?

"Africa, to be sure," said he, laughing.

I told him that was not my country--that I was born in Virginia.

"Oh yes," said he, "but your father was born in Africa." He then said
that there was a place on the African coast called Liberia where a great
many free blacks were going; and asked me to tell him honestly, whether
I would prefer to be set free on condition of going to Africa, or live
with him and remain a slave. I replied that I had rather be as I was.

I have frequently heard him speak against slavery to his visitors. I
heard him say on one occasion, when some gentlemen were arguing in favor
of sending the free colored people to Africa, that this was as really
the black man's country as the white's, and that it would be as humane
to knock the free negroes, at once, on the head, as to send them to
Liberia. He was a kind man to his slaves. He was proud of them, and of
the reputation he enjoyed of feeding and clothing them well. They were
as near as I can judge about 300 in number. He never to my knowledge
sold a slave, unless to go with a wife or husband, and at the slave's
own request. But all except the very wealthiest planters in his
neighborhood sold them frequently. John Smoot of Powhatan Co. has sold a
great number. Bacon Tait[A] used to be one of the principal purchasers.
He had a jail at Richmond where he kept them. There were many others who
made a business of buying and selling slaves. I saw on one occasion
while travelling with my master, a gang of nearly two hundred men
fastened with chains. The women followed unchained and the children in
wagons. It was a sorrowful sight. Some were praying, some crying, and
they all had a look of extreme wretchedness. It is an awful thing to a
Virginia slave to be sold for the Alabama and Mississippi country. I
have known some of them to die of grief, and others to commit suicide,
on account of it.

[Footnote A: Bacon Tait's advertisement of "new and commodious
buildings" for the keeping of negroes, situated at the corner of 15th
and Carey streets, appears in the Richmond Whig of Sept. 1896.--EDITOR.]

In my seventeenth year, I was married to a girl named Harriet, belonging
to John Gatewood, a planter living about four miles from Mr. Pleasant.
She was about a year younger than myself--was a tailoress, and used to
cut out clothes for the hands.

We were married by a white clergyman named Jones; and were allowed to or
three weeks to ourselves, which we spent in visiting and other
amusements.

The field hands are seldom married by a clergyman. They simply invite
their friends together, and have a wedding party.

Our two eldest children died in their infancy: two are now living. The
youngest was only two months old when I saw him for the last time. I
used to visit my wife on Saturday and Sunday evenings.

My young master came back from Europe in delicate health. He was advised
by his physicians to spend the winter in New-Orleans, whither he
accordingly went, taking me with him. Here he became acquainted with a
French lady of one of the first families in the city. The next winter he
also spent in New-Orleans, and on his third visit, three years after his
return from Europe, he was married to the lady above mentioned. In May
he returned to Mt. Pleasant, and found the elder Larrimore on his sick
bed, from which he never rose again. He died on the 14th of July. There
was a great and splendid funeral, as his relatives and friends
were numerous.

His large property was left principally in the hands of his widow until
her decease, after which it was to be divided among the three children.
In February Mrs. Larrimore also died. The administrators upon the estate
were John Green, Esq., and Benjamin Temple. My young master came back
from Europe in delicate health. He way advised by his physicians to
spend the winter in New-Orleans, whither he accordingly went, taking me
with him. Here he became acquainted with a French lady of one of the
first families in the city. The next winter he also spent in
New-Orleans, and on his third visit, three years after his return from
Europe, he was married to the lady above mentioned. In May he returned
to Mt. Pleasant, and found the elder Larrimore on his sick bed, from
which he never rose again. He died on the 14th of July. There was a
great and splendid funeral, as his relatives and friends were numerous.

His large property was left principally in the hands of his widow until
her decease, after which it was to be divided among the three children.
In February Mrs. Larrimore also died. The administrators upon the estate
were John Green, Esq., and Benjamin Temple.

My young mistresses, Jane and Elizabeth, were very kind to the servants.
They seemed to feel under obligations to afford them every comfort and
gratification, consistent with the dreadful relation of ownership which
they sustained towards them. Whipping was scarcely known on the estate;
and, whenever it did take place, it was invariably against the wishes of
the young ladies.

But the wife of master George was of a disposition entirely the reverse.
Feeble, languid, and inert, sitting motionless for hours at her window,
or moving her small fingers over the strings of her guitar, to some soft
and languishing air, she would have seemed to a stranger incapable of
rousing herself from that indolent repose, in which mind as well as body
participated. But, the slightest disregard of her commands--and
sometimes even the neglect to anticipate her wishes, on the part of the
servants; was sufficient to awake her. The inanimate and delicate beauty
then changed into a stormy virago. Her black eyes flawed and sparkled
with a snaky fierceness, her full lips compressed, and her brows bent
and darkened. Her very voice, soft and sweet when speaking to her
husband, and exquisitely fine and melodious, when accompanying her
guitar, was at such times, shrill, keen, and loud. She would order the
servants of my young mistresses upon her errands, and if they pleaded
their prior duty to obey the calls of another, would demand that they
should be forthwith whipped for their insolence. If the young ladies
remonstrated with her, she met them with a perfect torrent of invective
and abuse. In these paroxysms of fury she always spoke in French, with a
vehemence and volubility, which strongly contrasted with the calmness
and firmness of the young ladies. She would boast of what she had done
in New-Orleans, and of the excellent discipline of her father's slaves.
She said she had gone down in the night to the cell under her father's
house, and whipped the slaves confined there with her own hands. I had
heard the same thing from her father's servants at New-Orleans, when I
was there with my master. She brought with her from New-Orleans a girl
named Frances. I have seen her take her by the ear, lead her up to the
side of the room, and beat her head against it. At other times she would
snatch off her slipper and strike the girl on her face and head with it.

She seldom manifested her evil temper before master George. When she
did, he was greatly troubled, and he used to speak to his sisters about
it. Her manner towards him was almost invariably that of extreme
fondness. She was dark complexioned, but very beautiful; and the smile
of welcome with which she used to meet him was peculiarly fascinating. I
did not marvel that _he_ loved her; while at the same time, in common
with all the house servants, I regarded her as a being possessed with an
evil spirit,--half woman, and half fiend.

Soon after the settlement of the estate, I heard my master speak of
going out to Alabama. His wife had 1500 acres of wild land in Greene
County in that State: and he had been negociating for 500 more. Early in
the summer of 1833, he commenced making preparations for removing to
that place a sufficient number of hands to cultivate it. He took great
pains to buy up the wives and husbands of those of his own slaves who
had married out of the estate, in order, as he said, that his hands
might be contented in Alabama, and not need chaining together while on
their journey. It is always found necessary by the regular
slave-traders, in travelling with their slaves to the far South, to
handcuff and chain their wretched victims, who have been bought up as
the interest of the trader, and the luxury or necessities of the planter
may chance to require, without regard to the ties sundered or the
affections made desolate, by these infernal bargains. About the 1st of
September, after the slaves destined for Alabama had taken a final
farewell of their old home, and of the friends they were leaving behind,
our party started on their long journey. There were in all 214 slaves,
men, women and children. The men and women travelled on foot--the small
children in the wagons, containing the baggage, &c. Previous to my
departure, I visited my wife and children at Mr. Gatewood's. I took
leave of them with the belief that I should return with my master, as
soon as he had seen his hands established on his new plantation. I took
my children in my arms and embraced them; my wife, who was a member of
the Methodist church, implored the blessing of God upon me, during my
absence, and I turned away to follow my master.

Our journey was a long and tedious one, especially to those who were
compelled to walk the whole distance. My master rode in a sulky, and I,
as his body servant, on horseback: When we crossed over the Roanoke, and
were entering upon North Carolina, I remember with what sorrowful
countenances and language the poor slaves looked back for the last time
upon the land of their nativity. It was their last farewell to Old
Virginia. We passed through Georgia, and crossing the Chattahoochee,
entered Alabama. Our way for many days was through a sandy tract of
country, covered with pine woods, with here and there the plantation of
an Indian or a half-breed. After crossing what is called Line Creek, we
found large plantations along the road, at intervals of four or five
miles. The aspect of the whole country was wild and forbidding, save to
the eye of a cotton-planter. The clearings were all new, and the houses
rudely constructed of logs. The cotton fields, were skirted with an
enormous growth of oak, pine, and other wood. Charred stumps stood
thickly in the clearings, with here and there a large tree girdled by
the axe and left to decay. We reached at last the place of our
destination. It was a fine tract of land with a deep rich soil. We
halted on a small knoll, where the tents were pitched, and the wagons
unladen. I spent the night with my master at a neighboring plantation,
which was under the care of an overseer named Flincher.

The next morning my master received a visit from a man named Huckstep,
who had undertaken the management of his plantation as an overseer. He
had been an overseer on cotton plantations many years in Georgia and
North Carolina. He was apparently about forty years of age, with a
sunburnt and sallow countenance. His thick shock of black hair was
marked in several places with streaks of white, occasioned as he
afterwards told me by blows received from slaves whom he was chastising.

After remaining in the vicinity for about a week, my master took me
aside one morning--told me he was going to Selma in Dallas County, and
wished me to be in readiness on his return the next day, to start for
Virginia. This was to me cheering news. I spent that day and the next
among my old fellow servants who had lived with me in Virginia. Some of
them had messages to send by me to their friends and acquaintances. In
the afternoon of the second day after my master's departure, I
distributed, among them all the money which I had about me, viz.,
fifteen dollars. I noticed that the overseer Huckstep laughed at this
and called me a fool: and that whenever I spoke of going home with my
master, his countenance indicated something between a smile and a sneer.

Night came; but contrary to his promise, my master did not come. I still
however expected him the next day. But another night came, and he had
not returned. I grew uneasy, and inquired of Huckstep where be thought
my master was.

"On his way to Old Virginia," said he, with a malicious laugh.

"But," said I. "Master George told me that he should come back and take
me with him to Virginia."

"Well, boy," said the overseer, "I'll now tell ye what master George, as
you call him, told me. You are to stay here and act as driver of the
field hands. That was the order. So you may as well submit to it
at once."

I stood silent and horror-struck. Could it be that the man whom I had
served faithfully from our mutual boyhood, whose slightest wish had been
my law, to serve whom I would have laid down my life, while I had
confidence in his integrity--could it be that he had so cruelly and
wickedly deceived me? I looked at the overseer. He stood laughing at me
in my agony.

"Master George gave you no such orders," I exclaimed, maddened by the
overseer's look and manner.

The overseer looked at me with a fiendish grin. "None of your
insolence," said he, with a dreadful oath. "I never saw a Virginia
nigger that I couldn't manage, proud as they are. Your master has left
you in my hands, and you must obey my orders. If you don't, why I shall
have to make you '_hug the widow there_,'" pointing to a tree, to which I
afterwards found the slaves were tied when they were whipped.

That night was one of sleepless agony. Virginia--the hills and the
streams of my birth-place; the kind and hospitable home; the
gentle-hearted sisters, sweetening with their sympathy the sorrows of
the slave--my wife--my children--all that had thus far made up my
happiness, rose in contrast with my present condition. Deeply as he has
wronged me, may my master himself never endure such a night of misery!

At daybreak, Huckstep told me to dress myself, and attend to his
directions. I rose, subdued and wretched, and at his orders handed the
horn to the headmen of the gang, who summoned the hands to the field.
They were employed in clearing land for cultivation, cutting trees and
burning. I was with them through the day, and at night returned once
more to my lodgings to be laughed at by the overseer. He told me that I
should do well, he did not doubt, by and by, but that a Virginia driver
generally had to be whipped a few times himself before he could be
taught to do justice to the slaves under his charge. They were not equal
to those raised in North Carolina, for keeping the lazy hell-hounds, as
he called the slaves, at work.

And this was my condition!--a driver set over more than one hundred and
sixty of my kindred and friends, wish orders to apply the whip
unsparingly to every one, whether man or woman, who faltered in the
task, or was careless in the execution of it, myself subject at any
moment to feel the accursed lash upon my own back, if feelings of
humanity should perchance overcome the selfishness of misery, and induce
me to spare and pity.

I lived in the same house with Huckstep,--a large log house, roughly
finished; where we were waited upon by an old woman, whom we used to
call aunt Polly. Huckstep was, I soon found, inordinately fond of peach
brandy; and once or twice in the course of a month he had a drunken
debauch, which usually lasted from two to four days. He was then full of
talk, laughed immoderately at his own nonsense and would keep me up
until late at night listening to him. He was at these periods terribly
severe to his hands, and would order me to use up the cracker of my whip
every day upon the poor creatures, who were toiling in the field, and in
order to satisfy him, I used to tear it off when returning home at
night. He would then praise me for a good fellow, and invite me to
drink with him.

He used to tell me at such times, that if I would only drink as he did,
I should be worth a thousand dollars more for it. He would sit hours
with his peach brandy, cursing and swearing, laughing and telling
stories full of obscenity and blasphemy. He would sometimes start up,
take my whip, and rush out to the slave quarters, flourish it about and
frighten the inmates and often cruelly beat them. He would order the
women to pull up their clothes, in Alabama style, as he called it, and
then whip them for not complying. He would then come back roaring and
shouting to the house, and tell me what he had done; if I did not laugh
with him, he would get angry and demand what the matter was. Oh! how
often I have laughed, at such times, when my heart ached within me; and
how often, when permitted to retire to my bed, have I found relief
in tears!

He had no wife, but kept a colored mistress in a house situated on a
gore of land between the plantation and that of Mr. Goldsby. He brought
her with him from North Carolina, and had three children by her.

Sometimes in his fits of intoxication, he would come riding into the
field, swinging his whip, and crying out to the hands to strip off their
shirts, and be ready to take a whipping: and this too when they were all
busily at work. At another time, he would gather the hands around him
and fall to cursing and swearing about the neighboring overseers. They
were, he said, cruel to their hands, whipped them unmercifully, and in
addition starved them. As for himself, he was the kindest and best
fellow within forty miles; and the hands ought to be thankful that they
had such a good man for their overseer.

He would frequently be very familiar with me, and call me his child; he
would tell me that our people were going to get Texas, a fine cotton
country, and that he meant to go out there and have a plantation of his
own, and I should go with him and be his overseer.

The houses in the "_negro quarters_" were constructed of logs, and from
twelve to fifteen feet square; they had no glass, but there were holes
to let in the light and air. The furniture consisted of a table, a few
stools, and dishes made of wood, and an iron pot, and some other cooking
utensils. The houses were placed about three or four rods apart, with a
piece of ground attached to each of them for a garden, where the
occupant could raise a few vegetables. The "quarters" were about three
hundred yards from the dwelling of the overseer.

The hands were occupied in clearing land and burning brush, and in
constructing their houses, through the winter. In March we commenced
ploughing: and on the first of April began planting seed for cotton. The
hoeing season commenced about the last of May. At the earliest dawn of
day, and frequently before that time, the laborers were roused from
their sleep by the blowing of the horn. It was blown by the headman of
the gang who led the rest in the work and acted under my direction, as
my assistant.

Previous to the blowing of the horn the hands generally rose and eat
what was called the "morning's bit," consisting of ham and bread. If
exhaustion and fatigue prevented their rising before the dreaded sound
of the horn broke upon their slumbers, they had no time to snatch a
mouthful, but were harried out at once.

It was my business to give over to each of the hands his or her
appropriate implement of labor, from the toolhouse where they were
deposited at night. After all had been supplied, they were taken to the
field, and set at work as soon as it was sufficiently light to
distinguish the plants from the grass and weeds. I was employed in
passing from row to row, in order to see that the work was well done,
and to urge forward the laborers. At 12 o'clock, the horn was blown from
the overseer's house, calling the hands to dinner, each to his own
cabin. The intermission of labor was one hour and a half to hoers and
pickers, and two hours to the ploughmen. At the expiration of this
interval, the horn again summoned them to thus labor. They were kept in
the field until dark, when they were called home to supper.

There was little leisure for any of the hands on the plantation. In the
evenings, after it was too dark for work in the field, the men were
frequently employed in burning brush and in other labors until late at
night. The women after toiling in the field by day, were compelled to
card, spin, and weave cotton for their clothing, in the evening. Even on
Sundays there was little or no respite from toil. Those who had not been
able to work out all their tasks during the week were allowed by the
overseer to finish it on the Sabbath, and thus save themselves from a
whipping on Monday morning. Those whose tasks were finished frequently
employed most of that day in cultivating their gardens.

Many of the female hands were delicate young women, who in Virginia had
never been accustomed to field labor. They suffered greatly from the
extreme heat and the severity of the toil. Oh! how often have I seen
them dragging their weary limbs from the cotton field at nightfall,
faint and exhausted. The overseer used to laugh at their sufferings.
They were, he said, Virginia ladies, and altogether too delicate for
Alabama use: but they must be made to do their tasks notwithstanding.
The recollection of these things even now is dreadful. I used to tell
the poor creatures, when compelled by the overseer to urge them forward
with the whip, that I would much rather take their places, and endure
the stripes than inflict them.

When but three months old, the children born on the estate were given up
to the care of the old women who were not able to work out of doors.
Their mothers were kept at work in the field.

It was the object of the overseer to separate me in feeling and interest
as widely as possible from my suffering brethren and sisters. I had
relations among the field hands, and used to call them my cousins. He
forbid my doing so; and told me if I acknowledged relationship with any
of the hands I should be flogged for it. He used to speak of them as
devils and hell-hounds, and ridicule them in every possible way; and
endeavoured to make me speak of them and regard them in the same manner.
He would tell long stories about hunting and shooting "runaway niggers,"
and detail with great apparent satisfaction the cruel and horrid
punishments which he had inflicted. One thing he said troubled him. He
had once whipped a slave so severely that he died in consequence of it,
and it was soon after ascertained that he was wholly innocent of the
offence charged against him. That slave, he said, had haunted him
ever since.

Soon after we commenced weeding our cotton, some of the hands who were
threatened with a whipping for not finishing their tasks, ran away. The
overseer and myself went out after them, taking with us five
bloodhounds, which were kept on the Estate for the sole purpose of
catching runaways. There were no other hounds in the vicinity, and the
overseers of the neighboring plantations used to borrow them to hunt
their runaways. A Mr. Crop, who lived about ten miles distant, had two
packs, and made it his sole business to catch slaves with them. We used
to set the dogs upon the track of the fugitives, and they would follow
them until, to save themselves from being torn in pieces, they would
climb into a tree, where the dogs kept them until we came up and
secured them.

These hounds, when young, are taught to run after the negro boys; and
being always kept confined except when let out in pursuit of runaways,
they seldom fail of overtaking the fugitive, and seem to enjoy the sport
of hunting men as much as other dogs do that of chasing a fox or a deer.
My master gave a large sum for his five dogs,--a slut and her
four puppies.

While going over our cotton picking for the last time, one of our hands
named Little John, ran away. The next evening the dogs were started on
his track. We followed them awhile, until we knew by their ceasing to
bark that they had found him. We soon met the dogs returning. Their
jaws, heads, and feet, were bloody. The overseer looked at them and
said, "he was afraid the dogs had killed the nigger." It being dark, we
could not find him that night. Early the next morning, we started off
with our neighbors, Sturtivant and Flincher; and after searching about
for some time, we found the body of Little John lying in the midst of a
thicket of cane. It was nearly naked, and dreadfully mangled and gashed
by the teeth of the dogs. They had evidently dragged it some yards
through the thicket: blood, tatters of clothes, and even the entrails of
the unfortunate man, were clinging to the stubs of the old and broken
cane. Huckstep stooped over his saddle, looked at the body, and muttered
an oath. Sturtivant swore it was no more than the fellow deserved. We
dug a hole in the cane-brake, where he lay, buried him, and
returned home.

The murdered young man had a mother and two sisters on the plantation,
by whom he was dearly loved. When I told the old woman of what had
befallen her son, she only said that it was better for poor John than to
live in slavery.

Late in the fall of this year, a young man, who had already run away
several times, was missing from his task. It was four days before we
found him. The dogs drove him at last up a tree, where he was caught,
and brought home. He was then fastened down to the ground by means of
forked sticks of wood selected for the purpose, the longest fork being
driven into the ground until the other closed down upon the neck,
ancles, and wrists. The overseer then sent for two large cats belonging
to the house. These he placed upon the naked shoulders of his victim,
and dragged them suddenly by their tails downward. At first they did not
scratch deeply. He then ordered me to strike them with a small stick
after he had placed them once more upon the back of the sufferer. I did
so; and the enraged animals extended their claws, and tore his back
deeply and cruelly as they were dragged along it. He was then whipped
and placed in the stocks, where he was kept for three days. On the third
morning as I passed the stocks, I stopped to look at him. His head hung
down over the chain which supported his neck. I spoke, but he did not
answer. _He was dead in the stocks_! The overseer on seeing him seemed
surprised, and, I thought, manifested some remorse. Four of the field
hands took him out of the stocks and buried him: and every thing went
on as usual.

It is not in my power to give a narrative of the daily occurrences on
the plantation. The history of one day was that of all. The gloomy
monotony of our slavery, was only broken by the overseer's periodical
fits of drunkenness, at which times neither life nor limb on the estate
were secure from his caprice or violence.

In the spring of 1835, the overseer brought me a letter from my wife,
written for her by her young mistress, Mr. Gateweed's daughter. He read
it to me: it stated that herself and children were well--spoke of her
sad and heavy disappointment in consequence of my not returning with my
master; and of her having been told by him that I should come back the
next fall.

Hope for a moment lightened my heart; and I indulged the idea of once
more returning to the bosom of my family. But I recollected that my
master had already cruelly deceived me; and despair again took hold
on me.

Among our hands was one whom we used to call Big Harry. He was a stout,
athletic man--very intelligent, and an excellent workman; but he was of
a high and proud spirit, which the weary and crushing weight of a life
of slavery had not been able to subdue. On almost every plantation at
the South you may find one or more individuals, whose look and air show
that they have preserved their self-respect as _men_;--that with them
the power of the tyrant ends with the coercion of the body--that the
soul is free, and the inner man retaining the original uprightness of
the image of God. You may know them by the stern sobriety of their
countenances, and the contempt with which they regard the jests and
pastimes of their miserable and degraded companions, who, like Samson,
make sport for the keepers of their prison-house. These men are always
feared as well as hated by their task-masters. Harry had never been
whipped, and had always said that he would die rather than submit to it.
He made no secret of his detestation of the overseer. While most of the
slaves took off their hats, with cowering submission, in his presence,
Harry always refused to do so. He never spoke to him except in a brief
answer to his questions. Master George, who knew, and dreaded the
indomitable spirit of the man, told the overseer, before he left the
plantation, to beware how he attempted to punish him. But, the habits of
tyranny in which Huckstep had so long indulged, had accustomed him to
abject submission, on the part of his subjects; and he could not endure
this upright and unbroken manliness. He used frequently to curse and
swear about him, and devise plans for punishing him on account of his
impudence as he called it.

A pretext was at last afforded him. Sometime in August of this year,
there was a large quantity of yellow unpicked cotton lying in the gin
house. Harry was employed at night in removing the cotton see, which has
been thrown out by the gin. The rest of the male hands were engaged
during the day in weeding the cotton for the last time, and in the nigh,
in burning brush on the new lands clearing for the next year's crop.
Harry was told one evening to go with the others and assist in burning
the brush. He accordingly went and the next night a double quantity of
seed had accumulated in the gin house: and although he worked until
nearly 2 o'clock in the morning, he could not remove it all.

The next morning the overseer came into the field, and demanded of me
why I had not whipped Harry for not removing all the cotton seed. He
then called aloud to Harry to come forward and be whipped. Harry
answered somewhat sternly that he would neither be struck by overseer
nor driver; that he had worked nearly all night, and had scarcely fallen
asleep when the horn blew to summon him to his toil in the field. The
overseer raved and threatened, but Harry paid no farther attention to
him. He then turned to me and asked me for my pistols, with a pair of
which he had furnished me. I told him they were not with me. He growled
an oath, threw himself on his horse and left us. In the evening I found
him half drunk and raving like a madman. He said he would no longer bear
with that nigger's insolence; but would whip him if it cost him his
life. He at length fixed upon a plan for seizing him; and told me that
he would go out in the morning, ride along by the side of Harry and talk
pleasantly to him, and then, while Harry was attending to him, I was to
steal upon him and knock him down, by a blow on the head, from the
loaded and heavy handle of my whip. I was compelled to promise to obey
his directions.

The next morning when we got to the field I told Harry of the overseer's
plan, and advised him by all means to be on his guard and watch my
motions. His eye glistened with gratitude. "Thank you James", said he,
"I'll take care that you don't touch me."

Huckstep came into the field about 10 o'clock. He rode along by the side
of Harry talking and laughing. I was walking on the other side. When I
saw that Harry's eye was upon me I aimed a blow at him intending however
to miss him. He evaded the blow and turned fiercely round with his hoe
uplifted, threatening to cut down any one who again attempted to strike
him. Huckstep cursed my awkwardness, and told Harry to put down his hoe
and came to him. He refused to do so and swore he would kill the first
man who tried to lay hands on him. The cowardly tyrant shrank away from
his enraged bondman, and for two weeks Harry was not again molested.

About the first of September, the overseer had one of his drunken fits.
He made the house literally an earthly hell. He urged me to drink,
quarrelled and swore at me for declining, and chased the old woman round
the house, with his bottle of peach brandy. He then told me that Harry
had forgotten the attempt to seize him, and that is the morning we must
try our old game over again.

On the following morning, as I was handing to each of the hands their
hoes from the tool house, I caught Harry's eye. "Look out," said I to
him. "Huckstep will be after you again to day." He uttered a deep curse
against the overseer and passed on to his work. After breakfast Huckstep
came riding out to the cotton field. He tied his horse to a tree, and
came towards us. His sallow and haggard countenance was flushed, and his
step unsteady. He came up by the side of Harry and began talking about
the crops and the weather; I came at the same time on the other side,
and in striking at him, beat off his hat. He sprang aside and stepped
backwards. Huckstep with a dreadful oath commanded him to stop, saying
that he had determined to whip him, and neither earth nor hell should
prevent him. Harry defied him: and said he had always done the work
allotted to him and that was enough: he would sooner die than have the
accursed lash touch him. The overseer staggered to his horse, mounted
him and rode furiously to the house, and soon made his appearance,
returning, with his gun in his hand.

"Yonder comes the devil!" said one of the women whose row was near
Harry's.

"Yes," said another, "He's trying to scare Harry with his gun."

"Let him try as he pleases," said Harry, in his low, deep, determined
tones, "He may shoot me, but he can't whip me."

Huckstep came swearing on: when within a few yards of Harry he stopped,
looked at him with a stare of mingled rage and drunken imbecility; and
bid him throw down his hoe and come forward. The undaunted slave refused
to comply, and continuing his work told the drunken demon to shoot if he
pleased. Huckstep advanced within a few steps of him when Harry raised
his hoe and told him to stand back. He stepped back a few paces, leveled
his gun and fired. Harry received the charge in his breast, and fell
instantly across a cotton row. He threw up his hands wildly, and
groaned, "Oh, Lord!"

The hands instantly dropped their hoes. The women shrieked aloud. For my
own part I stood silent with horror. The cries of the women enraged the
overseer, he dropped his gun, and snatching the whip from my hand, with
horrid oaths, and imprecations fell to whipping them, laying about him
like a maniac. Upon Harry's sister he bestowed his blows without mercy,
commanding her to quit her screaming and go to work. The poor girl,
whose brother had thus been murdered before her eyes, could not wrestle
down the awful agony of her feelings, and the brutal tormentor left her
without effecting his object. He then, without going to look of his
victim, told four of the hands to carry him to the house, and taking up
his gun left the field. When we got to the poor fellow, he was alive,
and groaning faintly. The hands took him up, but before they reached the
house he was dead. Huckstep came out, and looked at him, and finding him
dead, ordered the hands to bury him. The burial of a slave in Alabama is
that of a brute. No coffin--no decent shroud--no prayer. A hole is dug,
and the body (sometimes enclosed in a rude box,) is thrown in without
further ceremony.

From this time the overseer was regarded by the whole gang with
detestation and fear--as a being to whose rage and cruelty there were no
limits. Yet he was constantly telling us that he was the kindest of
overseers--that he was formerly somewhat severe in managing his hands,
but that now he was, if any thing, too indulgent. Indeed he had the
reputation of being a good overseer, and an excellent manager, when
sober. The slaves on some of the neighboring plantations were certainly
worse clothed and fed, and more frequently and cruelly whipped than
ours. Whenever the saw them they complained of over working and short
feeding. One of Flincher's, and one of Sturtivant's hands ran away,
while I was in Alabama: and after remaining in the woods awhile, and
despairing of being able to effect their escape, resolved to put an end
to their existence and their slavery together. Each twisted himself a
vine of the muscadine grape, and fastened one end around the limb of an
oak, and made a noose in the other. Jacob, Flincher's man, swung himself
off first, and expired after a long struggle. The other, horrified by
the contortions and agony of his comrade, dropped his noose, and was
retaken. When discovered, two or three days afterwards, the body of
Jacob was dreadfully torn and mangled, by the buzzards, those winged
hyenas and goules of the Southwest.

Among the slaves who were brought from Virginia, were two young and
bright mulatto women, who were always understood throughout the
plantation to have been the daughters of the elder Larrimore, by one of
his slaves. One was named Sarah and the other Hannah. Sarah, being in a
state of pregnancy, failed of executing her daily allotted task of
hoeing cotton. I was ordered to whip her, and on my remonstrating with
the overseer, and representing the condition of the woman, I was told
that my business was to obey orders, and that if I was told "to whip a
dead nigger I must do it." I accordingly gave her fifty lashes. This was
on Thursday evening. On Friday she also failed through weakness, and was
compelled to lie down in the field. That night the overseer himself
whipped her. On Saturday the wretched woman dragged herself once more to
the cotton field. In the burning sun, and in a situation which would
have called forth pity in the bosom of any one save a cotton-growing
overseer, she struggled to finish her task. She failed--nature could do
no more--and sick and despairing, she sought her cabin. There the
overseer met her and inflicted fifty more lashes upon her already
lacerated back.

The next morning was the Sabbath. It brought no joy to that suffering
woman. Instead of the tones of the church bell summoning to the house of
prayer, she heard the dreadful sound of the lash falling upon the backs
of her brethren and sisters in bondage. For the voice of prayer she
heard curses. For the songs of Zion obscene and hateful blasphemies. No
bible was there with its consolations for the sick of heart. Faint and
fevered, scarred and smarting from the effects of her cruel punishment,
she lay upon her pallet of moss--dreading the coming of her relentless
persecutor,--who, in the madness of one of his periodical fits of
drunkenness, was now swearing and cursing through the quarters.

Some of the poor woman's friends on the evening before, had attempted to
relieve her of the task which had been assigned her, but exhausted
nature, and the selfishness induced by their own miserable situation,
did not permit them to finish it and the overseer, on examination, found
that the week's work of the woman, was still deficient. After breakfast,
he ordered her to be tied up to the limb of a tree, by means of a rope
fastened round her wrists, so as to leave her feet about six inches from
the ground. She begged him to let her down for she was very sick.

"Very well!" he exclaimed with a sneer and a laugh,--"I shall bleed you
then, and take out some of your Virginia blood. You are too proud a miss
for Alabama."

He struck her a few blows. Swinging thus by her arms, she succeeded in
placing one of her feet against the body of the tree, and thus partly
supported herself, and relieved in some degree the painful weight upon
her wrists. He threw down his whip--took a rail from the garden fence,
ordered her feet to be tied together, and thrust the rail between them.
He then ordered one of the hands to sit upon it. Her back at this time
was bare, but the strings of the only garment which she wore passed over
her shoulders and prevented the full force of the whip from acting on
her flesh. These he cut off with his pen-knife, and thus left her
entirely naked. He struck her only two blows, for the second one cut
open her side and abdomen with a frightful gash. Unable to look on any
longer in silence, I entreated him to stop, as I feared he had killed
her. The overseer looked at the wound--dropped his whip, and ordered her
to be untied. She was carried into the house in a state of
insensibility, and died in three days after.

During the whole season of picking cotton, the whip was frequently and
severely plied. In his seasons of intoxication, the overseer made no
distinction between the stout man and the feeble and delicate woman--the
sick and the well. Women in a far advanced state of pregnancy were
driven out to the cotton field. At other times he seemed to have some
consideration; and to manifest something like humanity. Our hands did
not suffer for food--they had a good supply of ham and corn-meal, while
on Flincher's plantation the slaves had meat but once a year, at
Christmas.

Near the commencement of the weeding season of 1835, I was ordered to
whip a young woman, a light mustee, for not performing her task. I told
the overseer that she was sick. He said he did not care for that, she
should be made to work. A day or two afterwards, I found him in the
house half intoxicated. He demanded of me why I had not whipped the
girl; and I gave the same reason as before. He flew into a dreadful
rage, but his miserable situation made him an object of contempt rather
than fear. He sat shaking his fist at me, and swearing for nearly half
an hour. He said he would teach the Virginia lady to sham sickness; and
that the only reason I did not whip her was, that she was a white woman,
and I did not like to cut up her delicate skin. Some time after I was
ordered to give two of our women, named Hannah and big Sarah, 150 lashes
each, for not performing their tasks. The overseer stood by until he saw
Hannah whipped, and until Sarah had been tied up to the tree. As soon as
his back was turned I struck the tree instead of the woman, who
understanding my object, shrieked as if the whip at every blow was
cutting into her flesh. The overseer heard the blows and the woman's
cries, and supposing that all was going on according to his mind, left
the field. Unfortunately the husband of Hannah stood looking on; and
indignant that his wife should be whipped and Sarah spared, determined
to revenge himself by informing against me.

Next morning Huckstep demanded of me whether I had whipped Sarah the day
before; I replied in the affirmative. Upon this he called Sarah forward
and made her show her back, which bore no traces of recent whipping. He
then turned upon me and told me that the blows intended for Sarah should
be laid on my back. That night the overseer, with the help of three of
the hands, tied me up to a large tree--my arms and legs being clasped
round it, and my body drawn up hard against it by two men pulling at my
arms and one pushing against my back. The agony occasioned by this alone
was almost intolerable. I felt a sense of painful suffocation, and could
scarcely catch my breath.

A moment after I felt the first blow of the overseer's whip across my
shoulders. It seemed to cut into my very heart. I felt the blood gush,
and run down my back. I fainted at length under the torture, and on
being taken down, my shoes contained blood which ran from the gashes in
my back. The skin was worn off from by breast, arms, and thighs, against
the rough bark of the tree. I was sick and feverish, and in great pain
for three weeks afterwards; most of which time I was obliged to lie with
my face downwards, in consequence of the extreme soreness of my sides
and back, Huckstep himself seemed concerned about me, and would come
frequently to see me, and tell me that he should not have touched me had
it not been for "the cursed peach brandy."

Almost the first person that I was compelled to whip after I recovered,
was the man who pushed at my back when I was tied up to the tree. The
hands who were looking on at that time, all thought he pushed me much
harder than was necessary: and they expected that I would retaliate upon
him the injury I had received. After he was tied up, the overseer told
me to give him a severe flogging, and left me. I struck the tree instead
of the man. His wife, who was looking on, almost overwhelmed me with her
gratitude.

At length one morning, late in the fall of 1835, I saw Huckstep, and a
gentleman ride out to the field. As they approached, I saw the latter
was my master. The hands all ceased their labor, and crowded around him,
inquiring about old Virginia. For my own part, I could not hasten to
greet him. He had too cruelly deceived me. He at length came towards me,
and seemed somewhat embarrassed. "Well James," said he, "how do you
stand it here?" "Badly enough," I replied. "I had no thought that you
could be so cruel as to go away and leave me as you did." "Well, well,
it was too bad, but it could not be helped--you must blame Huckstep for
it." "But," said I, "I was not his servant; I belonged to you, and you
could do as you pleased." "Well," said he, "we will talk about that by
and by." He then inquired of Huckstep where big Sarah was. "She was sick
and died," was the answer. He looked round amoung the slaves again, and
inquired for Harry. The overseer told him that Harry undertook to kill
him, and that, to save his life, he was obliged to fire upon him, and
that he died of the wound. After some further inquiries, he requested me
to go into the house with him. He then asked me to tell him how things
had been managed during his absence. I gave him a full account of the
overseer's cruelty. When he heard of the manner of Harry's death, he
seemed much affected and shed tears. He was a favorite servant of his
father's. I showed him the deep scars on my back occasioned by the
whipping I had received. He was, or professed to be, highly indignant
with Huckstep; and said he would see to it that he did not lay hands on
me again. He told me he should be glad to take me with him to Virginia,
but he did not know where he should find a driver who would be so kind
to the hands as I was. If I would stay ten years, he would give me a
thousand dollars, and a piece of land to plant on my own account. "But,"
said I, "my wife and children." "Well," said he, "I will do my best to
purchase them, and send them on to you." I now saw that my destiny was
fixed: and that I was to spend my days in Alabama, and I retired to my
bed that evening with a heavy heart.

My master staid only three or four days on the plantation. Before he
left, he cautioned Huckstep to be careful and not strike me again, as he
would on no account permit it. He told him to give the hands food
enough, and not over-work them, and, having thus satisfied his
conscience, left us to our fate.

Out of the two hundred and fourteen slaves who were brought out from
Virginia, at least one-third of them were members of the Methodist and
Baptist churches in that State. Of this number five or six could read.
Then had been torn away from the care and discipline of their respective
churches, and from the means of instruction, but they retained their
love for the exercises of religion; and felt a mournful pleasure in
speaking of the privileges and spiritual blessings which they enjoyed in
Old Virginia. Three of them had been preachers, or exhorters, viz.
Solomon, usually called Uncle Solomon, Richard and David. Uncle Solomon
was a grave, elderly man, mild and forgiving in his temper, and greatly
esteemed among the more serious portion of our hands. He used to snatch
every occasion to talk to the lewd and vicious about the concerns of
their souls, and to advise them to fix their minds upon the Savior, as
their only helper. Some I have heard curse and swear in answer, and
others would say that they could not keep their minds upon God and the
devil (meaning Huckstep) at the same time: that it was of no use to try
to be religious--they had no time--that the overseer wouldn't let them
meet to pray--and that even Uncle Solomon, when he prayed, had to keep
one eye open all the time, to see if Huckstep was coming. Uncle Solomon
could both read and write, and had brought out with him from Virginia a
Bible, a hymn-book, and some other religious books, which he carefully
concealed from the overseer, Huckstep was himself an open infidel as
well as blasphemer. He used to tell the hands that there was no hell
hereafter for white people, but that they had their punishment on earth
in being obliged to take care of the negroes. As for the blacks, he was
sure there was a hell for them. He used frequently to sit with his
bottle by his side, and a Bible in his hand; and read passages and
comment on them, and pronounce them lies. Any thing like religious
feeling among the slaves irritated him. He said that so much praying and
singing prevented the people from doing their tasks, as it kept them up
nights, when they should be asleep. He used to mock, and in every
possible way interrupt the poor slaves, who after the toil of the day,
knelt in their lowly cabins to offer their prayers and supplications to
Him whose ear is open to the sorrowful sighing of the prisoner, and who
hath promised in His own time to come down and deliver. In his drunken
seasons he would make excursions at night through the slave-quarters,
enter the cabins, and frighten the inmates, especially if engaged in
prayer or singing. On one of these occasions he came back rubbing his
hands and laughing. He said he had found Uncle Solomon in his garden,
down on his knees, praying like an old owl, and had tipped him over, and
frightened him half out of his wits. At another time he found Uncle
David sitting on his stool with his face thrust up the chimney, in order
that his voice might not be heard by his brutal persecutor. He was
praying, giving utterance to these words, probably in reference to his
bondage:--"_How long, oh, Lord, how long_?" "As long as my whip!" cried
the overseer, who had stolen behind him, giving him a blow. It was the
sport of a demon.

Not long after my master had left us, the overseer ascertained for the
first time that some of the hands could read, and that they had brought
books with them from Virginia. He compelled them to give up the keys of
their chests, and on searching found several Bibles and hymn-books.
Uncle Solomon's chest contained quite a library, which he could read at
night by the light of knots of the pitchpine. These books he collected
together, and in the evening called Uncle Solomon into the house. After
jeering him for some time, he gave him one of the Bibles and told him to
name his text and preach him a sermon. The old man was silent. He then
made him get up on the table, and ordered him to pray. Uncle Solomon
meekly replied, that "forced prayer was not good for soul or body." The
overseer then knelt down himself, and in a blasphemous manner, prayed
that the Lord would send his spirit into Uncle Solomon; or else let the
old man fall from the table and break his neck, and so have an end of
"nigger preaching." On getting up from his knees he went to the
cupboard, poured out a glass of brandy for himself, and brought another
to the table. "James," said he, addressing me, "Uncle Solomon stands
there, for all the world, like a Hickory Quaker. His spirit don't move.
I'll see if another spirit wont move it." He compelled the old preacher
to swallow the brandy; and then told him to preach and exhort, for the
spirit was in him. He set one of the Bibles on fire, and after it was
consumed, mixed up the ashes of it in a glass of water, and compelled
the old man to drink it, telling him that as the spirit and the word
were now both in him, there was no longer any excuse for not preaching.
After tormenting the wearied old man in this way until nearly midnight
he permitted him to go to his quarters.

The next day I saw Uncle Solomon, and talked with him about his
treatment. He said it would not always be so--that slavery was to come
to an end, for the Bible said so--that there would then be no more
whippings and fightings, but the lion the lamb would lie down together,
and all would be love. He said he prayed for Huckstep--that it was not
he but the devil in him who behaved so. At his request, I found means to
get him a Bible and a hymn-book from the overseer's room; and the old
man ever afterwards kept them concealed in the hen-house.

The weeding season of 1836, was marked by repeated acts of cruelty on
the part of Huckstep. One of the hands, Priscilla, was, owing to her
delicate situation, unable to perform her daily task. He ordered her to
be tied up against a tree, in the same manner that I had been. In this
situation she was whipped until _she was delivered of a dead infant, at
the foot of the tree_! Our men took her upon a sheet, and carried her to
the house, where she lay sick for several months, but finally recovered.
I have heard him repeatedly laugh at the circumstance.

Not long after this, we were surprised, one morning about ten o'clock,
by hearing the horn blown at the house. Presently Aunt Polly came
screaming into the field. "What is the matter, Aunty?" I inquired. "Oh
Lor!" said she, "Old Huckstep's pitched off his horse and broke his
head, and is e'en about dead."

"Thank God!" said little Simon, "The devil will have him at last."

"God-a-mighty be praised!" exclaimed half a dozen others.

The hands, with one accord dropped their hoes; and crowded round the old
woman, asking questions. "Is he dead?"--"Will he die?" "Did you feel of
him--was he cold?"

Aunt Polly explained as well as she could, that Huckstep, in a state of
partial intoxication, had attempted to leap his horse over a fence, had
fallen and cut a deep gash in his head, and that he was now lying
insensible.

It is impossible to describe the effect produced by this news among the
hands. Men, women and children shouted, clapped their hands, and laughed
aloud. Some cursed the overseer, and others thanked the Lord for taking
him away. Little Simon got down on his knees, and called loudly upon God
to finish his work, and never let the overseer again enter a cotton
field. "Let him die, Lord," said he, "let him. He's killed enough of us:
Oh, good Lord, let him die and not live."

"Peace, peace! it is a bad spirit," said Uncle Solomon, "God himself
willeth not the death of a sinner."

I followed the old woman to the house; and found Huckstep at the foot of
one of those trees, so common at the South, called the Pride of China.
His face was black, and there was a frightful contusion on the side of
his head. He was carried into the house, where, on my bleeding him, he
revived. He lay in great pain for several days, and it was nearly three
weeks before he was able to come out to the cotton fields.

On returning to the field after Huckstep had revived, I found the hands
sadly disappointed to hear that he was still living. Some of them fell
to cursing and swearing, and were enraged with me for trying to save his
life. Little Simon said I was a fool; if he had bled him he would have
done it to some purpose. He would at least, have so disable his arm that
he would never again try to swing a whip. Uncle Solomon remonstrated
with Simon, and told that I had done right.

The neighbouring overseers used frequently to visit Huckstep, and he, in
turn, visited them. I was sometimes present during their interviews, and
heard them tell each other stories of horse-racing, negro-huntings, &c.
Some time during this season, Ludlow, who was overseer of a plantation
about eight miles from ours, told of a slave of his named Thornton, who
had twice attempted to escape with his wife and one child. The first
time he was caught without much difficulty, chained to the overseer's
horse, and in that way brought back. The poor man, to save his wife from
a beating, laid all the blame upon himself; and said that his wife had
no wish to escape, and tried to prevent him from attempting it. He was
severely whipped; but soon ran away again, and was again arrested. The
overseer, Ludlow, said he was determined to put a stop to the runaway,
and accordingly had resort to a somewhat unusual method of punishment.

There is a great scarcity of good water in that section of Alabama; and
you will generally see a large cistern attached to the corners of the
houses to catch water for washing &c. Underneath this cistern is
frequently a tank from eight to ten feet deep, into which, when the
former is full the water is permitted to run. From this tank the water
is pumped out for use. Into one of these tanks the unfortunate slave was
placed, and confined by one of his ancles to the bottom of it; and the
water was suffered to flow in from above. He was compelled to pump out
the water as fast as it came in, by means of a long rod or handle
connected with the pump above ground. He was not allowed to begin until
the water had risen to his middle. Any pause or delay after this, from
weakness and exhaustion, would have been fatal, as the water would have
risen above his head. In this horrible dungeon, toiling for his life, he
was kept for twenty-four hours without any sustenance. Even Huckstep
said that this was too bad--that he had himself formerly punished
runaways in that way--but should not do it again.

I rejoice to be able to say that this sufferer has at last escaped with
his wife and child, into a free state. He was assisted by some white
men, but I do not know all the particulars of his escape.

Our overseer had not been long able to ride about the plantation after
his accident, before his life was again endangered. He found two of the
hands, Little Jarret and Simon, fighting with each other, and attempted
to chastise both of them. Jarret bore it patiently, but Simon turned
upon him, seized a stake or pin from a cart near by, and felled him to
the ground. The overseer got up--went to the house, and told aunt Polly
that he had nearly been killed by the 'niggers,' and requested her to
tie up his head, from which the blood was streaming. As soon as this was
done, he took down his gun, and went out in pursuit of Simon, who had
fled to his cabin, to get some things which he supposed necessary
previous to attempting his escape from the plantation. He was just
stepping out of the door when he met the enraged overseer with his gun
in his hand. Not a word was spoken by either. Huckstep raised his gun
and fired. The man fell without a groan across the door-sill. He rose up
twice on his hands and knees, but died in a few minutes. He was dragged
off and buried. The overseer told me that there was no other way to deal
with such a fellow. It was Alabama law, if a slave resisted to shoot him
at once. He told me of a case which occurred in 1834, on a plantation
about ten miles distant, and adjoining that where Crop, the negro
hunter, boarded with his hounds. The overseer had bought some slaves at
Selma, from a drove or coffle passing through the place. They proved
very refractory. He whipped three of them, and undertook to whip a
fourth who was from Maryland. The man raised his hoe in a threatening
manner, and the overseer fired upon him. The slave fell, but instantly
rose up on his hands and knees, and was beaten down again by the stock
of the overseer's gun. The wounded wretch raised himself once more, drew
a knife from the waistband of his pantaloons, and catching hold of the
overseer's coat, raised himself high enough to inflict a fatal wound
upon the latter. Both fell together, and died immediately after.

Nothing more of special importance occurred until July, of last year,
when one of our men named John, was whipped three times for not
performing his task. On the last day of the month, after his third
whipping, he ran away. On the following morning, I found that he was
missing at his row. The overseer said we must hunt him up; and he blew
the "nigger horn," as it is called, for the dogs. This horn was only
used when we went out in pursuit of fugitives. It is a cow's horn, and
makes a short, loud sound. We crossed Flincher's and Goldsby's
plantations, as the dogs had got upon John's track, and went of barking
in that direction, and the two overseers joined us in the chase. The
dogs soon caught sight of the runaway, and compelled him to climb a
tree. We came up; Huckstep ordered him down, and secured him upon my
horse by tying him to my back. On reaching home he was stripped entirely
naked and lashed up to a tree. Flincher then volunteered to whip him on
one side of his legs, and Goldsby on the other. I had, in the meantime,
been ordered to prepare a wash of salt and pepper, and wash his wounds
with it. The poor fellow groaned, and his flesh shrunk and quivered as
the burning solution was applied to it. This wash, while it adds to the
immediate torment of the sufferer, facilitates the cure of the wounded
parts. Huckstep then whipped him from his neck down to his thighs,
making the cuts lengthwise of his back. He was very expert with the
whip, and could strike, at any time, within an inch of his mark. He then
gave the whip to me and told me to strike directly across his back. When
I had finished, the miserable sufferer, from his neck to his heel, was
covered with blood and bruises. Goldsby and Flincher now turned to
Huckstep, and told him, that I deserved a whipping as much as John did:
that they had known me frequently disobey his orders, and that I was
partial to the "Virginia ladies," and didn't whip them as I did the men.
They said if I was a driver of theirs they would know what to do with
me. Huckstep agreed with them; and after directing me to go to the house
and prepare more of the wash for John's back, he called after me with an
oath, to see to it that I had some for myself, for he meant to give me,
at least, two hundred and fifty lashes. I returned to the house, and
scarcely conscious of what I was doing, filled an iron vessel with
water, put in the salt and pepper; and placed it over the embers.

As I stood by the fire watching the boiling of the mixture, and
reflecting upon the dreadful torture to which I was about to he
subjected, the thought of _escape_ flashed upon my mind. The chance was
a desperate one; but I resolved to attempt it. I ran up stairs, tied my
shirt in a handkerchief, and stepped out of the back door of the house,
telling Aunt Polly to take care of the wash at the fire until I
returned. The sun was about one hour high, but luckily for me the hands
as well as the three overseers, were on the other side of the house. I
kept the house between them and myself, and ran as fast as I could for
the woods. On reaching them I found myself obliged to proceed slowly as
there was a thick undergrowth of cane and reeds. Night came on. I
straggled forward by a dim star-light, amidst vines and reed beds. About
midnight the horizon began to be overcast; and the darkness increased
until in the thick forest, I could scarcely see a yard before me.
Fearing that I might lose my way and wander towards the plantation,
instead of from it, I resolved to wait until day. I laid down upon a
little hillock, and fell asleep.

When I awoke it was broad day. The clouds had vanished, and the hot
sunshine fell through the trees upon my face. I started up, realizing my
situation, and darted onward. My object was to reach the great road by
which we had travelled when we came out from Virginia. I had, however,
very little hope of escape. I knew that a hot pursuit would be made
after me, and what I most dreaded was, that the overseer would procure
Crop's bloodhounds to follow my track. If only the hounds of our
plantation were sent after me, I had hopes of being able to make friends
of them, as they were always good-natured and obedient to me. I
travelled until, as near as I could judge, about ten o'clock, when a
distant sound startled me. I stopped and listened. It was the deep bay
of the bloodhound, apparently at a great distance. I hurried on until I
came to a creek about fifteen yards wide, skirted by an almost
impenetrable growth of reeds and cane. Plunging into it, I swam across
and ran down by the side of it a short distance, and, in order to baffle
the dogs, swam back to the other side again. I stopped in the reed-bed
and listened. The dogs seemed close at hand, and by the loud barking I
felt persuaded that Crop's hounds were with them. I thought of the fate
of Little John, who had been torn in pieces by the hounds, and of the
scarcely less dreadful condition of those who had escaped the dogs only
to fall into the hands of the overseer. The yell of the dogs grew
louder. Escape seemed impossible. I ran down to the creek with a
determination to drown myself. I plunged into the water and went down to
the bottom; but the dreadful strangling sensation compelled me to
struggle up to the surface. Again I heard the yell of the bloodhounds;
and again desperately plunged down into the water. As I went down I
opened my mouth, and, choked and gasping, I found myself once more
struggling upward. As I rose to the top of the water and caught a
glimpse of the sunshine and the trees, the love of life revived in me. I
swam to the other side of the creek, and forced my way through the reeds
to a large tree, and stood under one of its lowest limbs, ready in case
of necessity, to spring up into it. Here panting and exhausted, I stood
waiting for the dogs. The woods seemed full of them. I heard a bell
tinkle, and, a moment after, our old hound Venus came bounding through
the cane, dripping wet from the creek. As the old hound came towards me,
I called to her as I used to do when out hunting with her. She stopped
suddenly, looked up at me, and then came wagging her tail and fawning
around me. A moment after the other dog came up hot in the chase, and
with their noses to the ground. I called to them, but they did not look
up, but came yelling on. I was just about to spring into the tree to
avoid them when Venus the old hound met them, and stopped them. They
then all came fawning and playing and jumping about me. The very
creatures whom a moment before I had feared would tear me limb from
limb, were now leaping and licking my hands, and rolling on the leaves
around me. I listened awhile in the fear of hearing the voices of men
following the dogs, but there was no sound in the forest save the
gurgling of the sluggish waters of the creek, and the chirp of black
squirrels in the trees. I took courage and started onward once more,
taking the dogs with me. The bell on the neck of the old dog, I feared
might betray me, and, unable to get it off her neck, I twisted some of
the long moss of the trees around it, so as to prevent its ringing. At
night I halted once more with the dogs by my side. Harassed with fear,
and tormented with hunger, I laid down and tried to sleep. But the dogs
were uneasy, and would start up and bark at the cries or the footsteps
of wild animals, and I was obliged, to use my utmost exertions to keep
them quiet, fearing that their barking would draw my pursuers upon me. I
slept but little; and as soon as daylight, started forward again. The
next day towards evening, I reached a great road which, I rejoiced to
find, was the same which my master and myself had travelled on our way
to Greene county. I now thought it best to get rid of the dogs, and
accordingly started them in pursuit of a deer. They went off, yelling on
the track, and I never saw them again. I remembered that my master told
me, near this place, that we were in the Creek country, and that there
were some Indian settlements not far distant. In the course of the
evening I crossed the road, and striking into a path through the woods,
soon came to a number of Indian cabins. I went into one of them and
begged for some food. The Indian women received me with a great deal of
kindness, and gave me a good supper of venison, corn bread, and stewed
pumpkin. I remained with them till the evening of the next day, when I
started afresh on my journey. I kept on the road leading to Georgia. In
the latter part of the night I entered into a long low bottom, heavily
timbered--sometimes called Wolf Valley. It was a dreary and frightful
place. As I walked on, I heard on all sides the howling of the wolves,
and the quick patter of their feet on the leaves and sticks, as they ran
through the woods. At daylight I laid down, but had scarcely closed my
eyes when I was roused up by the wolves snarling and howling around me.
I started on my feet, and saw several of them running by me. I did not
again close my eyes during the whole day. In the afternoon, a bear with
her two cubs came to a large chestnut tree near where I lay. She crept
up the tree, went out on one of the limbs, and broke off several twigs
in trying to shake down the nuts. They were not ripe enough to fall,
and, after several vain attempts to procure some of them, she crawled
down the tree again and went off with her young.

The day was long and tedious. As soon as it was dark, I once more
resumed my journey. But fatigue and the want of food and sleep rendered
me almost incapable of further effort. It was not long before I fell
asleep, while walking, and wandered out of the road. I was awakened by a
bunch of moss which hung down from the limb of a tree and met my face. I
looked up and saw, as I thought, a large man standing just before me. My
first idea was that some one had struck me over the face, and that I had
been at last overtaken by Huckstep. Rubbing my eyes once more, I saw the
figure before me sink down upon its hands and knees. Another glance
assured me that it was a bear and not a man. He passed across the road
and disappeared. This adventure kept me awake for the remainder of the
night. Towards morning I passed by a plantation, on which was a fine
growth of peach trees, full of ripe fruit. I took as many of them as I
could conveniently carry in my hands and pockets, and retiring a little
distance into the woods, laid down and slept till evening, when I again
went forward.

Sleeping thus by day and travelling by night, in a direction towards the
North Star, I entered Georgia. As I only travelled in the night time, I
was unable to recognize rivers and places which I had seen before until
I reached Columbus, where I recollected I had been with my master. From
this place I took the road leading to Washington, and passed directly
through that village. On leaving the village, I found myself contrary to
my expectation, in an open country with no woods in view. I walked on
until day broke in the east. At a considerable distance ahead, I saw a
group of trees, and hurried on towards it. Large and beautiful
plantations were on each side of me, from which I could hear dogs bark,
and the driver's horn sounding. On reaching the trees, I found that they
afforded but a poor place of concealment. On either hand, through its
openings, I could see the men turning out to the cotton fields. I found
a place to lie down between two oak stumps, around which the new shoots
had sprung up thickly, forming a comparatively close shelter. After
eating some peaches, which since leaving the Indian settlement had
constituted my sole food, I fell asleep. I was waked by the barking of a
dog. Raising my head and looking through the bushes, I found that the
dog was barking at a black squirrel who was chattering on a limb almost
directly above me. A moment after, I heard a voice speaking to the dog,
and soon saw a man with a gun in his hand, stealing through the wood. He
passed close to the stumps, where I lay trembling with terror lest he
should discover me. He kept his eye however upon the tree, and raising
his gun, fired. The squirrel dropped dead close by my side. I saw that
any further attempt at concealment would be in vain, and sprang upon my
feet. The man started forward on seeing me, struck at me with his gun
and beat my hat off. I leaped into the road; and he followed after,
swearing he would shoot me if I didn't stop. Knowing that his gun was
not loaded, I paid no attention to him, but ran across the road into a
cotton field where there was a great gang of slaves working. The man
with the gun followed, and called to the two colored drivers who were on
horseback, to ride after me and stop me. I saw a large piece of woodland
at some distance ahead, and directed my course towards it. Just as I
reached it, I looked back, and saw my pursuer far behind me; and found,
to my great joy, that the two drivers had not followed me. I got behind
a tree, and soon heard the man enter the woods and pass me. After all
had been still for more than an hour, I crept into a low place in the
depth of the woods and laid down amidst a bed of reeds, where I again
fell asleep. Towards evening, on awaking, I found the sky beginning to
be cloudy, and before night set in it was completely overcast. Having
lost my hat, I tied an old handkerchief over my head, and prepared to
resume my journey. It was foggy and very dark, and involved as I was in
the mazes of the forest, I did not know in what direction I was going. I
wandered on until I reached a road, which I supposed to be the same one
which I had left. The next day the weather was still dark and rainy, and
continued so for several days. During this time I slept only by leaning
against the body of a tree, as the ground was soaked with rain. On the
fifth night after my adventure near Washington, the clouds broke away,
and the clear moonlight and the stars shone down upon me.

I looked up to see the North Star, which I supposed still before me. But
I sought it in vain in all that quarter of the heavens. A dreadful
thought came over me that I had been travelling out of my way. I turned
round and saw the North Star, which had been shining directly upon my
back. I then knew that I had been travelling away from freedom, and
towards the place of my captivity ever since I left the woods into which
I had been pursued on the 21st, five days before. Oh, the keen and
bitter agony of that moment! I sat down on the decaying trunk of a
fallen tree, and wept like a child. Exhausted in mind and body, nature
came at last to my relief, and I fell asleep upon the log. When I awoke
it was still dark. I rose and nerved myself for another effort for
freedom. Taking the North Star for my guide, I turned upon my track, and
left once more the dreaded frontiers of Alabama behind me. The next
night, after crossing the one on which I travelled, and which seemed to
lead more directly towards the North. I took this road, and the next
night after, I came to a large village. Passing through the main street,
I saw a large hotel which I at once recollected. I was in Augusta, and
this was the hotel at which my master had spent several days when I was
with him, on one of his southern visits. I heard the guards patrolling
the town cry the hour of twelve; and fearful of being taken up, I turned
out of the main street, and got upon the road leading to Petersburg. On
reaching the latter place, I swam over the Savannah river into South
Carolina, and from thence passed into North Carolina.

Hitherto I had lived mainly upon peaches, which were plenty on almost
all the plantations in Alabama and Georgia; but the season was now too
far advanced for them, and I was obliged to resort to apples. These I
obtained without much difficulty until within two or three days journey
of the Virginia line. At this time I had had nothing to eat but two or
three small and sour apples for twenty-four hours, and I waited
impatiently for night, in the hope of obtaining fruit from the orchards
along the road. I passed by several plantations, but found no apples.
After midnight, I passed near a large house, with fruit trees around it.
I searched under, and climbed up and shook several of them to no
purpose. At last I found a tree on which there were a few apples. On
shaking it, half a dozen fell. I got down, and went groping and feeling
about for them in the grass, but could find only two, the rest were
devoured by several hogs who were there on the same errand with myself.
I pursued my way until day was about breaking, when I passed another
house. The feeling of extreme hunger was here so intense, that it
required all the resolution I was master of to keep myself from going,
up to the house and breaking into it in search of food. But the thought
of being again made a slave, and of suffering the horrible punishment of
a runaway restrained me. I lay in the worlds all that day without food.
The next evening, I soon found a large pile of excellent apples, from
which I supplied myself.

The next evening I reached Halifax Court House, and I then knew that I
was near Virginia. On the 7th of October, I came to the Roanoke, and
crossed it in the midst of a violent storm of rain and thunder. The
current ran so furiously that I was carried down with it, and with great
difficulty, and in a state of complete exhaustion, reached the
opposite shore.

At about 2 o'clock, on the night of the 15th, I approached Richmond, but
not daring to go into the city at that hour, on account of the patrols,
I lay in the woods near Manchester, until the next evening, when I
started in the twilight, in order to enter before the setting of the
watch. I passed over the bridge unmolested, although in great fear, as
my tattered clothes and naked head were well calculated to excite
suspicion; and being well acquainted with the localities of the city,
made my way to the house of a friend. I was received with the utmost
kindness, and welcomed as one risen from the dead. Oh, how inexpressibly
sweet were the tones of human sympathy, after the dreadful trials to
which I had been subjected--the wrongs and outrages which I witnessed
and suffered! For between two and three months I had not spoken with a
human being, and the sound even of my own voice now seemed strange to my
ears. During this time, save in two or three instances I had tasted of
no food except peaches and apples. I was supplied with some dried meat
and coffee, but the first mouthful occasioned nausea and faintness. I
was compelled to take my bed, and lay sick for several days. By the
assiduous attention and kindness of my friends, I was supplied with
every thing which was necessary during my sickness. I was detained in
Richmond nearly a month. As soon as I had sufficiently recovered to be
able to proceed on my journey, I bade my kind host and his wife an
affectionate farewell, and set forward once more towards a land of
freedom. I longed to visit my wife and children in Powhatan county, but
the dread of being discovered prevented me from attempting it. I had
learned from my friends in Richmond that they were living and in good
health, but greatly distressed on my account.

My friends had provided me with a fur cap, and with as much lean ham,
cake and biscuit, as I could conveniently carry. I proceeded in the same
way as before, travelling by night and lying close and sleeping by day.
About the last of November I reached the Shenandoah river. It was very
cold; ice had already formed along the margin, and in swimming the river
I was chilled through; and my clothes froze about me soon after I had
reached the opposite side. I passed into Maryland, and on the 5th of
December, stepped across the line which divided the free state of
Pennsylvania from the land of slavery.

I had a few shillings in money which were given me at Richmond, and
after travelling nearly twenty-four hours from the time I crossed the
line, I ventured to call at a tavern, and buy a dinner. On reaching
Carlisle, I enquired of the ostler in a stable if he knew of any one who
wished to hire a house servant or coachman. He said he did not. Some
more colored people came in, and taking me aside told me that they knew
that I was from Virginia, by my pronunciation of certain words--that I
was probably a runaway slave--but that I need not be alarmed, as they
were friends, and would do all in their power to protect me. I was taken
home by one of them, and treated with the utmost kindness; and at night
he took me in a wagon, and carried me some distance on my way to
Harrisburg, where he said I should meet with friends.

He told me that I had better go directly to Philadelphia, as there would
be less danger of my being discovered and retaken there than in the
country, and there were a great many persons there who would exert
themselves to secure me from the slaveholders. In parting he cautioned
me against conversing or stopping with any man on the road, unless he
wore a plain, straight collar on a round coat, and said, "thee," and
"thou." By following his directions I arrived safely in Philadelphia,
having been kindly entertained and assisted on my journey, by several
benevolent gentlemen and ladies, whose compassion for the wayworn and
hunted stranger I shall never forget, and whose names will always be
dear to me. On reaching Philadelphia, I was visited by a large number of
the Abolitionists, and friends of the colored people, who, after hearing
my story, thought it would not be safe for me to remain in any part of
the United States. I remained in Philadelphia a few days; and then a
gentleman came on to New-York with me, I being considered on board the
steam-boat, and in the cars, as his servant. I arrived at New-York, on
the 1st of January. The sympathy and kindness which I have every where
met with since leaving the slave states, has been the more grateful to
me because it was in a great measure unexpected. The slaves are always
told that if they escape into a free state, they will be seized and put
in prison, until their masters send for them. I had heard Huckstep and
the other overseers occasionally speak of the Abolitionists, but I did
not know or dream that they were the friends of the slave. Oh, if the
miserable men and women, now toiling on the plantations of Alabama,
could know that thousands in the free states are praying and striving
for their deliverance, how would the glad tidings be whispered from
cabin to cabin, and how would the slave-mother as she watches over her
infant, bless God, on her knees, for the hope that this child of her day
of sorrow, might never realize in stripes, and toil, and grief
unspeakable, what it is to be a slave?

       *       *       *       *       *

This Narrative can he had at the Depository of the American Anti-Slavery
Society, No 143 Nassau Street, New York, in a neat volume, 108 pp.
12mo., embellished with an elegant and accurate steel engraved likeness
of James Williams, price 25 cts. single copy, $17 per hundred.

       *       *       *       *       *




NO. 7

THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.



EMANCIPATION IN THE WEST INDIES.

A SIX MONTHS' TOUR IN ANTIGUA, BARBADOES, AND JAMAICA IN THE YEAR 1837.

BY JAS. A. THOME, AND J. HORACE KIMBALL.

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, No. 143 NASSAU-STREET.
1838.

This periodical contains 4 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 6 cents;
over 100 miles, 10 cents.


   ENTERED,
   according to the act of Congress, in the year 1838, by
   JOHN RANKIN,
   Treasurer, of the American, Anti-Slavery Society,
   in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States,
   for the Southern District of New York.

Price $12 50 per hundred copies, 18-3/4 cents single copy, _in sheets_:
$13 25 per hundred, and 20 cents single, _if stitched_.

NOTE.--This work is published in this cheap form, to give it a wide
circulation. Please, _after perusal_, to send it to some friend.

This work, as originally published, can be had at the Depository of the
American Anti-Slavery Society, No. 143, Nassau Street, New York, on fine
paper, handsomely bound, in a volume of 489 pages, price one dollar per
copy, $75 per hundred.




CONTENTS.


       *       *       *       *       *

ANTIGUA.--CHAPTER I.

    Geography and Statistics of the Island,--Reflections on
    arrival,--Interview with Clergymen,--with the Governor,--with a
    member of Assembly,--Sabbath,--Service at the Moravian
    Chapel,--Sabbath School,--Service at the Episcopal Church,--Service
    at the Wesleyan Chapel,--Millar's Estate,--Cane-holing,--Colored
    planter,--Fitch's Creek Estate,--Free Villages,--Dinner at the
    Governor's,--Donovan's Estate,--Breakfast at Mr. Watkins,--Dr.
    Ferguson,--Market,--Lockup house,--Christmas Holidays,--Colored
    Population,--Thibou Jarvis's Estate,--Testimony of the
    Manager,--Anniversary of the Friendly Society,--A negro
    patriarch,--Green Castle Estate,--Testimony of the
    Manager,--Anniversary of the Juvenile Association,--Wetherill
    Estate,--Testimony of the Manager,--Conversation with a
    boatman,--Moravian station at Newfield,--Testimony of the
    Missionaries,--School for Adults,--Interview with the Speaker of the
    Assembly,--Moravian "Speaking,"--Conversation with Emancipated
    Slaves,--The Rector of St. Philip's,--Frey's Estate,--Interview with
    the American Consul,--Sabbath at Millar's,--Breakfast at the Villa
    Estate,--A Fair,--Breakfast at Mr. Cranstoun's,--His
    Testimony,--Moravian Station at Cedar Hall,--Conversation with
    Emancipated Slaves,--Moravian Station at Grace Bay,--Testimony of
    the Missionaries,--Grandfather Jacob,--Mr. Scotland's Estate.--A day
    at Fitch's Creek,--Views of the Manager,--A call from the
    Archdeacon,--from Rev. Edward Fraser,--Wesleyan District
    Meeting,--Social interviews with the Missionaries,--Their Views and
    Testimony,--Religious Anniversaries,--Temperance Society,--Bible
    Society,--Wesleyan Missionary Society.--Resolution of the
    Meeting,--Laying the Corner Stone of a Wesleyan Chapel,--Resolutions
    of the Missionaries.


ANTIGUA.--CHAPTER II.

GENERAL RESULTS.

    Religion,--Statistics of Denominations,--Morality,--Reverence for
    the Lord's Day,--Marriage,--Conjugal faithfulness,--Concubinage
    decreasing,--Temperance,--Profane Language rare,--Statistics of the
    Bible Society,--Missionary Associations,--Temperance
    Societies,--Friendly Societies,--Daily Meal Society,--Distressed
    Females' Friend Society,--Education,--Annual Examination of the
    Parochial School,--Infant Schools in the Country,--Examination at
    Parham,--at Willoughby Bay,--Mr. Thwaite's Replies to Queries on
    Education,--Great Ignorance before Emancipation,--Aptness of the
    Negroes to learn,--Civil and Political Condition of the Emancipated.


ANTIGUA.--CHAPTER III.

FACTS AND TESTIMONY.

    IMMEDIATE ABOLITION--an immense change to the condition of the
    Slave,--Adopted from Political and Pecuniary Considerations,--Went
    into operation peaceably,--gave additional security to Persons and
    Property,--Is regarded by all as a great blessing to the
    Island,--Free, cheaper than Slave labor,--More work done, and better
    done, since Emancipation,--Freemen more easily managed than
    Slaves,--The Emancipated more Trustworthy than when Slaves,--They
    appreciate and reverence Law,--They stay at home and mind their own
    business,--Are less "insolent" than when Slaves,--Gratitude a strong
    trait of their character,--Emancipation has elevated them,--It has
    raised the price of Real Estate, given new life to Trade, and to all
    kinds of business,--Wrought a total change in the views of the
    Planters,--Weakened Prejudice against Color,--The Discussions
    preceding Emancipation restrained Masters from
    Cruelties,--Concluding Remarks.


BARBADOES.

    Passage to Barbadoes,--Bridgetown,--Visit to the Governor,--To the
    Archdeacon,--Lear's Estate,--Testimony of the Manager,--Dinner Party
    at Lear's,--Ride to Scotland,--The Red Shanks,--Sabbath at Lear's;
    Religious Service,--Tour to the Windward,--Breakfast Party at the
    Colliton Estate,--Testimony to the Working of the
    Apprenticeship,--The Working of it in Demerara,--The Codrington
    Estate,--Codrington College,--The "Horse,"--An Estate on Fire,--The
    Ridge Estate; Dinner with a Company of Planters,--A Day at Colonel
    Ashby's; his Testimony to the Working of the
    Apprenticeship,--Interviews with Planters; their Testimony,--The
    Belle Estate,--Edgecombe Estate; Colonel Barrow,--Horton
    Estate,--Drax Hall Estate,--Dinner Party at the
    Governor's,--Testimony concerning the Apprenticeship,--Market
    People,--Interview with Special Justice Hamilton; his
    Testimony,--Station House, District A; Trials of Apprentices before
    Special Magistrate Colthurst,--Testimony of the Superintendent of
    the Rural Police,--Communication from Special Justice
    Colthurst,--Communication from Special Justice Hamilton,--Testimony
    of Clergymen and Missionaries,--Curate of St. Paul's,--A FREE
    Church,--A Sabbath School Annual Examination,--Interview with
    Episcopal Clergymen; their Testimony,--Visit to Schools,--Interview
    with the Superintendent of the Wesleyan Mission,--Persecution of the
    Methodists by Slaveholders,--The Moravian Mission,--Colored
    Population,--Dinner Party at Mr. Harris's,--Testimony concerning the
    objects of our Mission,--A New Englander,--History of an Emancipated
    Slave,--Breakfast Party at Mr. Thorne's,--Facts and Testimony
    concerning Slavery and the Apprenticeship,--History of an
    Emancipated Slave,--Breakfast Party at Mr. Prescod's,--Character and
    History of the late Editor of the New Times,--Breakfast Party at Mr.
    Bourne's,--Prejudice,--History and Character of an Emancipated
    Slave,--Prejudice, vincible,--Concubinage,--Barbadoes as it was;
    "Reign of Terror;"--Testimony; Cruelties,--Insurrection of
    1816,--Licentiousness,--Prejudice--Indolence and Inefficiency of the
    Whites,--Hostility to Emancipation,--Barbadoes as it is,--The
    Apprenticeship System; Provisions respecting the Special
    Magistrates,--Provisions respecting the Master,--Provisions
    respecting the Apprentice,--The Design of the
    Apprenticeship,--Practical Operation of the
    Apprenticeship,--Sympathy of the Special Magistrates with the
    Masters,--Apprenticeship, modified Slavery,--Vexatious to the
    Master,--No Preparation for Freedom,--Begets hostility between
    Master and Apprentice,--Has illustrated the Forbearance of the
    Negroes,--Its tendency to exasperate them,--Testimony to the Working
    of the Apprenticeship in the Windward Islands generally.


JAMAICA.

    Sketch of its Scenery,--Interview with the Attorney General,--The
    Solicitor General; his Testimony,--The American Consul; his
    Testimony,--The Superintendent of the Wesleyan Missions,--The
    Baptist Missionaries; Sabbath; Service in a Baptist
    Chapel,--Moravians; Episcopalians; Scotch Presbyterians,--Schools in
    Kingston,--Communication from the Teacher of the Wolmer Free School;
    Education; Statistics,--The Union School,--"Prejudice
    Vincible,"--Disabilities and Persecutions of Colored People,--Edward
    Jordan, Esq.,--Colored Members of Assembly,--Richard Hill,
    Esq.,--Colored Artisans and Merchants in Kingston,--Police Court of
    Kingston,--American Prejudice in the "limbos,"--"Amalgamation!"--St.
    Andrew's House of Correction; Tread-mill,--Tour through "St. Thomas
    in the East,"--Morant Bay; Local Magistrate; his lachrymal
    forebodings,--Proprietor of Green Wall Estate; his
    Testimony,--Testimony of a Wesleyan Missionary,--Belvidere Estate;
    Testimony of the Manager,--Chapel built by Apprentices,--House of
    Correction,--Chain-Gang,--A call from Special Justice Baines; his
    Testimony,--Bath,--Special Justice's Office; his
    Testimony,--"Alarming Rebellion,"--Testimony of a Wesleyan
    Missionary,--Principal of the Mico Charity School; his
    Testimony,--Noble instance of Filial Affection in a Negro
    Girl,--Plantain Garden River Valley; Alexander Barclay,
    Esq.,--Golden Grove Estate; Testimony of the Manager,--The Custos of
    the Parish; his Testimony,--Amity Hall Estate; Testimony of the
    Manager,--Lord Belmore's Prophecy,--Manchioneal; Special Magistrate
    Chamberlain; his Testimony,--his Weekly Court,--Pro slavery
    gnashings,--Visit with the Special Magistrate to the Williamsfield
    Estate; Testimony of the Manager,--Oppression of
    Book-keepers,--Sabbath; Service at a Baptist Chapel,--Interview with
    Apprentices; their Testimony,--Tour through St. Andrew's and Port
    Royal,--Visit to Estates in company with Special Justice
    Bourne,--White Emigrants to Jamaica,--Dublin Castle Estate; Special
    Justice Court,--A Despot in convulsions; arbitrary power dies
    hard,--Encounter with Mules in a mountain pass,--Silver Hill Estate;
    cases tried; Appraisement of an Apprentice,--Peter's Rock
    Estate,--Hall's Prospect Estate,--Female Traveling Merchant,--Negro
    Provision Grounds,--Apprentices eager to work for Money,--Jury of
    Inquest,--Character of Overseers,--Conversation with Special Justice
    Hamilton,--With a Proprietor of Estates and Local Magistrate;
    Testimony,--Spanishtown,--Richard Hill, Esq., Secretary of the
    Special Magistracy,--Testimony of Lord Sligo concerning him,--Lord
    Sligo's Administration; its independence and
    impartiality,--Statements of Mr. Hill,--Statements of Special
    Justice Ramsey,--Special Justice's Court,--Baptist Missionary at
    Spanishtown; his Testimony,--Actual Working of the Apprenticeship;
    no Insurrection; no fear of it; no Increase of Crime; Negroes
    improving; Marriage increased; Sabbath better kept; Religious
    Worship better attended; Law obeyed,--Apprenticeship vexatious to
    both parties,--Atrocities perpetrated by Masters and
    Magistrates,--Causes of the ill-working of the
    Apprenticeship--Provisions of the Emancipation Act defeated by
    Planters and Magistrates,--The present Governor a favorite with the
    Planters,--Special Justice Palmer suspended by him,--Persecution of
    Special Justice Bourne,--Character of the Special
    Magistrates,--Official Cruelty; Correspondence between a Missionary
    and Special Magistrate,--Sir Lionel Smith's Message to the House of
    Assembly,--Causes of the Diminished Crops since
    Emancipation,--Anticipated Consequences of full Emancipation in
    1840,--Examination of the grounds of such anticipations,--Views of
    Missionaries and Colored People, Magistrates and
    Planters;--Concluding Remarks.


APPENDIX.

    Official Communication from Special Justice Lyon,--Communication
    from the Solicitor General of Jamaica,--Communication from Special
    Justice Colthurst,--Official Returns of the Imports and Exports of
    Barbadoes,--Valuations of Apprentices in Jamaica,--Tabular View of
    the Crops in Jamaica for fifty-three years preceding 1836; Comments
    of the Jamaica Watchman on the foregoing Table,--Comments of the
    Spanishtown Telegraph,--Brougham's Speech in Parliament.



INTRODUCTION.

It is hardly possible that the success of British West India
Emancipation should be more conclusively proved, than it has been by the
absence among us of the exultation which awaited its failure. So many
thousands of the citizens of the United States, without counting
slaveholders, would not have suffered their prophesyings to be
falsified, if they could have found whereof to manufacture fulfilment.
But it is remarkable that, even since the first of August, 1834, the
evils of West India emancipation on the lips of the advocates of
slavery, or, as the most of them nicely prefer to be termed, the
opponents of abolition, have remained in the future tense. The bad
reports of the newspapers, spiritless as they have been compared with
the predictions, have been traceable, on the slightest inspection, not
to emancipation, but to the illegal continuance of slavery, under the
cover of its legal substitute. Not the slightest reference to the rash
act, whereby the thirty thousand slaves of Antigua were immediately
"turned loose," now mingles with the croaking which strives to defend
our republican slavery against argument and common sense.

The Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society, deemed it
important that the silence which the pro-slavery press of the United
States has seemed so desirous to maintain in regard to what is strangely
enough termed the "great experiment of freedom," should be thoroughly
broken up by a publication of facts and testimony collected on the spot.
To this end, REV. JAMES A. THOME, and JOSEPH H. KIMBALL, ESQ., were
deputed to the West Indies to make the proper investigations. Of their
qualifications for the task, the subsequent pages will furnish the best
evidence: it is proper, however, to remark, that Mr. Thome is thoroughly
acquainted with our own system of slavery, being a native and still a
resident of Kentucky, and the son of a slaveholder, (happily no longer
so,) and that Mr. Kimball is well known as the able editor of the Herald
of Freedom, published at Concord, New Hampshire.

They sailed from New York, the last of November, 1836, and returned
early in June, 1837. They improved a short stay at the Danish island of
St. Thomas, to give a description of slavery as it exists there, which,
as it appeared for the most part in the anti-slavery papers, and as it
is not directly connected with the great question at issue, has not been
inserted in the present volume. Hastily touching at some of the other
British islands, they made Antigua, Barbadoes, and Jamaica, successively
the objects of their deliberate and laborious study--as fairly
presenting the three grand phases of the "experiment"--Antigua,
exemplifying immediate unrestricted abolition; Barbadoes, the best
working of the apprenticeship, and Jamaica the worst. Nine weeks were
spent in Antigua, and the remainder of their time was divided between
the other two islands.

The reception of the delegates was in the highest degree favorable to
the promotion of their object, and their work will show how well they
have used the extraordinary facilities afforded them. The committee
have, in some instances, restored testimonials which their modesty led
them to suppress, showing in what estimation they themselves, as well as
the object of their mission, were held by some of the most distinguished
persons in the islands which they visited.

So wide was the field before them, and so rich and various the fruit to
be gathered, that they were tempted to go far beyond the strength
supplied by the failing health they carried with them. Most nobly did
they postpone every personal consideration to the interests of the
cause, and the reader will, we think, agree with us, that they have
achieved a result which undiminished energies could not have been
expected to exceed--a result sufficient, if any thing could be, to
justify the sacrifice it cost them. We regret to add that the labors and
exposures of Mr. Kimball, so far prevented his recovery from the
disease[A] which obliged him to resort to a milder climate, or perhaps
we should say aggravated it, that he has been compelled to leave to his
colleague, aided by a friend, nearly the whole burden of preparing for
the press--which, together with the great labor of condensing from the
immense amount of collected materials, accounts for the delay of the
publication. As neither Mr. Thome nor Mr. Kimball were here while the
work was in the press, it is not improbable that trivial errors have
occurred, especially in the names of individuals.

[Footnote A: We learn that Mr. Kimball closed his mortal career at
Pembroke, N.H. April 12th, in the 25th year of his age. Very few men in
the Anti-Slavery cause have been more distinguished, than this lamented
brother, for the zeal, discretion and ability with which he has
advocated the cause of the oppressed. "Peace to the memory of a man
of worth!"]

It will be perceived that the delegates rest nothing of importance on
their own unattested observation. At every point they are fortified by
the statements of a multitude of responsible persons in the islands,
whose names, when not forbidden, they leave taken the liberty to use in
behalf of humanity. Many of these statements were given in the
handwriting of the parties, and are in the possession of the Executive
Committee. Most of these island authorities are as unchallengeable on
the score of previous leaning towards abolitionism, as Mr. McDuffie of
Mr. Calhoun would be two years hence, if slavery were to be abolished
throughout the United States tomorrow.

Among the points established in this work, beyond the power of dispute
or cavil, are the following:

1. That the act of IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION in Antigua, was not attended
with any disorder whatever.

2. That the emancipated slaves have readily, faithfully, and efficiently
worked for wages from the first.

3. That wherever there has been any disturbance in the working of the
apprenticeship, it has been invariably by the fault of the masters, or
of the officers charged with the execution of the "Abolition Act."

4. That the prejudice of caste is fast disappearing in the emancipated
islands.

5. That the apprenticeship was not sought for by the planters as a
_preparation for freedom_.

6. That no such preparation was needed.

7. That the planters who have fairly made the "experiment," now greatly
prefer the new system to the old.

8. That the emancipated people are perceptibly rising in the scale of
civilization, morals, and religion.

From these established facts, reason cannot fail to make its inferences
in favor of the two and a half millions of slaves in our republic. We
present the work to our countrymen who yet hold slaves, with the utmost
confidence that its perusal will not leave in their minds a doubt,
either of the duty or perfect safety of _immediate emancipation_,
however it may fail to persuade their hearts--which God grant it
may not!

By order of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery
Society.

New York, April 28th, 1838.

       *       *       *       *       *

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN THE NARRATIVE.

1. The words 'Clergy' and 'Missionary' are used to distinguish between
the ministers of the English or Scotch church, and those of all other
denominations.

2. The terms 'church' and 'chapel' denote a corresponding distinction in
the places of worship, though the English Church have what are
technically called 'chapels of ease!'

3. 'Manager' and 'overseer' are terms designating in different islands
the same station. In Antigua and Barbadoes, _manager_ is the word in
general use, in Jamaica it is _overseer_--both meaning the practical
conductor or immediate superintendent of an estate. In our own country,
a peculiar odium is attached to the latter term. In the West Indies, the
station of manager or overseer is an honorable one; proprietors of
estates, and even men of rank, do not hesitate to occupy it.

4. The terms 'colored' and 'black' or 'negro' indicate a distinction
long kept up in the West Indies between the mixed blood and the pure
negro. The former as a body were few previous to the abolition act; and
for this reason chiefly we presume the term of distinction was
originally applied to them. To have used these terms interchangeably in
accordance with the usage in the United States, would have occasioned
endless confusion in the narrative.

5. 'Praedial' and 'non-praedial' are terms used in the apprenticeship
colonies to mark the difference between the agricultural class and the
domestic; the former are called _praedials_, the latter _non-praedials_.

       *       *       *       *       *

POPULATION OF THE BRITISH (FORMERLY SLAVE) COLONIES.

(_Compiled from recent authentic documents._)

British Colonies.          White.   Slave.   F. Col'd.   Total.
Anguilla                     365    2,388       357      3,110
Antigua[A]                 1,980   29,839     3,895     35,714
Bahamas                    4,240    9,268     2,991     16,499
Barbadoes                 15,000   82,000     5,100    102,100
Berbicel                     550   21,300     1,150     23,000
Bermuda[A]                 3,900    4,600       740      9,240
Cape of Good Hope[B]      43,000   35,500    29,000    107,500
Demerara[B]                3,000   70,000     6,400     79,400
Dominica                     850   15,400     3,600     19,850
Grenada                      800   24,000     2,800     27,600
Honduras[B]                  250    2,100     2,300      4,650
Jamaica                   37,000  323,000    55,000    415,000
Mauritius[B]               8,000   76,000    15,000     99,000
Montserrat                   330    6,200       800      7,330
Nevis                        700    6,600     2,000      9,300
St. Christophers,St. Kitts 1,612   19,310     3,000     23,922
St. Lucia[B]                 980   13,600     3,700     18,280
St. Vincent                1,300   23,500     2,800     27,600
Tobago                       320   12,500     1,200     14,020
Tortola                      480    5,400     1,300      7,180
Trinidad[B]                4,200   24,000    16,000     44,200
Virgin Isles                 800    5,400       600      6,800

Total                    131,257  831,105   162,733  1,125,095

[Footnote A: These islands adopted immediate emancipation, Aug 1, 1834.]

[Footnote B: These are crown colonies, and have no local legislature.]



ANTIGUA.

CHAPTER I.

Antigua is about eighteen miles long and fifteen broad; the interior is
low and undulating, the coast mountainous. From the heights on the coast
the whole island may be taken in at one view, and in a clear day the
ocean can be seen entirely around the land, with the exception of a few
miles of cliff in one quarter. The population of Antigua is about
37,000, of whom 30,000 are negroes--lately slaves--4500 are free people
of color, and 2500 are whites.

The cultivation of the island is principally in sugar, of which the
average annual crop is 15,000 hogsheads. Antigua is one of the oldest of
the British West India colonies, and ranks high in importance and
influence. Owing to the proportion of proprietors resident in the
Island, there is an accumulation of talent, intelligence and refinement,
greater, perhaps, than in any English colony, excepting Jamaica.

Our solicitude on entering the Island of Antigua was intense. Charged
with a mission so nearly concerning the political and domestic
institutions of the colony, we might well be doubtful as to the manner
of our reception. We knew indeed that slavery was abolished, that
Antigua had rejected the apprenticeship, and adopted entire
emancipation. We knew also, that the free system had surpassed the hopes
of its advocates. But we were in the midst of those whose habits and
sentiments had been formed under the influences of slavery, whose
prejudices still clinging to it might lead them to regard our visit with
indifference at least, if not with jealousy. We dared not hope for aid
from men who, not three years before, were slaveholders, and who, as a
body, strenuously resisted the abolition measure, finally yielding to it
only because they found resistance vain.

Mingled with the depressing anxieties already referred to, were emotions
of pleasure and exultation, when we stepped upon the shores of an
unfettered isle. We trod a soil from which the last vestige of slavery
had been swept away! To us, accustomed as we were to infer the existence
of slavery from the presence of a particular hue, the numbers of negroes
passing to and fro, engaged in their several employments, denoted a land
of oppression; but the erect forms, the active movements, and the
sprightly countenances, bespoke that spirit of disinthrallment which had
gone abroad through Antigua.

On the day of our arrival we had an interview with the Rev. James Cox,
the superintendent of the Wesleyan mission in the island. He assured us
that we need apprehend no difficulty in procuring information, adding,
"We are all free here now; every man can speak his sentiments unawed. We
have nothing to conceal in our present system; had you come here as the
_advocates of slavery_ you might have met with a very different
reception."

At the same time we met the Rev. N. Gilbert, a clergyman of the English
Church, and proprietor of an estate. Mr. G. expressed the hope that we
might gather such facts during our stay in the island, as would tend
effectually to remove the curse of slavery from the United States. He
said that the failure of the crops, from the extraordinary drought which
was still prevailing, would, he feared, be charged by persons abroad to
the new system. "The enemies of freedom," said he, "will not ascribe the
failure to the proper cause. It will be in vain that we solemnly
declare, that for more than thirty years the island has not experienced
such a drought. Our enemies will persist in laying all to the charge of
our free system; men will look only at the amount of sugar exported,
which will be less than half the average. They will run away with this
fact, and triumph over it as the disastrous consequence of abolition."

On the same day we were introduced to the Rev. Bennet Harvey, the
principal of the Moravian mission, to a merchant, an agent for several
estates, and to an intelligent manager. Each of these gentlemen gave us
the most cordial welcome, and expressed a warm sympathy in the objects
of our visit. On the following day we dined, by invitation, with the
superintendent of the Wesleyan mission, in company with several
missionaries. _Freedom in Antigua_ was the engrossing and delightful
topic. They rejoiced in the change, not merely from sympathy with the
disinthralled negroes, but because it had emancipated them from a
disheartening surveillance, and opened new fields of usefulness. They
hailed the star of freedom "with exceeding great joy," because it
heralded the speedy dawning of the Sun of Righteousness.

We took an early opportunity to call on the Governor, whom we found
affable and courteous. On learning that we were from the United States,
he remarked, that he entertained a high respect for our country, but its
slavery was a stain upon the whole nation. He expressed his conviction
that the instigators of northern mobs must be implicated in some way,
pecuniary or otherwise, with slavery. The Governor stated various
particulars in which Antigua had been greatly improved by the abolition
of slavery. He said, the planters all conceded that emancipation had
been a great blessing to the island, and he did not know of a single
individual who wished to return to the old system.

His excellency proffered us every assistance in his power, and requested
his secretary--_a colored gentleman_--to furnish us with certain
documents which he thought would be of service to us. When we rose to
leave, the Governor followed us to the door, repeating the advice that
we should "see with our own eyes, and hear with our own ears." The
interest which his Excellency manifested in our enterprise, satisfied us
that the prevalent feeling in the island was opposed to slavery, since
it was a matter well understood that the Governor's partialities, if he
had any, were on the side of the planters rather than the people.

On the same day we were introduced to a barrister, a member of the
assembly and proprietor of an estate. He was in the assembly at the time
the abolition act was under discussion. He said that it was violently
opposed, until it was seen to be inevitable. Many were the predictions
made respecting the ruin which would be brought upon the colony; but
these predictions had failed, and abolition was now regarded as the
salvation of the island.

SABBATH.

The morning of our first Sabbath in Antigua came with that hushed
stillness which marks the Sabbath dawn in the retired villages of New
England. The arrangements of the family were conducted with a studied
silence that indicated habitual respect for the Lord's day. At 10
o'clock the streets were filled with the church-going throng. The rich
rolled along in their splendid vehicles with liveried outriders and
postillions. The poor moved in lowlier procession, yet in neat attire,
and with the serious air of Christian worshippers. We attended the
Moravian service. In going to the chapel, which is situated on the
border of the town, we passed through and across the most frequented
streets. No persons were to be seen, excepting those whose course was
toward some place of worship. The shops were all shut, and the voices of
business and amusement were hushed. The market place, which yesterday
was full of swarming life, and sent forth a confused uproar, was
deserted and dumb--not a straggler was to be seen of all the multitude.

On approaching the Moravian chapel we observed the negroes, wending
their way churchward, from the surrounding estates, along the roads
leading into town.

When we entered the chapel the service had begun, and the people were
standing, and repeating their liturgy. The house, which was capable of
holding about a thousand persons, was filled. The audience were all
black and colored, mostly of the deepest Ethiopian hue, and had come up
thither from the estates, where once they toiled as slaves, but now as
freemen, to present their thank-offerings unto Him whose truth and
Spirit had made them free. In the simplicity and tidiness of their
attire, in its uniformity and freedom from ornament, it resembled the
dress of the Friends. The females were clad in plain white gowns, with
neat turbans of cambric or muslin on their heads. The males were dressed
in spencers, vests, and pantaloons, all of white. All were serious in
their demeanor, and although the services continued more than two hours,
they gave a wakeful attention to the end. Their responses in the litany
were solemn and regular.

Great respect was paid to the aged and infirm. A poor blind man came
groping his way, and was kindly conducted to a seat in an airy place. A
lame man came wearily up to the door, when one within the house rose and
led him to the seat he himself had just occupied. As we sat facing the
congregation, we looked around upon the multitude to find the marks of
those demoniac passions which are to strew carnage through our own
country when its bondmen shall be made free. The countenances gathered
there, bore the traces of benevolence, of humility, of meekness, of
docility, and reverence; and we felt, while looking on them, that the
doers of justice to a wronged people "shall surely dwell in safety and
be quiet from fear of evil."

After the service, we visited the Sabbath school. The superintendent was
an interesting young colored man. We attended the recitation of a
Testament class of children of both sexes from eight to twelve. They
read, and answered numerous questions with great sprightliness.

In the afternoon we attended the Episcopal church, of which the Rev.
Robert Holberton is rector. We here saw a specimen of the aristocracy of
the island. A considerable number present were whites,--rich proprietors
with their families, managers of estates, officers of government, and
merchants. The greater proportion of the auditory, however, were colored
people and blacks. It might be expected that distinctions of color would
be found here, if any where;--however, the actual distinction, even in
this the most fashionable church in Antigua, amounted only to this, that
the body pews on each side of the broad aisle were occupied by the
whites, the side pews by the colored people, and the broad aisle in the
middle by the negroes. The gallery, on one side, was also appropriated
to the colored people, and on the other to the blacks. The finery of the
negroes was in sad contrast with the simplicity we had just seen at the
Moravian chapel. Their dresses were of every color and style; their hats
were of all shapes and sizes, and fillagreed with the most tawdry
superfluity of ribbons. Beneath these gaudy bonnets were glossy
ringlets, false and real, clustering in tropical luxuriance. This
fantastic display was evidently a rude attempt to follow the example set
them by the white aristocracy.

The choir was composed chiefly of colored boys, who were placed on the
right side of the organ, and about an equal number of colored girls on
the left. In front of the organ were eight or ten white children. The
music of this colored, or rather "amalgamated" choir, directed by a
colored chorister, and accompanied by a colored organist, was in
good taste.

In the evening, we accompanied a friend to the Wesleyan chapel, of which
the Rev. James Cox is pastor. The minister invited us to a seat within
the altar, where we could have a full view of the congregation. The
chapel was crowded. Nearly twelve hundred persons were present. All sat
promiscuously in respect of color. In one pew was a family of whites,
next a family of colored persons, and behind that perhaps might be seen,
side by side, the ebon hue of the negro, the mixed tint of the mulatto,
and the unblended whiteness of the European. Thus they sat in crowded
contact, seemingly unconscious that they were outraging good taste,
violating natural laws, and "confounding distinctions of divine
appointment!" In whatever direction we turned, there was the same
commixture of colors. What to one of our own countrymen whose contempt
for the oppressed has defended itself with the plea of _prejudice
against color_, would have been a combination absolutely shocking, was
to us a scene as gratifying as it was new.

On both sides, the gallery presented the same unconscious blending of
colors. The choir was composed of a large number, mostly colored, of all
ages. The front seats were filled by children of various ages--the rear,
of adults, rising above these tiny choristers, and softening the
shrillness of their notes by the deeper tones of mature age.

The style of the preaching which we heard on the different occasions
above described, so far as it is any index to the intelligence of the
several congregations, is certainly a high commendation. The language
used, would not offend the taste of any congregation, however refined.

On the other hand, the fixed attention of the people showed that the
truths delivered were understood and appreciated.

We observed, that in the last two services the subject of the present
drought was particularly noticed in prayer.

The account here given is but a fair specimen of the solemnity and
decorum of an Antigua sabbath.

VISIT TO MILLAR'S ESTATE.

Early in the week after our arrival, by the special invitation of the
manager, we visited this estate. It is situated about four miles from
the town of St. John's.

The smooth MacAdamized road extending across the rolling plains and
gently sloping hill sides, covered with waving cane, and interspersed
with provision grounds, contributed with the fresh bracing air of the
morning to make the drive pleasant and animating.

At short intervals were seen the buildings of the different estates
thrown together in small groups, consisting of the manager's mansion and
out-houses, negro huts, boiling house, cooling houses, distillery, and
windmill. The mansion is generally on an elevated spot, commanding a
view of the estate and surrounding country. The cane fields presented a
novel appearance--being without fences of any description. Even those
fields which lie bordering on the highways, are wholly unprotected by
hedge, ditch, or rails. This is from necessity. Wooden fences they
cannot have, for lack of timber. Hedges are not used, because they are
found to withdraw the moisture from the canes. To prevent depredations,
there are watchmen on every estate employed both day and night. There
are also stock keepers employed by day in keeping the cattle within
proper grazing limits. As each estate guards its own stock by day and
folds them by night, the fields are in little danger.

We passed great numbers of negroes on the road, loaded with every kind
of commodity for the town market. _The head is the beast of burthen_
among the negroes throughout the West Indies. Whatever the load, whether
it be trifling or valuable, strong or frail, it is consigned to the
head, both for safe keeping and for transportation. While the head is
thus taxed, the hands hang useless by the side, or are busied in
gesticulating, as the people chat together along the way. The negroes we
passed were all decently clad. They uniformly stopped as they came
opposite to us, to pay the usual civilities. This the men did by
touching their hats and bowing, and the women, by making a low courtesy,
and adding, sometimes, "howdy, massa," or "mornin', massa." We passed
several loaded wagons, drawn by three, four, or five yoke of oxen, and
in every instance the driver, so far from manifesting any disposition
"insolently" to crowd us off the road, or to contend for his part of it,
turned his team aside, leaving us double room to go by, and sometimes
stopping until we had passed.

We were kindly received at Millar's by Mr. Bourne, the manager. Millar's
is one of the first estates in Antigua. The last year it made the
largest sugar crop on the island. Mr. B. took us before breakfast to
view the estate. On the way, he remarked that we had visited the island
at a very unfavorable time for seeing the cultivation of it, as every
thing was suffering greatly from the drought. There had not been a
single copious rain, such as would "make the water run," since the first
of March previous. As we approached the laborers, the manager pointed
out one company of ten, who were at work with their hoes by the side of
the road, while a larger one of thirty were in the middle of the field.
They greeted us in the most friendly manner. The manager spoke kindly to
them, encouraging them to be industrious He stopped a moment to explain
to us the process of cane-holing. The field is first ploughed[A] in one
direction, and the ground thrown up in ridges of about a foot high. Then
similar ridges are formed crosswise, with the hoe, making regular
squares of two-feet-sides over the field. By raising the soil, a clear
space of six inches square is left at the bottom. In this space the
_plant_ is placed horizontally, and slightly covered with earth. The
ridges are left about it, for the purpose of conducting the rain to the
roots, and also to retain the moisture. When we came up to the large
company, they paused a moment, and with a hearty salutation, which ran
all along the line, bade us "good mornin'," and immediately resumed
their labor. The men and women were intermingled; the latter kept pace
with the former, wielding their hoes with energy and effect. The manager
addressed them for a few moments, telling them who we were, and the
object of our visit. He told them of the great number of slaves in
America, and appealed to them to know whether they would not be sober,
industrious, and diligent, so as to prove to American slaveholders the
benefit of freeing all their slaves. At the close of each sentence, they
all responded, "Yes, massa," or "God bless de massas," and at the
conclusion, they answered the appeal, with much feeling, "Yes, massa;
please God massa, we will all do so." When we turned to leave, they
wished to know what we thought of their industry. We assured them that
we were much pleased, for which they returned their "thankee, massa."
They were working at a _job_. The manager had given them a piece of
ground "to hole," engaging to pay them sixteen dollars when they had
finished it. He remarked that he had found it a good plan to give
_jobs_. He obtained more work in this way than he did by giving the
ordinary wages, which is about eleven cents per day. It looked very much
like slavery to see the females working in the field; but the manager
said they chose it generally "_for the sake of the wages_." Mr. B.
returned with us to the house, leaving the gangs in the field, with only
an aged negro in charge of the work, as _superintendent._ Such now is
the name of the overseer. The very _terms_, _driver_ and _overseer_, are
banished from Antigua; and the _whip_ is buried beneath the soil
of freedom.

[Footnote A: In those cases where the plough is used at all. It is not
yet generally introduced throughout the West Indies. Where the plough is
not used, the whole process of holing is done with the hoe, and is
extremely laborious]

When we reached the house we were introduced to Mr. Watkins, a _colored_
planter, whom Mr. B. had invited to breakfast with us. Mr. Watkins was
very communicative, and from him and Mr. B., who was equally free, we
obtained information on a great variety of points, which we reserve for
the different heads to which they appropriately belong.

FITCH'S CREEK ESTATE.

From Millar's we proceeded to Fitch's Creek Estate, where we had been
invited to dine by the intelligent manager, Mr. H. Armstrong. We three
met several Wesleyan missionaries. Mr. A. is himself a local preacher in
the Wesleyan connection. When a stranger visits an estate in the West
Indies, almost the first thing is an offer from the manager to accompany
him through the sugar works. Mr. A. conducted us first to a new boiling
house, which he was building after a plan of his own devising. The house
is of brick, on a very extensive scale. It has been built entirely by
negroes--chiefly those belonging to the estate who were emancipated in
1834. Fitch's Creek Estate is one of the largest on the Island,
consisting of 500 acres, of which 300 are under cultivation. The number
of people employed and living on the property is 260. This estate
indicates any thing else than an apprehension of approaching ruin. It
presents the appearance, far more, of a _resurrection_, from the grave.
In addition to his improved sugar and boiling establishment, he has
projected a plan for a new village, (as the collection of negro houses
is called,) and has already selected the ground and begun to build. The
houses are to be larger than those at present in use, they are to be
built of stone instead of mud and sticks, and to be neatly roofed.
Instead of being huddled together in a bye place, as has mostly been the
case, they are to be built on an elevated site, and ranged at regular
intervals around three sides of a large square, in the centre of which a
building for a chapel and school house is to be erected. Each house is
to have a garden. This and similar improvements are now in progress,
with the view of adding to the comforts of the laborers, and attaching
them to the estate. It has become the interest of the planter to make it
for the _interest of the people_ to remain on his estate. This _mutual
interest_ is the only sure basis of prosperity on the one hand and of
industry on the other.

The whole company heartily joined in assuring us that a knowledge of the
actual working of abolition in Antigua, would be altogether favorable to
the cause of freedom, _and that the more thorough our knowledge of the
facts in the case, the more perfect would be our confidence in the
safety of_ IMMEDIATE _emancipation_.

Mr. A. said that the spirit of enterprise, before dormant, had been
roused since emancipation, and planters were now beginning to inquire as
to the best modes of cultivation, and to propose measures of general
improvement. One of these measures was the establishing of _free
villages_, in which the laborers might dwell by paying a small rent.
When the adjacent planters needed help they could here find a supply for
the occasion. This plan would relieve the laborers from some of that
dependence which they must feel so long as they live on the estate and
in the houses of the planters. Many advantages of such a system were
specified. We allude to it here only as an illustration of that spirit
of inquiry, which freedom has kindled in the minds of the planters.

No little desire was manifested by the company to know the state of the
slavery question in this country. They all, planters and missionaries,
spoke in terms of abhorrence of our slavery, our snobs, our prejudice,
and our Christianity. One of the missionaries said it would never do for
him to go to America, for he should certainly be excommunicated by his
Methodist brethren, and Lynched by the advocates of slaver. He insisted
that slaveholding professors and ministers should be cut off from the
communion of the Church.

As we were about to take leave, the _proprietor_ of the estate rode up,
accompanied by the governor, who he had brought to see the new
boiling-house, and the other improvements which were in progress. The
proprietor reside in St. John's, is a gentleman of large fortune, and a
member of the assembly. He said he would be happy to aid us in any
way--but added, that in all details of a practical kind, and in all
matters of fact, the planters were the best witnesses, for they were the
conductors of the present system. We were glad to obtain the endorsement
of an influential proprietor to the testimony of practical planters.

DINNER AT THE GOVERNOR'S.

On the following day having received a very courteous invitation[A] from
the governor, to dine at the government house, we made our arrangements
to do so. The Hon. Paul Horsford, a member of the council, called during
the day, to say, that he expected to dine with us at the government
house and that he would be happy to call for us at the appointed hour,
and conduct us thither. At six o'clock Mr. H.'s carriage drove up to our
door, and we accompanied him to the governor's, where we were introduced
to Col. Jarvis, a member of the privy council, and proprietor of several
estates in the island, Col. Edwards, a member of the assembly and a
barrister, Dr. Musgrave, a member of the assembly, and Mr. Shiel,
attorney general. A dinner of state, at a Governor's house, attended by
a company of high-toned politicians, professional gentlemen, and
proprietors, could hardly be expected to furnish large accessions to our
stock of information, relating to the object of our visit. Dinner being
announced, we were hardly seated at the table when his excellency
politely offered to drink a glass of Madeira with us. We begged leave to
decline the honor. In a short time he proposed a glass of
Champaign--again we declined. "Why, surely, gentlemen," exclaimed the
Governor, "you must belong to the temperance society." "Yes, sir, we
do." "Is it possible? but you will surely take a glass of liqueur?"
"Your excellency must pardon us if we again decline the honor; we drink
no wines." This announcement of ultra temperance principles excited no
little surprise. Finding that our allegiance to cold water was not to be
shaken, the governor condescended at last to meet us on middle ground,
and drink his wine to our water.

[Footnote A: We venture to publish the note in which the governor
conveyed his invitation, simply because, though a trifle in itself, it
will serve to show the estimation in which our mission was held.

    "If Messrs. Kimball and Thome are not engaged Tuesday next, the
    Lieut. Governor will be happy to see them at dinner, at six o'clock,
    when he will endeavor to facilitate their philanthropic inquiries,
    by inviting two or three proprietors to met them."

    "_Government House, St. John's, Dec. 18th_, 1836."
]

The conversation on the subject of emancipation served to show that the
prevailing sentiment was decidedly favorable to the free system. Col.
Jarvis, who is the proprietor of three estates, said that he was in
England at the time the bill for immediate emancipation passed the
legislature. Had he been in the island he should have opposed it; but
_now_ he was glad it had prevailed. The evil consequences which he
apprehended had not been realized, and he was now confident that they
never would be.

As to prejudice against the black and colored people, all thought it was
rapidly decreasing--indeed, they could scarcely say there was now any
such thing. To be sure, there was an aversion among the higher classes
of the whites, and especially among _females_, to associating in parties
with colored people; but it was not on account of their _color_, but
chiefly because of their _illegitimacy_. This was to us a new _source_
of prejudice: but subsequent information fully explained its bearings.
The whites of the West Indies are themselves the authors of that
_illegitimacy_, out of which their aversion springs. It is not to be
wondered at that they should be unwilling to invite the colored people
to their social parties, seeing they might not unfrequently be subjected
to the embarrassment of introducing to their white wives a colored
mistress or an _illegitimate_ daughter. This also explains the special
prejudice which the _ladies_ of the higher classes feel toward those
among whom are their guilty rivals in a husband's affections, and those
whose every feature tells the story of a husband's unfaithfulness!

A few days after our dinner with the governor and his friends, we took
breakfast, by invitation, with Mr. Watkins, the _colored_ planter whom
we had the pleasure of meeting at Millar's, on a previous occasion. Mr.
W. politely sent in his chaise for us, a distance of five miles, At an
early hour we reached Donovan's, the estate of which he is manager. We
found the sugar works in active operation: the broad wings of the
windmill were wheeling their stately revolutions, and the smoke was
issuing in dense volumes from the chimney of the boiling house. Some of
the negroes were employed in carrying cane to the mill, others in
carrying away the _trash_ or _megass_, as the cane is called after the
juice is expressed from it. Others, chiefly the old men and women, were
tearing the megass apart, and strewing it on the ground to dry. It is
the only fuel used for boiling the sugar.

On entering the house we found three planters whom Mr. W. had invited to
breakfast with us. The meeting of a number of intelligent practical
planters afforded a good opportunity for comparing their views. On all
the main points, touching the working of freedom, there was a strong
coincidence.

When breakfast was ready, Mrs. W. entered the room, and after our
introduction to her, took her place at the head of the table. Her
conversation was intelligent, her manners highly polished, and she
presided at the table with admirable grace and dignity.

On the following day, Dr. Ferguson, of St. John's, called on us. Dr.
Ferguson is a member of the assembly, and one of the first physicians in
the island. The Doctor said that freedom had wrought like a magician,
and had it not been for the unprecedented drought, the island would now
be in a state of prosperity unequalled in any period of its history. Dr.
F. remarked that a general spirit of improvement was pervading the
island. The moral condition of the whites was rapidly brightening;
formerly concubinage was _respectable_; it had been customary for
married men--those of the highest standing--to keep one or two colored
mistresses. This practice was now becoming disreputable. There had been
a great alteration as to the observance of the Sabbath; formerly more
business was done in St. John's on Sunday, by the merchants, than on all
the other days of the week together. The mercantile business of the town
had increased astonishingly; he thought that the stores and shops had
multiplied in a _ratio of ten to one_. Mechanical pursuits were likewise
in a flourishing condition. Dr. F. said that a greater number of
buildings had been erected since emancipation, than had been put up for
twenty years before. Great improvements had also been made in the
streets and roads in town and country.

MARKET.

SATURDAY.--This is the regular market-day here. The negroes come from all
parts of the island; walking sometimes ten or fifteen miles to attend
the St. John's market. We pressed our way through the dense mass of all
hues, which crowded the market. The ground was covered with wooden trays
filled with all kinds of fruits, grain, vegetables, fowls, fish, and
flesh. Each one, as we passed, called attention to his or her little
stock. We passed up to the head of the avenue, where men and women were
employed in cutting up the light fire-wood which they had brought from
the country on their heads, and in binding it into small bundles for
sale. Here we paused a moment and looked down upon the busy multitude
below. The whole street was a moving mass. There were broad Panama hats,
and gaudy turbans, and uncovered heads, and heads laden with water pots,
and boxes, and baskets, and trays--all moving and mingling in seemingly
inextricable confusion. There could not have been less than fifteen
hundred people congregated in that street--all, or nearly all,
emancipated slaves. Yet, amidst all the excitements and competitions of
trade, their conduct toward each other was polite and kind. Not a word,
or look, or gesture of insolence or indecency did we observe. Smiling
countenances and friendly voices greeted us on every side, and we felt
no fears either of having our pockets picked or our throats cut!

At the other end of the market-place stood the _Lock-up House_, the
_Cage_, and the _Whipping Post_, with stocks for feet and wrists. These
are almost the sole relics of slavery which still linger in the town.
The Lock-up House is a sort of jail, built of stone--about fifteen feet
square, and originally designed as a place of confinement for slaves
taken up by the patrol. The Cage is a smaller building, adjoining the
former, the sides of which are composed of strong iron bars--fitly
called a _cage!_ The prisoner was exposed to the gaze and insult of
every passer by, without the possibility of concealment. The Whipping
Post is hard by, but its occupation is gone. Indeed, all these
appendages of slavery have gone into entire disuse, and Time is doing
his work of dilapidation upon them. We fancied we could see in the
marketers, as they walked in and out at the doorless entrance of the
Lock-up House, or leaned against the Whipping Post, in careless chat,
that harmless defiance which would prompt one to beard the dead lion.

Returning from the market we observed a negro woman passing through the
street, with several large hat boxes strung on her arm. She accidentally
let one of them fall. The box had hardly reached the ground, when a
little boy sprang from the back of a carriage rolling by, handed the
woman the box, and hastened to remount the carriage.

CHRISTMAS.

During the reign of slavery, the Christmas holidays brought with them
general alarm. To prevent insurrections, the militia was uniformly
called out, and an array made of all that was formidable in military
enginery. This custom was dispensed with at once, after emancipation. As
Christmas came on the Sabbath, it tested the respect for that day. The
morning was similar, in all respects, to the morning of the Sabbath
described above; the same serenity reigning everywhere--the same quiet
in the household movements, and the same tranquillity prevailing through
the streets. We attended morning service at the Moravian chapel.
Notwithstanding the descriptions we had heard of the great change which
emancipation had wrought in the observance of Christmas, we were quite
unprepared for the delightful reality around us. Though thirty thousand
slaves had but lately been "turned loose" upon a white population of
less than three thousand! instead of meeting with scenes of disorder,
what were the sights which greeted our eyes? The neat attire, the
serious demeanor, and the thronged procession to the place of worship.
In every direction the roads leading into town were lined with happy
beings--attired for the house of God. When groups coming from different
quarters met at the corners, they stopped a moment to exchange
salutations and shake hands, and then proceeded on together.

The Moravian chapel was slightly decorated with green branches. They
were the only adorning which marked the plain sanctuary of a plain
people. It was crowded with black and colored people, and very many
stood without, who could not get in. After the close of the service in
the chapel, the minister proceeded to the adjacent school room, and
preached to another crowded audience. In the evening the Wesleyan chapel
was crowded to overflowing. The aisles and communion place were full. On
all festivals and holidays, which occur on the Sabbath, the churches and
chapels are more thronged than on any other Lord's day.

It is hardly necessary to state that there was no instance of a dance or
drunken riot, nor wild shouts of mirth during the day. The Christmas,
instead of breaking in upon the repose of the Sabbath, seemed only to
enhance the usual solemnity of the day.

The holidays continued until the next Wednesday morning, and the same
order prevailed to the close of them. On Monday there were religious
services in most of the churches and chapels, where sabbath-school
addresses, discourses on the relative duties of husband and wife, and on
kindred subjects, were delivered.

An intelligent gentleman informed us that the negroes, while slaves,
used to spend during the Christmas holidays, the extra money which they
got during the year. Now they save it--_to buy small tracts of land for
their own cultivation_.

The Governor informed us that the police returns did not report a single
case of arrest during the holidays. He said he had been well acquainted
with the country districts of England, he had also travelled extensively
in Europe, yet he had never found such a _peaceable, orderly, and
law-abiding people as those of Antigua_.

An acquaintance of nine weeks with the colored population of St. John's,
meeting them by the wayside, in their shops, in their parlors, and
elsewhere, enables us to pronounce them a people of general
intelligence, refinement of manners, personal accomplishments, and true
politeness. As to their style of dress and mode of living, were we
disposed to make any criticism, we should say that they were
extravagant. In refined and elevated conversation, they would certainly
bear a comparison with the white families of the island.

VISIT TO THIBOU JARVIS'S ESTATE.

After the Christmas holidays were over, we resumed our visits to the
country. Being provided with a letter to the manager of Thibou Jarvis's
estate, Mr. James Howell, we embraced the earliest opportunity to call
on him. Mr. H. has been in Antigua for thirty-six years, and has been a
practical planter during the whole of that time. He has the management
of two estates, on which there are more than five hundred people. The
principal items of Mr. Howell's testimony will be found in another
place. In this connection we shall record only miscellaneous statements
of a local nature.

1. The severity of the drought. He had been in Antigua since the year
1800, and he had never known so long a continuance of dry weather,
although the island is subject to severe droughts. He stated that a
field of yams, which in ordinary seasons yielded ten cart-loads to the
acre, would not produce this year more than _three_. The failure in the
crops was not in the least degree chargeable upon the laborers, for in
the first place, the cane plants for the present crop were put in
earlier and in greater quantities than usual, and _until_ the drought
commenced, the fields promised a large return.

2. _The religious condition_ of the negroes, during slavery, was
extremely low. It seemed almost impossible to teach them any higher
_religion_ than _obedience to their masters_. Their highest notion of
God was that he was a _little above_ their owner. He mentioned, by way
of illustration, that the slaves of a certain large proprietor used to
have this saying, "Massa only want he little finger to touch God!" that
is, _their master was lower than God only by the length of his little
finger_. But now the religious and moral condition of the people was
fast improving.

3. A great change in the use of _rum_ had been effected on the estates
under his management since emancipation. He formerly, in accordance with
the prevalent custom, gave his people a weekly allowance of rum, and
this was regarded as essential to their health and effectiveness. But he
has lately discontinued this altogether, and his people had not suffered
any inconvenience from it. He gave them in lieu of the rum, an allowance
of molasses, with which they appeared to be entirely satisfied. When Mr.
H. informed the people of his intention to discontinue the spirits, he
told them that he should _set them the example_ of total abstinence, by
abandoning wine and malt liquor also, which he accordingly did.

4. There had been much less _pretended sickness_ among the negroes since
freedom. They had now a strong aversion to going to the sick house[A],
so much so that on many estates it had been put to some other use.

[Footnote A: The _estate hospital_, in which, during slavery, all sick
persons were placed for medical attendance and nursing. There was one on
every estate.]

We were taken through the negro village, and shown the interior of
several houses. One of the finest looking huts was decorated with
pictures, printed cards, and booksellers' advertisements in large
letters. Amongst many ornaments of this kind, was an advertisement not
unfamiliar to our eyes--"THE GIRL'S OWN BOOK. BY MRS. CHILD."

We generally found the women at home. Some of them had been informed of
our intention to visit them, and took pains to have every thing in the
best order for our reception. The negro village on this estate contains
one hundred houses, each of which is occupied by a separate family. Mr.
H. next conducted us to a neighboring field, where the _great gang_[B]
were at work. There were about fifty persons in the gang--the majority
females--under two inspectors or superintendents, men who take the place
of the _quondam drivers_, though their province is totally different.
They merely direct the laborers in their work, employing with the
loiterers the stimulus of persuasion, or at farthest, no more than the
violence of the tongue.

[Footnote B: The people on most estates are divided into three gangs;
first, the great gang, composed of the principal effective men and
women; second, the weeding gang, consisting of younger and weekly
persons; and third, the grass gang, which embraces all the children
able to work.]

Mr. H. requested them to stop their work, and told them who we were, and
as we bowed, the men took off their hats and the women made a low
courtesy. Mr. Howell then informed them that we had come from America,
where there were a great many slaves: that we had visited Antigua to see
how freedom was working, and whether the people who were made free on
the first of August were doing well--and added, that he "hoped these
gentlemen might be able to carry back such a report as would induce the
masters in America to set their slaves free." They unanimously replied,
"Yes, massa, we hope dem will gib um free." We spoke a few words: told
them of the condition of the slaves in America, urged them to pray for
them that they might be patient under their sufferings, and that they
might soon be made free. They repeatedly promised to pray for the poor
slaves in America. We then received their hearty "Good bye, massa," and
returned to the house, while they resumed their work.

We took leave of Mr. Howell, grateful for his kind offices in
furtherance of the objects of our mission.

We had not been long in Antigua before we perceived the distress of the
poor from the scarcity of water. As there are but few springs in the
island, the sole reliance is upon rain water. Wealthy families have
cisterns or tanks in their yards, to receive the rain from the roofs.
There are also a few public cisterns in St. John's. These ordinarily
supply the whole population. During the present season many of these
cisterns have been dry, and the supply of water has been entirely
inadequate to the wants of the people. There are several large open
ponds in the vicinity of St. John's, which are commonly used to water
"stock." There are one or more on every estate, for the same purpose.
The poor people were obliged to use the water from these ponds both for
drinking and cooking while we were in Antigua. In taking our morning
walks, we uniformly met the negroes either going to, or returning from
the ponds, with their large pails balanced on their heads, happy
apparently in being able to get even such foul water.

Attended the anniversary of the "Friendly Society," connected with the
church in St. John's. Many of the most respectable citizens, including
the Governor, were present. After the services in the church, the
society moved in procession to the Rectory school-room. We counted one
hundred males and two hundred and sixty females in the procession.
Having been kindly invited by the Rector to attend at the school-room,
we followed the procession. We found the house crowded with women, many
others, besides those in the procession, having convened. The men were
seated without under a canvass, extended along one side of the house.
The whole number present was supposed to be nine hundred. Short
addresses were made by the Rector, the Archdeacon, and the Governor.

The Seventh Annual Report of the Society, drawn up by the secretary, a
colored man, was read. It was creditable to the author. The Rector in
his address affectionally warned the society, especially the female
members, against extravagance in dress.

The Archdeacon exhorted them to domestic and conjugal faithfulness. He
alluded to the prevalence of inconstancy during past years, and to the
great improvement in this particular lately; and concluded by wishing
them all "a happy new-year and _many_ of them, and a blessed immortality
in the end." For this kind wish they returned a loud and general
"thankee, massa."

The Governor then said, that he rose merely to remark, that this society
might aid in the emancipation of millions of slaves, now in bondage in
other countries. A people who are capable of forming such societies as
this among themselves, deserve to be free, and ought no longer to be
held in bondage. You, said he, are showing to the world what the negro
race are capable of doing. The Governor's remarks were received with
applause. After the addresses the audience were served with
refreshments, previous to which the Rector read the following lines,
which were sung to the tune of Old Hundred, the whole congregation
standing.

   "Lord at our table now appear
     And bless us here, as every where;
   Let manna to our souls be given,
     The bread of life sent down from heaven."

The simple refreshment was then handed round. It consisted merely of
buns and lemonade. The Governor and the Rector, each drank to the health
and happiness of the members. The loud response came up from all within
and all around the house--"thankee--thankee--thankee--massa--thankee
_good_ massa." A scene of animation ensued. The whole concourse of
black, colored and white, from the humblest to the highest, from the
unlettered apprentice to the Archdeacon and the Governor of the island,
joined in a common festivity.

After the repast was concluded, thanks were returned in the following
verse, also sung to Old Hundred.

   "We thank thee, Lord, for this our food,
     But bless thee more for Jesus' blood;
   Let manna to our souls be given,
     The bread of life sent down from heaven."

The benediction was pronounced, and the assembly retired.

There was an aged negro man present, who was noticed with marked
attention by the Archdeacon, the Rector and other clergymen. He is
sometimes called the African Bishop. He was evidently used to
familiarity with the clergy, and laid his hand on their shoulders as he
spoke to them. The old patriarch was highly delighted with the scene. He
said, when he was young he "never saw nothing, but sin and Satan. _Now I
just begin to live_."

On the same occasion the Governor remarked to us that the first thing to
be done in our country, toward the removal of slavery, was to discard
the absurd notion that _color_ made any difference, intellectually or
morally, among men. "All distinctions," said he, "founded in color, must
be abolished everywhere. We should learn to talk of men not as _colored_
men, but as MEN _as fellow citizens and fellow subjects_." His
Excellency certainly showed on this occasion a disposition to put in
practice his doctrine. He spoke affectionately to the children, and
conversed freely with the adults.

VISIT TO GREEN CASTLE.

According to a previous engagement, a member of the assembly called and
took us in his carriage to Green Castle estate.

Green Castle lies about three miles south-east from St. John's, and
contains 940 acres. The mansion stands on a rocky cliff; overlooking the
estate, and commanding a wide view of the island. In one direction
spreads a valley, interspersed with fields of sugar-cane and provisions.
In another stretches a range of hills, with their sides clad in culture,
and their tops covered with clouds. At the base of the rock are the
sugar Houses. On a neighboring upland lies the negro village, in the
rear of which are the provision grounds. Samuel Bernard, Esq., the
manager, received us kindly. He said, he had been on the island
forty-four years, most of the time engaged in the management of estates.
He is now the manager of two estates, and the attorney for six, and has
lately purchased an estate himself. Mr. B. is now an aged man, grown old
in the practice of slave holding. He has survived the wreck of slavery,
and now stripped of a tyrant's power, he still lives among the people,
who were lately his slaves, and manages an estate which was once his
empire. The testimony of such a man is invaluable. Hear him.

1. Mr. B. said, that the negroes throughout the island were very
peaceable when they received their freedom.

2. He said he had found no difficulty in getting his people to work
after they had received their freedom. Some estates had suffered for a
short time; there was a pretty general fluctuation for a month or two,
the people leaving one estate and going to another. But this, said Mr.
B., was chargeable to the _folly_ of the planters, who _overbid_ each
other in order to secure the best hands and enough of them. The negroes
had a _strong attachment to their homes_, and they would rarely abandon
them unless harshly treated.

3. He thought that the assembly acted very wisely in rejecting the
apprenticeship. He considered it absurd. It took the chains partly from
off the slave, and fastened them on the master, _and enslaved them
both_. It withdrew from the latter the power of compelling labor, and it
supplied to the former no incentive to industry.

He was opposed to the measures which many had adopted for further
securing the benefits of emancipation.--He referred particularly to the
system of education which now prevailed. He thought that the education
of the emancipated negroes should combine industry with study even in
childhood, so as not to disqualify the taught for cultivating the
ground. It will be readily seen that this prejudice against education,
evidently the remains of his attachment to slavery, gives additional
weight to his testimony.

The Mansion on the Rock (which from its elevated and almost inaccessible
position, and from the rich shrubbery in perpetual foliage surrounding
it, very fitly takes the name of Green Castle) is memorable as the scene
of the murder of the present proprietor's grandfather. He refused to
give his slaves holiday on a particular occasion. They came several
times in a body and asked for the holiday, but he obstinately refused to
grant it. They rushed into his bedroom, fell upon him with their hoes,
and killed him.

On our return to St. John's, we received a polite note from a colored
lady, inviting us to attend the anniversary of the "Juvenile
Association," at eleven o'clock. We found about forty children
assembled, the greater part of them colored girls, but some were white.
The ages of these juvenile philanthropists varied from four to fourteen.
After singing and prayer, the object of the association was stated,
which was to raise money by sewing, soliciting contributions, and
otherwise, for charitable purposes.

From the annual report it appeared that this was the _twenty-first
anniversary_ of the society. The treasurer reported nearly £60 currency
(or about $150) received and disbursed during the year. More than one
hundred dollars had been given towards the erection of the new Wesleyan
chapel in St. John's. Several resolutions were presented by little
misses, expressive of gratitude to God for continued blessings, which
were adopted unanimously--every child holding up its right hand in token
of assent.

After the resolutions and other business were despatched, the children
listened to several addresses from the gentlemen present. The last
speaker was a member of the assembly. He said that his presence there
was quite accidental; but that he had been amply repaid for coming by
witnessing the goodly work to which this juvenile society was engaged.
As there was a male branch association about to be organized, he begged
the privilege of enrolling his name as an honorary member, and promised
to be a constant contributor to its funds. He concluded by saying, that
though he had not before enjoyed the happiness of attending their
anniversaries, he should never again fail to be present (with the
permission of their worthy patroness) at the future meetings of this
most interesting society. We give the substance of this address, as one
of the signs of the times. The speaker was a wealthy merchant of
St. John's.

This society was organized in 1815. The _first proposal_ came from a few
_little colored girls_, who, after hearing a sermon on the blessedness
of doing good, wanted to know whether they might not have a society for
raising money to give to the poor.

This Juvenile Association has, since its organization, raised the sum of
_fourteen hundred dollars_! Even this little association has experienced
a great impulse from the free system. From a table of the annual
receipts since 1815, we found that the amount raised the two last years,
is nearly equal to that received during any three years before.

DR. DANIELL--WEATHERILL ESTATE.

On our return from Thibou Jarvis's estate, we called at Weatherill's;
but the manager, Dr. Daniell, not being at home, we left our names, with
an intimation of the object of our visit. Dr. D. called soon after at
our lodgings. As authority, he is unquestionable. Before retiring from
the practice of medicine, he stood at the head of his profession in the
island. He is now a member of the council, is proprietor of an estate,
manager of another, and attorney for six.

The fact that such men as Dr. D., but yesterday large slaveholders, and
still holding high civil and political stations, should most cheerfully
facilitate our anti-slavery investigations, manifesting a solicitude to
furnish us with all the information in their power, is of itself the
highest eulogy of the new system. The testimony of Dr. D. will be found
mainly in a subsequent part of the work. We state, in passing, a few
incidentals. He was satisfied that immediate emancipation was better
policy than a temporary apprenticeship. The apprenticeship was a middle
state--kept the negroes in suspense--vexed and harrassed them--_fed them
on a starved hope_; and therefore they would not be so likely, when they
ultimately obtained freedom, to feel grateful, and conduct themselves
properly. The reflection that they had been cheated out of their liberty
for six years would _sour their minds_. The planters in Antigua, by
giving immediate freedom, had secured the attachment of their people.

The Doctor said he did not expect to make more than two thirds of his
average crop; but he assured us that this was owing solely to the want
of rain. There had been no deficiency of labor. The crops were _in_, in
season, throughout the island, and the estates were never under better
cultivation than at the present time. Nothing was wanting but
RAIN--RAIN.

He said that the West India planters were very anxious to _retain_ the
services of the negro population.

Dr. D. made some inquiries as to the extent of slavery in the United
States, and what was doing for its abolition. He thought that
emancipation in our country would not be the result of a slow process.
The anti-slavery feeling of the civilized world had become too strong to
wait for a long course of "preparations" and "ameliorations." And
besides, continued he, "the arbitrary control of a master can never be a
preparation for freedom;--_sound and wholesome legal restraints are the
only preparative_."

The Doctor also spoke of the absurdity and wickedness of the caste of
color which prevailed in the United States. It was the offspring of
slavery, and it must disappear when slavery is abolished.

CONVERSATION WITH A NEGRO.

We had a conversation one morning with a boatman, while he was rowing us
across the harbor of St. John's. He was a young negro man. Said he was a
slave until emancipation. We inquired whether he heard any thing about
emancipation before it took place. He said, yes--the slaves heard of it,
but it was talked about so long that many of them lost all _believement_
in it, got tired waiting, and bought their freedom; but he had more
patience, and got his for nothing. We inquired of him, what the negroes
did on the first of August, 1834. He said they all went to church and
chapel. "Dare was more _religious_ on dat day dan you could tire of."
Speaking of the _law_, he said it was his _friend_. If there was no law
to take his part, a man, who was stronger than he, might step up and
knock him down. But now no one dare do so; all were afraid of the
_law_,--the law would never hurt any body who behaved well; but a master
would _slash a fellow, let him do his best_.

VISIT TO NEWFIELD.

Drove out to Newfield, a Moravian station, about eight miles from St.
John's. The Rev. Mr. Morrish, the missionary at that station, has under
his charge two thousand people. Connected with the station is a day
school for children, and a night school for adults twice in each week.

We looked in upon the day school, and found one hundred and fifteen
children. The teacher and assistant were colored persons. Mr. M.
superintends. He was just dismissing the school, by singing and prayer,
and the children marched out to the music of one of their little songs.
During the afternoon, Mr. Favey, manager of a neighboring estate,
(Lavicount's,) called on us.

He spoke of the tranquillity of the late Christmas holidays. They ended
Tuesday evening, and his people were all in the field at work on
Wednesday morning--there were no stragglers. Being asked to specify the
chief advantages of the new system over slavery, he stated at once the
following things: 1st. It (free labor) is less _expensive_. 2d. It costs
a planter far less _trouble_ to manage free laborers, than it did to
manage slaves. 3d. It had _removed all danger of insurrection,
conflagration, and conspiracies_.

ADULT SCHOOL.

In the evening, Mr. Morrish's adult school for women was held. About
thirty women assembled from different estates--some walking several
miles. Most of them were just beginning to read. They had just begun to
learn something about figures, and it was no small effort to add 4 and 2
together. They were incredibly ignorant about the simplest matters. When
they first came to the school, they could not tell which was their right
arm or their right side, and they had scarcely mastered that secret,
after repeated showing. We were astonished to observe that when Mr. M.
asked them to point to their cheeks, they laid their finger upon their
chins. They were much pleased with the evolutions of a dumb clock, which
Mr. M. exhibited, but none of them could tell the time of day by it.
Such is a specimen of the intelligence of the Antigua negroes. Mr. M.
told us that they were a pretty fair sample of the country negroes
generally. It surely cannot be said that they were uncommonly well
prepared for freedom; yet with all their ignorance, and with the merest
infantile state of intellect, they prove the peaceable subjects of law.
That they have a great desire to learn, is manifest from their coming
such distances, after working in the field all day. The school which
they attend has been established since the abolition of slavery.

The next morning, we visited the day school. It was opened with singing
and prayer. The children knelt and repeated the Lord's Prayer after Mr.
M. They then formed into a line and marched around the room, singing and
keeping the step. A tiny little one, just beginning to walk,
occasionally straggled out of the line. The next child, not a little
displeased with such disorderly movements, repeatedly seized the
straggler by the frock, and pulled her into the ranks; but finally
despaired of reducing her to subordination. When the children had taken
their seats, Mr. M., at our request, asked all those who were free
before August, 1834, to rise. Only one girl arose, and she was in no way
distinguishable from a white child. The first exercise, was an
examination of a passage of scripture. The children were then questioned
on the simple rules of addition and subtraction, and their answers were
prompt and accurate.

DR. NUGENT.

The hour having arrived when we were to visit a neighboring estate, Mr.
M. kindly accompanied us to Lyon's, the estate upon which Dr. Nugent
resides. In respect to general intelligence, scientific acquirements,
and agricultural knowledge, no man in Antigua stands higher than Dr.
Nugent. He has long been speaker of the house of assembly, and is
favorably known in Europe as a geologist and man of science. He is
manager of the estate on which he resides, and proprietor of another.

The Doctor informed us that the crop on his estate had almost totally
failed, on account of the drought--being reduced from one hundred and
fifty hogsheads, the average crop, to _fifteen_! His provision grounds
had yielded almost nothing. The same soil which ordinarily produced ten
cart-loads of yams to the acre--the present season barely averaged _one
load to ten acres_! Yams were reduced from the dimensions of a man's
head, to the size of a radish. The _cattle were dying_ from want of
water and grass. He had himself lost _five oxen_ within the past week.

Previous to emancipation, said the Doctor, no man in the island dared to
avow anti-slavery sentiments, if he wished to maintain a respectable
standing. Planters might have their hopes and aspirations; but they
could not make them public without incurring general odium, and being
denounced as the enemies of their country.

In allusion to the motives which prompted the legislature to reject the
apprenticeship and adopt immediate emancipation, Dr. N. said, "When we
saw that abolition was _inevitable_, we began, to inquire what would be
the safest course for getting rid of slavery. _We wished to let
ourselves down in the easiest manner possible_--THEREFORE WE CHOSE
IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION!" These were his words.

On returning to the hospitable mansion of Mr. Morrish, we had an
opportunity of witnessing a custom peculiar to the Moravians. It is
called 'speaking.' All the members of the church are required to call on
the missionary once a month, and particular days are appropriated to it.
They come singly or in small companies, and the minister converses with
each individual.

Mr. M. manifested great faithfulness in this duty. He was affectionate
in manner--entered into all the minutiae of individual and family
affairs, and advised with them as a father with his children. We had an
opportunity of conversing with some of those who came. We asked one old
man what he did on the "First of August?"[A] His reply was, "Massa, we
went to church, and tank de Lord for make a we all free."

[Footnote A: By this phrase the freed people always understand the 1st
of August, 1834, when slavery was abolished.]

An aged infirm woman said to us, among other things, "Since de _free_
come de massa give me no--no, nothing to eat--gets all from my
cousins." We next conversed with two men, who were masons on an estate.
Being asked how they liked liberty, they replied, "O, it very
comfortable, Sir--very comfortable indeed." They said, "that on the day
when freedom came, they were as happy, as though they had just been
going to heaven." They said, now they had got free, they never would be
slaves again. They were asked if they would not be willing to sell
themselves to a man who would treat them well. They replied immediately
that they would be very willing to _serve_ such a man, but they would
not _sell themselves_ to the best person in the world! What fine
logicians a slave's experience had made these men! Without any effort
they struck out a distinction, which has puzzled learned men in church
and state, the difference between _serving_ a man and _being his
property_.

Being asked how they conducted themselves on the 1st of August they said
they had no frolicking, but they all went to church to "_tank God for
make a we free_." They said, they were very desirous to have their
children learn all they could while they were young. We asked them if
they did not fear that their children would become lazy if they went to
school all the time. One said, shrewdly, "Eh! nebber mind--dey _come to_
by'm by--_belly 'blige 'em_ to work."

In the evening Mr. M. held a religious meeting in the chapel; the weekly
meeting for exhortation. He stated to the people the object of our
visit, and requested one of us to say a few words. Accordingly, a short
time was occupied in stating the number of slaves in America, and in
explaining their condition, physical, moral, and spiritual; and the
congregation were urged to pray for the deliverance of the millions of
our bondmen. They manifested much sympathy, and promised repeatedly to
pray that they might be "free like we." At the close of the meeting they
pressed around us to say "howdy, massa;" and when we left the chapel,
they showered a thousand blessings upon us. Several of them, men and
women, gathered about Mr. M.'s door after we went in, and wished to talk
with us. The men were mechanics, foremen, and watchmen; the women were
nurses. During our interview, which lasted nearly an hour, these persons
remained standing.

When we asked them how they liked freedom, and whether it was better
than slavery, they answered with a significant _umph_ and a shrug of the
shoulders, as though they would say, "Why you ask dat question, massa?"

They said, "all the people went to chapel on the first of August, to
tank God for make such poor undeserving sinners as we free; we no nebber
expect to hab it. But it please de Lord to gib we free, and we tank him
good Lord for it."

We asked them if they thought the wages they got (a shilling per day, or
about eleven cents,) was enough for them. They said it seemed to be very
small, and it was as much as they could do to get along with it; but
they could not get any more, and they had to be "satify and conten."

As it grew late and the good people had far to walk, we shook hands with
them, and bade them good bye, telling them we hoped to meet them again
in a world where all would be free. The next morning Mr. M. accompanied
us to the residence of the Rev. Mr. Jones, the rector of St. Phillip's.

Mr. J. informed us that the planters in that part of the island were
gratified with the working of the new system. He alluded to the
prejudices of some against having the children educated, lest it should
foster indolence. But, said Mr. J., the planters have always been
opposed to improvements, until they were effected, and their good
results began to be manifest. They first insisted that the abolition of
the slave-trade would ruin the colonies--next the _abolition of slavery_
was to be the certain destruction of the islands--and now the education
of children is deprecated as fraught with disastrous consequences.

FREY'S ESTATE--MR. HATLEY.

Mr. Morrish accompanied us to a neighboring estate called Frey's, which
lies on the road from Newfield to English Harbor. Mr. Hatley, the
manager, showed an enthusiastic admiration of the new system. Most of
his testimony will be found in Chapter III. He said, that owing to the
dry weather he should not make one third of his average crop. Yet his
people had acted their part well. He had been encouraged by their
improved industry and efficiency, to bring into cultivation lands that
had never before been tilled.

It was delightful to witness the change which had been wrought in this
planter by the abolition of slavery. Although accustomed for years to
command a hundred human beings with absolute authority, he could rejoice
in the fact that his power was wrested from him, and when asked to
specify the advantages of freedom over slavery, he named emphatically
and above all others _the abolition of flogging_. Formerly, he said, it
was "_whip--whip--whip--incessantly_, but now we are relieved from this
disagreeable task."

THE AMERICAN CONSUL

We called on the American Consul, Mr. Higginbotham, at his country
residence, about four miles from St. John's. Shortly after we reached
his elevated and picturesque seat, we were joined by Mr. Cranstoun, a
planter, who had been invited to dine with us. Mr. C. is a _colored
gentleman_. The Consul received him in such a manner as plainly showed
that they were on terms of intimacy. Mr. C. is a gentleman of
intelligence and respectability, and occupies a station of trust and
honor in the island. On taking leave of us, he politely requested our
company at breakfast on a following morning, saying, he would send his
gig for us.

At the urgent request of Mr. Bourne, of Miller's, we consented to
address the people of his estate, on Sabbath evening. He sent in his gig
for us in the afternoon, and we drove out.

At the appointed hour we went to the place of meeting. The chapel was
crowded with attentive listeners. Whenever allusions were made to the
grout blessings which God had conferred upon them in delivering them
from bondage, the audience heartily responded in their rough but earnest
way to the sentiments expressed. At the conclusion of the meeting, they
gradually withdrew, bowing or courtesying as they passed us, and
dropping upon our ear their gentle "good bye, massa." During slavery
every estate had its _dungeon_ for refractory slaves. Just as we were
leaving Miller's, me asked Mr. B. what had become of these dungeons. He
instantly replied, "I'll show you one," In a few moments we stood at the
door of the old prison, a small stone building, strongly built, with two
cells. It was a dismal looking den, surrounded by stables, pig-styes,
and cattlepens. The door was off its hinges, and the entrance partly
filled up with mason work. The sheep and goats went in and out
at pleasure.

We breakfasted one morning at the Villa estate, which lies within half a
mile of St. John's. The manager was less sanguine in his views of
emancipation than the planters generally. We were disposed to think
that, were it not for the force of public sentiment, he might declare
himself against it. His feelings are easily accounted for. The estate is
situated so near the town; that his people are assailed by a variety of
temptations to leave their work; from which those on other estates are
exempt. The manager admitted that the danger of insurrection was
removed--crime was lessened--and the moral condition of society was
rapidly improving.

A few days after, we went by invitation to a bazaar, or fair, which was
held in the court-house in St. John's. The avails were to be
appropriated to the building of a new Wesleyan chapel in the town. The
council chamber and the assembly's call were given for the purpose. The
former spacious room was crowded with people of every class and
complexion. The fair was got up by the _colored_ members of the Wesleyan
church; nevertheless, some of the first ladies and gentlemen in town
attended it, and mingled promiscuously in the throng. Wealthy
proprietors, lawyers legislators, military officers in their uniform,
merchants, etc. swelled the crowd. We recognised a number of ladies whom
we had previously met at a fashionable dinner in St. John's. Colored
ladies presided at the tables, and before them was spread a profusion of
rich fancy articles. Among a small number of books exhibited for sale
were several copies of a work entitled "COMMEMORATIVE WREATH," being a
collection of poetical pieces relating to the abolition of slavery in
the West Indies.

VISIT TO MR. CRANSTOUN'S.

On the following morning Mr. C.'s gig came for us, and we drove out to
his residence. We were met at the door by the American Consul, who
breakfasted with us. When he had taken leave, Mr. C. proposed that we
should go over his grounds. To reach the estate, which lies in a
beautiful valley far below Mr. C.'s mountainous residence, we were
obliged to go on foot by a narrow path that wound along the sides of the
precipitous hills. This estate is the property of Mr. Athill, a colored
gentleman now residing in England. Mr. A. is post-master general of
Antigua, one of the first merchants in St. John's, and was a member of
the assembly until the close of 1836, when, on account of his continued
absence, he resigned his seat. A high-born white man, the Attorney
General, now occupies the same chair which this colored member vacated.
Mr. C. was formerly attorney for several estates, is now agent for a
number of them, and also a magistrate.

He remarked, that since emancipation the nocturnal disorders and
quarrels in the negro villages, which were incessant during slavery, had
nearly ceased. The people were ready and willing to work. He had
frequently given his gang jobs, instead of paying them by the day. This
had proved a gear stimulant to industry, and the work of the estate was
performed so much quicker by this plan that it was less expensive than
daily wages. When they had jobs given them, they would sometimes go to
work by three o'clock in the morning, and work by moonlight. When the
moon was not shining, he had known them to kindle fires among the trash
or dry cane leaves to work by. They would then continue working all day
until four o clock, stopping only for breakfast, and dispensing with the
usual intermission from twelve to two.

We requested him to state briefly what were in his estimation the
advantages of the free system over slavery. He replied thus: 1st. The
diminished expense of free labor. 2d. _The absence of coercion_. 3d. The
greater facility in managing an estate. Managers had not half the
perplexity and trouble in watching, driving, &c. They could leave the
affairs of the estate in the hands of the people with safety. 4th. _The
freedom from danger_. They had now put away all fears of insurrections,
robbery, and incendiarism.

There are two reflections which the perusal of these items will probably
suggest to most minds: 1st. The coincidence in the replies of different
planters to the question--What are the advantages of freedom over
slavery? These replies are almost identically the same in every case,
though given by men who reside in different parts of the island, and
have little communication with each other. 2d. They all speak
exclusively of the advantages to the _master_, and say nothing of the
benefit accruing to the emancipated. We are at some loss to decide
whether this arose from indifference to the interests of the
emancipated, or from a conviction that the blessings of freedom to them
were self-evident and needed no specification.

While we were in the boiling-house we witnessed a scene which
illustrated one of the benefits of freedom to the slave; it came quite
opportunely, and supplied the deficiency in the manager's enumeration of
advantages. The head boiler was performing the work of 'striking off;'
i.e. of removing the liquor, after it had been sufficiently boiled, from
the copper to the coolers. The liquor had been taken out of the boiler
by the skipper, and thence was being conducted to the coolers by a long
open spout. By some means the spout became choaked, and the liquor began
to run over. Mr. C. ordered the man to let down the valve, but he became
confused, and instead of letting go the string which lifted the valve,
he pulled on it the more. The consequence was that the liquor poured
over the sides of the spout in a torrent. The manager screamed at the
top of his voice--"_let down the valve, let it down_!" But the poor man,
more and more frightened, hoisted it still higher,--and the precious
liquid--pure sugar--spread in a thick sheet over the earthen floor. The
manager at last sprang forward, thrust aside the man, and stopped the
mischief, but not until many gallons of sugar were lost. Such an
accident as this, occurring during slavery, would have cost the negro a
severe flogging. As it was, however, in the present case, although Mr.
C. 'looked daggers,' and exclaimed by the workings of his countenance,
'a kingdom for a _cat_,'[A] yet the severest thing which he could say
was, "You bungling fellow--if you can't manage better than this, I shall
put some other person in your place--that's all." '_That_'s ALL' indeed,
but it would not have been all, three years ago. The negro replied to
his chidings in a humble way, saying 'I couldn't help it, sir, I
couldn't help it' Mr. C. finally turned to us, and said in a calmer
tone, "The poor fellow got confused, and was frightened half to death."

[Footnote A: A species of whip, well know in the West Indies.]

VISIT TO GRACE BAY.

We made a visit to the Moravian settlement at Grace Bay, which is on the
opposite side of the island. We called, in passing, at Cedar Hall, a
Moravian establishment four miles from town. Mr. Newby, one of the
missionaries stationed at this place, is the oldest preacher of the
Gospel in the island. He has been in Antigua for twenty-seven years. He
is quite of the _old way of thinking_ on all subjects, especially the
divine right of kings, and the scriptural sanction of slavery.
Nevertheless, he was persuaded that emancipation had been a great
blessing to the island and to all parties concerned. When he first came
to Antigua in 1809, he was not suffered to teach the slaves. After some
time he ventured to keep an evening school _in a secret way_. Now there
is a day school of one hundred and twenty children connected with the
station. It has been formed since emancipation.

From Cedar Hail we proceeded to Grace Bay. On the way we met some negro
men at work on the road, and stopped our chaise to chat with them. They
told us that they lived on Harvey's estate, which they pointed out to
us. Before emancipation that estate had four hundred slaves on it, but a
great number had since left because of ill usage during slavery. They
would not live on the estate, because the same manager remained, and
they could not trust him.

They told us they were Moravians, and that on the first of August they
all went to the Moravian chapel at Grace Bay, 'to tank and praise de
good Savior for make a we free.' We asked them if they still liked
liberty; they said, "Yes, massa, we all quite _proud_ to be free." The
negroes use the word _proud_ to express a strong feeling of delight. One
man said, "One morning as I was walking along the road all alone, I
prayed that the Savior would make me free, for then I could be so happy.
I don't know what made me pray so, for I wasn't looking for de free; but
please massa, _in one month de free come_."

They declared that they worked a great deal better since emancipation,
because they were _paid for it_. To be sure, said they, we get very
little wages, but it is better than none. They repeated it again and
again, that men could not be made to work well by _flogging_ them, "_it
was no use to try it_."

We asked one of the men, whether he would not be willing to be a slave
again provided he was _sure_ of having a kind master. "Heigh! me massa,"
said he, "me neber slave no more. A good massa a very good ting, _but
freedom till better_." They said that it was a great blessing to them to
have their children go to school. After getting them to show us the way
to Grace Bay, we bade them good bye.

We were welcomed at Grace Bay by the missionary, and his wife, Mr. and
Mrs. Möhne.[B] The place where these missionaries reside is a beautiful
spot. Their dwelling-house and the chapel are situated on a high
promontory, almost surrounded by the sea. A range of tall hills in the
rear cuts off the view of the island, giving to the missionary station
an air of loneliness and seclusion truly impressive. In this sequestered
spot, the found Mr. and Mrs. M. living alone. They informed us that they
rarely have white visiters, but their house is the constant resort of
the negroes, who gather there after the toil of the day to 'speak' about
their souls. Mr. and Mrs. M. are wholly engrossed in their labors of
love. They find their happiness in leading their numerous flock "by the
still waters and the green pastures" of salvation. Occupied in this
delightful work, they covet not other employments, nor other company,
and desire no other earthly abode than their own little hill-embosomed,
sea-girt missionary home.

[Footnote B: Pronounced Maynuh.]

There are a thousand people belonging to the church at this station,
each of whom, the missionaries see once every month. A day school has
been lately established, and one hundred children are already in
attendance. After dinner we walked out accompanied by the missionaries
to enjoy the beautiful sunset. It is one of the few _harmless_ luxuries
of a West India climate, to go forth after the heat of the day is spent
and the sun is sinking in the sea, and enjoy the refreshing coolness of
the air. The ocean stretched before us, motionless after the turmoil of
the day, like a child which has rocked itself asleep, yet indicating by
its mighty breathings as it heaved along the beach, that it only
slumbered. As the sun went down, the full moon arose, only less
luminous, and gradually the stars began to light up their beaming fires.
The work of the day now being over, the weary laborers were seen coming
from different directions to have a 'speak' with the missionaries. Mr.
M. stated a fact illustrative of the influence of the missionaries over
the negroes. Some time ago, the laborers on a certain estate became
dissatisfied with the wages they were receiving, and refused to work
unless they were increased. The manager tried in vain to reconcile his
people to the grievance of which they complained, and then sent to Mr.
M., requesting him to visit the estate, and use his influence to
persuade the negroes, most of whom belonged to his church, to work at
the usual terms. Mr. M. sent word to the manager that it was not his
province, as minister, to interfere with the affairs of any estate; but
he would talk with the people about it individually, when they came to
'speak.' Accordingly he spoke to each one, as he came, in a kind manner,
advising him to return to his work, and live as formerly. In a short
time peace and confidence were restored, and the whole gang to a man
were in the field.

Mr. and Mrs. M. stated that notwithstanding the very low rate of wages,
which was scarcely sufficient to support life, they had never seen a
single individual who desired to return to the condition of a slave.
Even the old and infirm, who were sometimes really in a suffering state
from neglect of the planters and from inability of their relatives
adequately to provide for them, expressed the liveliest gratitude for
the great blessing which the Savior had given them. They would often say
to Mrs. M. "Why, Missus, old sinner just sinkin in de grave, but God let
me old eyes see dis blessed sun."

The missionaries affirmed that the negroes were an affectionate
people--remarkably so. Any kindness shown them by a white person, was
treasured up and never forgotten. On the other hand, the slightest
neglect or contempt from a white person, was keenly felt. They are very
fond of saying '_howdy_' to white people; but if the salutation is not
returned, or noticed kindly, they are not likely to repeat it to the
same individual. To shake hands with a white person is a gratification
which they highly prize. Mrs. M. pleasantly remarked, that after service
on Sabbath, she was usually wearied out with saying _howdy_, and
_shaking hands_.

During the evening we had some conversation with two men who came to
'speak.' They spoke about the blessings of liberty, and their gratitude
to God for making them free. They spoke also, with deep feeling, of the
still greater importance of being free from _sin_. That, they said, was
better. _Heaven was the first best, and freedom was the next best_.

They gave us some account, in the course of the evening, of an aged
saint called Grandfather Jacob, who lived on a neighboring estate. He
had been a _helper_[A] in the Moravian church, until he became too
infirm to discharge the duties connected with that station. Being for
the same reason discharged from labor on the estate, he now occupied
himself in giving religious instruction to the other superannuated
people on the estate.

[Footnote A: An office somewhat similar to that of deacon]

Mrs. M. said it would constitute an era in the life of the old man, if
he could have an interview with two strangers from a distant land;
accordingly, she sent a servant to ask him to come to the mission-house
early the next morning. The old man was prompt to obey the call. He left
home, as he said, 'before the gun fire'--about five o'clock--and came
nearly three miles on foot. He was of a slender form, and had been tall,
but age and slavery had bowed him down. He shook us by the hand very
warmly, exclaiming, "God bless you, God bless you--me bery glad to see
you." He immediately commenced giving us an account of his conversion.
Said he, putting his hand on his breast, "You see old Jacob? de old
_sinner_ use to go on _drinkin', swearin', dancin', fightin'!_ No God--
no Savior--no soul! _When old England and de Merica fall out de first
time_, old Jacob was a man--a wicked sinner!--drink rum, fight--love to
fight! Carry coffin to de grabe on me head; put dead body under
ground--dance over it--den fight and knock man down--go 'way, drink rum,
den take de fiddle. And so me went on, just so, till me get sick and
going to die--thought when me die, dat be de end of me;--_den de Savior
come to me!_ Jacob love de Savior, and been followin' de good Savior
ever since." He continued his story, describing the opposition he had to
contend with, and the sacrifices he made to go to church. After working
on the estate till six o'clock at night, he and several others would
each take a large stone on his head and start for St. John's; nine miles
over the hills. They carried the stones to aid is building the Moravian
chapel at Spring Garden, St. John's. After he had finished this account,
he read to us, in a highly animated style, some of the hymns which he
taught to the old people, and then sung one of them. These exercises
caused the old man's heart to burn within him, and again he ran over his
past life, his early wickedness, and the grace that snatched him from
ruin, while the mingled tides of gratitude burst forth from heart, and
eyes, and tongue.

When we turned his attention to the temporal freedom he had received, he
instantly caught the word FREE, and exclaimed vehemently, "O yes, me
Massa--dat is anoder kind blessin from de Savior! Him make we all
_free_. Can never praise him too much for dat." We inquired whether he
was now provided for by the manager. He said he was not--never received
any thing from him--his _children_ supported him. We then asked him
whether it was not better to be a slave if he could get food and
clothing, than to be free and not have enough. He darted his quick eye
at us and said 'rader be free _still_.' He had been severely flogged
twice since his conversion, for leaving his post as watchman to bury the
dead. The minister was sick, and he was applied to, in his capacity of
_helper_, to perform funeral rites, and he left his watch to do it. He
said, his heavenly Master called him, and he _would_ go though he
expected a flogging. He must serve his Savior whatever come. "Can't put
we in dungeon _now_," said Grandfather Jacob with a triumphant look.

When told that there were slaves in America, and that they were not yet
emancipated, he exclaimed, "Ah, de Savior make we free, and he will make
dem free too. He come to Antigo first--he'll be in Merica soon."

When the time had come for him to leave, he came and pressed our hands,
and fervently gave us his patriarchal blessing. Our interview with
Grandfather Jacob can never be forgotten. Our hearts, we trust, will
long cherish his heavenly savor--well assured that if allowed a part in
the resurrection of the just, we shall behold his tall form, erect in
the vigor of immortal youth, amidst the patriarchs of past generations.

After breakfast we took leave of the kind-hearted missionaries, whose
singular devotedness and delightful spirit won greatly upon our
affections, and bent our way homeward by another route.

MR. SCOTLAND'S ESTATE.

We called at the estate of Mr. J. Scotland, Jr., barrister, and member
of the assembly. We expected to meet with the proprietor, but the
manager informed us that pressing business at court had called him to
St. John's on the preceding day. The testimony of the manager concerning
the dry weather, the consequent failure in the crop, the industry of the
laborers, and so forth, was similar to that which we had heard before.
He remarked that he had not been able to introduce job-work among his
people. It was a new thing with them, and they did not understand it. He
had lately made a proposal to give the gang four dollars per acre for
holding a certain field. They asked a little time to consider upon so
novel a proposition. He gave them half a day, and at the end of that
time asked them what their conclusion was. One, acting as spokesman for
the rest, said, "We rada hab de shilling wages." That was _certain_; the
job might yield them more, and it might fall short--quite a common sense
transaction!

At the pressing request of Mr. Armstrong we spent a day with him at
Fitch's Creek. Mr. A. received us with the most cordial hospitality,
remarking that he was glad to have another opportunity to state some
things which he regarded as obstacles to the complete success of the
experiment in Antigua. One was the entire want of concert among the
planters. There was no disposition to meet and compare views respecting
different modes of agriculture, treatment of laborers, and employment of
machinery. Another evil was, allowing people to live on the estates who
took no part in the regular labor of cultivation. Some planters had
adapted the foolish policy of encouraging such persons to remain on the
estates, in order that they might have help at hand in cases of
emergency. Mr. A. strongly condemned this policy. It withheld laborers
from the estates which needed them; it was calculated to make the
regular field hands discontented, and it offered a direct encouragement
to the negroes to follow irregular modes of living. A third obstacle to
the successful operation of free labor, was the absence of the most
influential proprietors. The consequences of absenteeism were very
serious. The proprietors were of all men the most deeply interested in
the soil; and no attorneys, agents, or managers, whom they could employ,
would feel an equal interest in it, nor make the same efforts to secure
the prosperous workings of the new system.

In the year 1833, when the abolition excitement was at its height in
England, and the people were thundering at the doors of parliament for
emancipation, Mr. A. visited that country for his health. To use his own
expressive words, he "got a terrible scraping wherever he went." He said
he could not travel in a stage-coach, or go into a party, or attend a
religious meeting, without being attacked. No one the most remotely
connected with the system could have peace there. He said it was
astonishing to see what a feeling was abroad, how mightily the mind of
the whole country, peer and priest and peasant, was wrought up. The
national heart seemed on fire.

Mr. A. said, he became a religious man whilst the manager of a slave
estate, and when he became a Christian, he became an abolitionist. Yet
this man, while his conscience was accusing him--while he was longing
and praying for abolition--did not dare open his mouth in public to
urge it on! How many such men are there in our southern states--men who
are inwardly cheering on the abolitionist in his devoted work, and yet
send up no voice to encourage him, but perhaps are traducing and
denouncing him!

We received a call at our lodgings in St. John's from the Archdeacon. He
made interesting statements respecting the improvement of the negroes in
dress, morals, education and religion, since emancipation. He had
resided in the island some years previous to the abolition of slavery,
and spoke from personal observation.

Among many other gentlemen who honored us with a call about the same
time, was the Rev. Edward Fraser, Wesleyan missionary, and a colored
gentleman. He is a native of Bermuda, and ten years ago was a _slave_.
He received a mercantile education, and was for several years the
confidential clerk of his master. He was treated with much regard and
general kindness. He said he was another Joseph--every thing which his
master had was in his hands. The account books and money were all
committed to him. He had servants under him, and did almost as he
pleased--except becoming free. Yet he must say, as respected himself,
kindly as he was treated, that slavery was a _grievous wrong, most
unjust and sinful_. The very thought--and it often came over him--that
he was a slave, brought with it a terrible sense of degradation. It came
over the soul like a frost. His sense of degradation grew more intense
in proportion as his mind became more cultivated. He said, _education
was a disagreeable companion for a slave_. But while he said this, Mr.
F. spoke very respectfully and tenderly of his master. He would not
willingly utter a word which would savor of unkindness towards him. Such
was the spirit of one whose best days had been spent under the exactions
of slavery. He was a local preacher in the Wesleyan connection while he
was a slave, and was liberated by his master, without remuneration, at
the request of the British Conference, who wished to employ him as an
itinerant. He is highly esteemed both for his natural talents and
general literary acquisitions and moral worth. The Conference have
recently called him to England to act as an agent in that country, to
procure funds for educational and religious purposes in these islands.

MEETING OF WESLEYAN MISSIONARIES.

As we were present at the annual meeting of the Wesleyan missionaries
for this district, we gained much information concerning the object of
our mission, as there were about twenty missionaries, mostly from
Dominica, Montserrat, Nevis, St. Christophers, Anguilla, and Tortola.

Not a few of them were men of superior acquirements, who had sacrificed
ease and popular applause at home, to minister to the outcast and
oppressed. They are the devoted friends of the black man. It was
soul-cheering to hear them rejoice over the abolition of slavery. It was
as though their own limbs had been of a sudden unshackled, and a high
wall had fallen from around them. Liberty had broken upon them like the
bursting forth of the sun to the watchman on his midnight tower.

During the session, the mission-house was thrown open to us, and we
frequently dined with the numerous company of missionaries, who there
ate at a common table. Mrs. F., wife of the colored clergyman mentioned
above, presided at the social board. The missionaries and their wives
associated with Mr. and Mrs. F. as unreservedly as though they wore the
most delicate European tint. The first time we took supper with them, at
one side of a large table, around which were about twenty missionaries
with their wives, sat Mrs. F., with the furniture of a tea table before
her. On the other side, with the coffee urn and its accompaniments, sat
the wife of a missionary, with a skin as lily-hued as the fairest
Caucasian. Nearly opposite to her, between two white preachers, sat a
colored missionary. Farther down, with the chairman of the district on
his right, sat another colored gentleman, a merchant and local preacher
in Antigua. Such was the uniform appearance of the table, excepting that
the numbers were occasionally swelled by the addition of several other
colored gentlemen and ladies. On another occasion, at dinner, we had an
interesting conversation, in which the whole company of missionaries
participated. The Rev. M. Banks, of St. Bartholomews, remarked, that one
of the grossest of all absurdities was that of _preparing men for
freedom_. Some, said he, pretend that immediate emancipation is unsafe,
but it was evident to him that if men _are peaceable while they are
slaves_, they might be trusted in any other condition, for they could
not possibly be placed in one more aggravating. If _slavery_ is a safe
system, _freedom_ surely will be. There can be no better evidence that a
people are prepared for liberty, _than their patient endurance of
slavery_. He expressed the greatest regret at the conduct of the
American churches, particularly that of the Methodist church. "Tell
them," said he, "on your return, that the missionaries in these islands
are cast down and grieved when they think of their brethren in America.
We feel persuaded that they are holding back the car of freedom; they
are holding up the gospel." Rev. Mr. Cheesbrough, of St. Christopher's,
said, "Tell them that much as we desire to visit the United States, we
cannot go so long as we are prohibited from speaking against slavery, or
while that _abominable prejudice_ is encouraged in the churches. _We
could not administer the sacrament to a church in which the distinction
of colors was maintained._" "Tell our brethren of the Wesleyan
connection," said Mr. B. again, "that slavery must be abolished by
_Christians_, and the church ought to take her stand at once against
it." We told him that a large number of Methodists and other Christians
had engaged already in the work, and that the number was daily
increasing. "That's right," he exclaimed, "agitate, _agitate_, AGITATE!
_You must succeed_: the Lord is with you." He dwelt particularly on the
obligations resting upon Christians in the free states. He said, "Men
must be at a distance from slavery to judge of its real character.
Persons living in the midst of it, gradually become familiarized with
its horrors and woes, so that they can view calmly, exhibitions from
which they would once have shrunk in dismay."

We had some conversation with Rev. Mr. Walton, of Montserrat. After
making a number of statements in reference to the apprenticeship there,
Mr. W. stated that there had been repeated instances of planters
_emancipating all their apprentices_. He thought there had been a case
of this kind every month for a year past. The planters were becoming
tired of the apprenticeship, and from mere considerations of interest
and comfort, were adopting free labor.

A new impulse had been given to education in Montserrat, and schools
were springing up in all parts of the island. Mr. W. thought there was
no island in which education was so extensive. Religious influences were
spreading among the people of all classes. Marriages were occurring
every week.

We had an interview with the Rev. Mr. H., an aged colored minister. He
has a high standing among his brethren, for talents, piety, and
usefulness. There are few ministers in the West Indies who have
accomplished more _for the cause of Christ_ than has Mr. H.[A]

[Footnote A: It is a fact well known in Antigua and Barbadoes, that this
colored missionary has been instrumental in the conversion of several
clergymen of the Episcopal Church in those islands, who are now
currently devoted men.]

He said he had at different periods been stationed in Antigua, Anguilla,
Tortola, and some other islands. He said that the negroes in the other
islands in which he had preached, were as intelligent as those in
Antigua, and in every respect as well prepared for freedom. He was in
Anguilla when emancipation took place. The negroes there were kept at
work on the very _day that freedom came!_ They worked as orderly as on
any other day. The Sabbath following, he preached to them on their new
state, explaining the apprenticeship to them. He said the whole
congregation were in a state of high excitement, weeping and shouting.
One man sprang to his feet, and exclaimed, 'Me never forget God and King
William.' This same man was so full that he went out of the chapel, and
burst into loud weeping.

The preaching of the missionaries, during their stay in Antigua, was
full of allusions to the abolition of slavery in the West Indies, and
especially to the entire emancipation in Antigua. Indeed, we rarely
attended a meeting in Antigua, of any kind, in which the late
emancipation was not in some way alluded to with feelings of gratitude
and exultation. In the ordinary services of the Sabbath, this subject
was almost uniformly introduced, either in the prayer or sermon.
Whenever thanksgiving was rendered to God for favors, _freedom_ was
among the number.

The meeting of the district afforded an opportunity for holding a number
of anniversary meetings. We notice them here, believing that they will
present the most accurate view that can be given of the religious and
moral condition of Antigua.

On the evening of the 1st of February, the first anniversary of the
Antigua Temperance Society was held in the Wesleyan chapel. We had been
invited to attend and take a part in the exercises. The chapel was
crowded with a congregation of all grades and complexions. Colored and
white gentlemen appeared together on the platform. We intimated to a
member of the committee, that we could not conscientiously speak without
advocating _total abstinence_, which doctrine, we concluded from the
nature of the pledge, (which only included ardent spirits,) would not be
well received. We were assured that we might use the most perfect
freedom in avowing our sentiments.

The speakers on this occasion were two planters, a Wesleyan missionary,
and ourselves. All advocated the doctrine of total abstinence. The first
speaker, a planter, concluded by saying, that it was commonly believed
that wine and malt were rendered absolutely indispensable in the West
Indies, by the exhausting nature of the climate. But facts disprove the
truth of this notion. "I am happy to say that I can now present this
large assembly with ocular demonstration of the fallacy of the popular
opinion. I need only point you to the worthy occupants of this platform.
Who are the healthiest among them? _The cold water drinkers--the
teetotallers_! We can assure you that we have not lost a pound of flesh,
by abandoning our cups. We have tried the cold water experiment
faithfully, and we can testify that since we became cold water men, _we
work better, we eat better, we sleep better, and we do every thing
better than before_." The next speaker, a planter also, dwelt on the
inconsistency of using wine and malt, and at the same time calling upon
the poor to give up ardent spirits. He said this inconsistency had been
cast in his teeth by his negroes. He never could prevail upon them to
stop drinking rum, until he threw away his wine and porter. Now he and
all his people were teetotallists. There were two other planters who had
taken the same course. He stated, as the result of a careful calculation
which he had made, that he and the two planters referred to, had been in
the habit of giving to their people not less than _one thousand gallons
of rum annually_. The whole of this was now withheld, and molasses and
sugar were given instead. The missionary who followed them was not a
whit behind in boldness and zeal, and between them, they left us little
to say in our turn on the subject of total abstinence.

On the following evening the anniversary of the Bible Society was held
in the Moravian school-room. During the day we received a note from the
Secretary of the Society, politely requesting us to be present. The
spacious school-room was filled, and the broad platform crowded with
church clergymen, Moravian ministers, and Wesleyan missionaries, colored
and white. The Secretary, a Moravian minister, read the twenty-first
annual report. It spoke emphatically of 'the joyful event of
emancipation', and in allusion to an individual in England, of whom it
spoke in terms of high commendation, it designated him, as one "who was
distinguished for his efforts in the abolition of slavery." The adoption
of the report was moved by one of the Wesleyan missionaries, who spoke
at some length. He commenced by speaking of "the peculiar emotions with
which he always arose to address an assembly of the free people of
Antigua." It had been his lot for a year past to labor in a colony[A]
where slavery still reigned, and he could not but thank God for the
happiness of setting his foot once more on the free soil of an
emancipated island.

[Footnote A: St. Martin's]

Perhaps the most interesting meeting in the series, was the anniversary
of the Wesleyan Missionary Society of Antigua. Both parts of the day
were devoted to this anniversary. The meetings were held in the Wesleyan
chapel, which was filled above and below, with the usual commixture of
white, colored, and black. We saw, as on former occasions, several
colored gentlemen seated among the ministers. After the usual
introductory exercises of singing and prayer, the annual report was read
by the Secretary, Rev. E. Fraser, the colored minister already
mentioned. It was terse, direct, and business like. The meeting was then
addressed by a Moravian missionary. He dwelt upon the decrease of the
sectarian spirit, and hailed the coming of Christian charity and
brotherly communion. He opened his Bible, and read about the middle wall
of partition being broken down. "Yes, brother," said Mr. Horne, "and
every other wall." "The rest are but paper walls," responded the
speaker, "and when once the middle wall is removed, these will soon be
burned up by the fire of Christian love."

The next speaker was a Wesleyan missionary of Nevis. He spoke of the
various instrumentalities which were now employed for the conversion of
the world. "We welcome," said he, "the co-operation of America, and with
all our hearts do we rejoice that she is now beginning to put away from
her that vile system of oppression which has hitherto crippled her moral
energy and her religious enterprise." Then turning and addressing
himself to us, he said, "We hail you, dear brethren, as co-workers with
us. Go forward in your blessed undertaking. Be not dismayed with the
huge dimensions of that vice which you are laboring to overthrow! Be not
disheartened by the violence and menaces of your enemies! Go forward.
Proclaim to the church and to your countrymen the sinfulness of slavery,
and be assured that soon the fire of truth will melt down the massy
chains of oppression." He then urged upon the people of Antigua _their_
peculiar obligations to extend the gospel to other lands. It was the
_Bible_ that made them free, and he begged them to bear in mind that
there were millions of their countrymen _still in the chains of
slavery_. This appeal was received with great enthusiasm.

We then spoke on a resolution which had been handed us by the Secretary,
and which affirmed "that the increasing and acknowledged usefulness of
Christian missions was a subject of congratulation." We spoke of the
increase of missionary operations in our own country, and of the spirit
of self-denial which was widely spreading, particularly among young
Christians. We spoke of that accursed thing in our midst, which not only
tended greatly to kill the spirit of missions in the church, but which
directly withheld _many_ young men from foreign missionary fields. It
had made more than two millions of heathen in our country; and so long
as the cries of these _heathen at home_ entered the ears of our young
men and young women, they could not, dare not, go abroad. How could they
go to Ceylon, to Burmah, or to Hindostan, with the cry of their
_country's heathen_ ringing their ears! How could they tear themselves
away from famished millions kneeling at their feet in chains and begging
for the bread of life, and roam afar to China or the South Sea Islands!
Increasing numbers filed with a missionary spirit felt that their
obligations were at home, and they were resolved that if they could not
carry the gospel _forthwith_ to the slaves, they would labor for the
overthrow of that system which made it a crime punishable with death to
preach salvation to the poor. In conclusion, the hope was expressed that
the people of Antigua--so highly favored with freedom, education, and
religion, would never forget that in the nation whence we came, there
were _two millions and a half of heathen_, who, instead of bread,
received stones and scorpions; instead of the Bible, bolts and bars;
instead of the gospel, chains and scourgings; instead of the hope of
salvation thick darkness and despair. They were entreated to remember
that in the gloomy dungeon, from which they had lately escaped there
were deeper and more dismal cells, _yet filled_ with millions of their
countrymen. The state of feeling produced by this reference to slavery,
was such as might be anticipated in an audience, a portion of which were
once slaves, and still remembered freshly the horrors of their late
condition.

The meeting was concluded after a sitting of more than four hours. The
attendance in the evening was larger than on any former occasion. Many
were unable to get within the chapel. We were again favored with an
opportunity of urging a variety of considerations touching the general
cause, as well as those drawn from the condition of our own country, and
the special objects of our mission.

The Rev. Mr. Horne spoke very pointedly on the subject of slavery. He
began by saying that he had been _so long accustomed_ to speak
cautiously about slavery that he was even now almost afraid of his own
voice when he alluded to it. [General laughter.] But he would remember
that he was in a _free island_, and that he spoke to _freemen_, and
therefore he had nothing to fear.

He said the peace and prosperity of these colonies is a matter of great
moment in itself considered, but it was only when viewed as an example
to the rest of the slaveholding world that its real magnitude and
importance was perceived. The influence of abolition, and especially of
entire emancipation in Antigua, must be very great. The eyes of the
world were fixed upon her. The great nation of America must now soon
_toll the knell_ of slavery, and this event will be hastened by the
happy operation of freedom here.

Mr. H. proceeded to say, that during the agitation of the slavery
question at home, he had been suspected of not being a friend to
emancipation; and it would probably be remembered by some present that
his name appeared in the report of the committee of the House of
Commons, where it stood in _no enviable society_. But whatever might be
thought of his course at that time, he felt assumed that the day was not
far distant when he should be able to clear up every thing connected
with it. It was not a little gratifying to us to see that the time had
come in the West Indies, when the suspicion of having been opposed to
emancipation is a stain upon the memory from which a public man is glad
to vindicate himself.

RESOLUTION OF THE MEETING.

After a few other addresses were delivered, and just previous to the
dismission of the assembly, Rev. Mr. Cox, Chairman of the District,
arose and said, that as this was the last of the anniversary meetings,
he begged to move a resolution which he had no doubt would meet with the
hearty and unanimous approval of that large assembly. He then read the
following resolution, which we insert here as an illustration of the
universal sympathy in the objects of our mission. As the resolution is
not easily divisible, we insert the whole of it, making no ado on the
score of modesty.

"Resolved, that this meeting is deeply impressed with the importance of
the services rendered this day to the cause of missions by the
acceptable addresses of Mr. ----, from America, and begs especially to
express to him and his friend Mr. ----, the assurance of their sincere
sympathy in the object of their visit to Antigua."

Mr. C. said he would make no remarks in support of the resolution he had
just read for he did not deem them necessary. He would therefore propose
at once that the vote be taken by rising. The Chairman read the
resolution accordingly, and requested those who were in favor of
adopting it, to rise. Not an individual in the crowded congregation kept
his seat. The masters and the slaves of yesterday--all rose together--a
phalanx of freemen, to testify "their sincere sympathy" in the efforts
and objects of American abolitionists.

After the congregation had resumed their seats, the worthy Chairman
addressed us briefly in behalf of the congregation, saying, that it was
incumbent on him to convey to us the unanimous expression of sympathy on
the part of this numerous assembly in the object of our visit to the
island. We might regard it as an unfeigned assurance that we were
welcomed among them, and that the cause which we were laboring to
promote was dear to the hearts of the people of Antigua.

This was the testimonial of an assembly, many of whom, only three years
before, were themselves slaveholders. It was not given at a meeting
specially concerted and called for the purpose, but grew up unexpectedly
and spontaneously out of the feelings of the occasion, a free-will
offering, the cheerful impulsive gush of _free_ sympathies. We returned
our acknowledgments in the best manner that our excited emotions
permitted.

LAYING THE CORNER STONE OF A WESLEYAN CHAPEL.

The corner stone of a new Wesleyan Chapel was laid in St. John's, during
the district meeting. The concourse of spectators was immense. At eleven
o'clock religious exercises were held in the old chapel. At the close of
the service a procession was formed, composed of Wesleyan missionaries,
Moravian ministers, clergymen of the church, members of the council and
of the assembly, planters, merchants, and other gentlemen, and the
children of the Sunday and infant schools, connected with the
Wesleyan Chapel.

As the procession moved to the new site, a hymn was sung, in which the
whole procession united. Our position in the procession, to which we
were assigned by the marshal, and much to our satisfaction, was at
either side of two colored gentlemen, with whom we walked, four abreast.

On one side of the foundation a gallery had been raised, which was
covered with an awning, and was occupied by a dense mass of white and
colored ladies. On another side the gentlemen of the procession stood.
The other sides were thronged with a promiscuous multitude of all
colors. After singing and prayer, the Hon. Nicholas Nugent, speaker of
the house of assembly, descended from the platform by a flight of stairs
into the cellar, escorted by two missionaries. The sealed phial was then
placed in his hand, and Mr. P., a Wesleyan missionary, read from a paper
the inscription written on the parchment within the phial. The closing
words of the inscription alluded to the present condition of the island,
thus: "The demand for a new and larger place of worship was pressing,
and the progress of public liberality advancing on a scale highly
creditable to this FREE, enlightened, and evangelized colony." The
Speaker then placed the phial in the cavity of the rock. When it was
properly secured, and the corner stone lowered down by pullies to its
place, he struck three blows upon it with a mallet, and then returned to
the platform. The most eager curiosity was exhibited on every side to
witness the ceremony.

At the conclusion of it, several addresses were delivered. The speakers
were, Rev. Messrs. Horne and Harvey, and D.B. Garling, Esq. Mr. Horne,
after enumerating several things which were deserving of praise, and
worthy of imitation, exclaimed, "The grand crowning glory of all--that
which places Antigua above all her sister colonies--was the magnanimous
measure of the legislature in entirely abolishing slavery." It was
estimated that there were more than two thousand persons assembled on
this occasion. The _order_ which prevailed among such a concourse was
highly creditable to the island. It was pleasing to see the perfect
intermixture of colors and conditions; not less so to observe the kindly
bearing of the high toward the low.[A] After the exercises were
finished, the numerous assembly dispersed quietly. Not an instance of
drunkenness, quarrelling, or anger, fell under our notice during
the day.

[Footnote A: During Mr. Home's address, we observed Mr. A., a planter,
send his umbrella to a negro man who stood at the corner-stone, exposed
to the sun.]

RESOLUTIONS OF THE MISSIONARIES.

Toward the close of the district meeting, we received a kind note from
the chairman, inviting us to attend the meeting, and receive in person,
a set of resolutions which had been drawn up at our request, and signed
by all the missionaries. At the hour appointed, we repaired to the
chapel. The missionaries all arose as we entered, and gave us a
brotherly salutation. We were invited to take our seats at the right
hand of the chairman. He then, in the presence of the meeting, read to
us the subjoined resolutions; we briefly expressed, in behalf of
ourselves and our cause, the high sense we had of the value of the
testimony, which the meeting had been pleased to give us. The venerable
father Horne then prayed with us, commending our cause to the blessing
of the Head of the church, and ourselves to the protection and guidance
of our heavenly Father. After which we shook hands with the brethren,
severally, receiving their warmest assurances of affectionate regard,
and withdrew.

_"Resolutions passed at the meeting of the Wesleyan Missionaries of the
Antigua District, assembled at St. John's, Antigua, February 7th, 1837._

    1. That the emancipation of the slaves of the West Indies, while it
    was an act of undoubted justice to that oppressed people, has
    operated most favorably in furthering the triumphs of the gospel, by
    removing one prolific source of unmerited suspicion of religious
    teachers, and thus opening a door to their more extensive labors and
    usefulness--by furnishing a greater portion of time for the service
    of the negro, and thus preventing the continuance of unavoidable
    Sabbath desecrations, in labor and neglect of the means of
    grace--and in its operation as a stimulus to proprietors and other
    influential gentlemen, to encourage religious education, and the
    wide dissemination of the Scriptures, as an incentive to industry
    and good order.

    2. That while the above statements are true with reference to all
    the islands, even where the system of apprenticeship prevails, they
    are especially applicable to Antigua, where the results of the great
    measure, of entire freedom, so humanely and judiciously granted by
    the legislature, cannot be contemplated without the most devout
    thanks givings to Almighty God.

    3. That we regard with much gratification, the great diminution
    among all classes in these islands, of the most unchristian
    prejudice of color the total absence of it in the government and
    ordinances of the churches of God, with which we are connected, and
    the prospect of its complete removal, by the abolition of slavery,
    by the increased diffusion of general knowledge, and of that
    religion which teaches to "honor _all_ men," and to love our
    neighbor as ourselves.

    4. That we cannot but contemplate with much humiliation and
    distress, the existence, among professing Christians in America, of
    this partial, unseemly, and unchristian system of _caste_, so
    distinctly prohibited in the word of God, and so utterly
    irreconcileable with Christian charity.

    5. That regarding slavery as a most unjustifiable infringement of
    the rational and inalienable rights of men, and in its moral
    consequences, (from our own personal observation as well as other
    sources,) as one of the greatest curses with which the great
    Governor of the nations ever suffered this world to be blighted: we
    cannot but deeply regret the connection which so intimately exists
    between the various churches of Christ in the United States of
    America, and this unchristian system. With much sorrow do we learn
    that the _principle_ of the lawfulness of slavery has been defended
    by some who are ministers of Christ, that so large a proportion of
    that body in America, are exerting their influence in favor of the
    continuance of so indefensible and monstrous a system--and that
    these emotions of sorrow are especially occasioned with reference to
    our own denomination.

    6. That while we should deprecate and condemn any recourse on the
    part of the slaves, to measures of rebellion, as an unjustifiable
    mode of obtaining their freedom, we would most solemnly, and
    affectionately, and imploringly, adjure our respected fathers and
    brethren in America, to endeavor, in every legitimate way, to wipe
    away this reproach from their body, and thus act in perfect
    accordance with the deliberate and recorded sentiments of our
    venerated founder on this subject, and in harmony with the feelings
    and proceedings of their brethren in the United Kingdom, who have
    had the honor to take a distinguished part in awakening such a
    determined and resistless public feeling in that country, as issued
    in the abolition of slavery among 800,000 of our fellow subjects.

    7. That we hail with the most lively satisfaction the progress in
    America of anti-slavery principles, the multiplication of
    anti-slavery societies, and the diffusion of correct views on this
    subject. We offer to the noble band of truly patriotic, and
    enlightened, and philanthropic men, who are combating in that
    country with such a fearful evil, the assurance of our most cordial
    and fraternal sympathy, and our earnest prayers for their complete
    success. We view with pity and sorrow the vile calumnies with which
    they have been assailed. We welcome with Christian joyfulness, in
    the success which has already attended their efforts, the dawn of a
    cloudless day of light and glory, which shall presently shine upon
    that vast continent, when the song of universal freedom shall sound
    in its length and breadth.

    8. That these sentiments have been increased and confirmed by the
    intercourse, which some of our body Have enjoyed with our beloved
    brethren, the Rev. James A. Thome, and Joseph Horace Kimball, Esq.,
    the deputation to these islands, front the Anti-Slavery Society in
    America. We regard this appointment, and the nomination of such men
    to fulfil it, as most judicious. We trust we can appreciate the
    spirit of entire devotedness to this cause, which animates our
    respected brethren, and breathes throughout their whole deportment,
    and rejoice in such a manifestation of the fruits of that divine
    charity, which flow from the constraining love of Christ, and which
    many waters cannot quench.

    9. That the assurance of the affectionate sympathy of the
    twenty-five brethren who compose this district meeting, and our
    devout wishes for their success in the objects of their mission, are
    hereby presented, in our collective and individual capacity, to our
    endeared and Christian friends from America.

    (Signed) JAMES COX, chairman of the district, and resident in
    Antigua.

    Jonathan Cadman, St. Martin's. James Horne, St. Kitts. Matthew
    Banks, St. Bartholomew's. E. Frazer, Antigua. Charles Bates, do.
    John Keightley, do. Jesse Pilcher, do. Benjamin Tregaskiss, do.
    Thomas Edwards, St. Kitts. Robert Hawkins, Tortola. Thomas Pearson,
    Nevis. George Craft, do. W.S. Wamouth, St. Kitts. John Hodge,
    Tortola. William Satchel, Dominica. John Cullingford, Dominica. J.
    Cameron, Nevis. B. Gartside, St. Kitts. John Parker, do. Hilton
    Cheeseborough, do. Thomas Jeffery, do. William Rigglesworth,
    Tortola. Daniel Stepney, Nevis. James Walton, Montserrat."

      *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER II.

GENERAL RESULTS.

Having given a general outline of our sojourn in Antigua, we proceed to
a mere minute account of the results of our investigations. We arrange
the testimony in two general divisions, placing that which relates to
the past and present condition of the colony in one, and that which
bears directly upon the question of slavery in America in another.

RELIGION.

There are three denominations of Christians in Antigua: the Established
Church; the Moravians, and Wesleyans. The Moravians number fifteen
thousand--almost exclusively negroes. The Wesleyans embrace three
thousand members, and about as many more attendants. Of the three
thousand members, says a Wesleyan missionary, "not fifty are whites--a
larger number are colored; but the greater part black." "The attendance
of the negro population at the churches and chapels," (of the
established order,) says the Rector of St. John's, "amounts to four
thousand six hundred and thirty-six." The whole number of blacks
receiving religious instruction from these Christian bodies, making
allowance for the proportion of white and colored included in the three
thousand Wesleyans, is about twenty-two thousand--leaving a population
of eight thousand negroes in Antigua who are unsupplied with religious
instruction.

The Established Church has six parish churches, as many "chapels of
ease," and nine clergymen. The Moravians have five settlements and
thirteen missionaries. The Wesleyans have seven chapels, with as many
more small preaching places on estates, and twelve ministers; half of
whom are itinerant missionaries, and the other half, local preachers,
employed as planters, or in mercantile, and other pursuits, and
preaching only occasionally. From the limited number of chapels and
missionaries, it may be inferred that only a portion of the twenty-two
thousand can enjoy stated weekly instruction. The superintendent of the
Moravian mission stated that their chapels could not accommodate more
than _one third_ of their members.

Each of the denominations complains of the lack of men and houses. The
Wesleyans are now building a large chapel in St. John's. It will
accommodate two thousand persons. "Besides free sittings, there will be
nearly two hundred pews, every one of which is now in demand."

However much disposed the churches of different denominations might have
been during slavery to maintain a strict discipline, they found it
exceedingly difficult to do so. It seems impossible to elevate a body of
slaves, _remaining such,_ to honesty and purity. The reekings of slavery
will almost inevitably taint the institutions of religion, and degrade
the standard of piety. Accordingly the ministers of every denomination
in Antigua, feel that in the abolition of slavery their greatest enemy
has been vanquished, and they now evince a determination to assume
higher ground than they ever aspired to during the reign of slavery. The
motto of all creeds is, "_We expect great things of freemen_." A report
which we obtained from the Wesleyan brethren, states, "Our own brethren
preach almost daily." "We think the negroes are uncommonly punctual and
regular in their attendance upon divine worship, particularly on the
Sabbath." "They always show a readiness to contribute to the support of
the gospel. With the present low wages, and the entire charge of
self-maintenance, they have little to spare." Parham and Sion Hill (taken
as specimens) have societies almost entirely composed of rural
blacks--about thirteen hundred and fifty in number. These have
contributed this year above £330 sterling, or sixteen hundred and fifty
dollars, in little weekly subscriptions; besides giving to special
objects occasionally, and contributing for the support of schools.[A]

[Footnote A: The superintendent of the Wesleyan mission informed us that
the collection in the several Wesleyan chapels last year, independent of
occasional contributions to Sunday schools, Missionary objects, &c.,
amounted to £850 sterling, or more than $4000!]

In a letter dated December 2d, 1834, but four months after emancipation,
and addressed to the missionary board in England, the Rev. B. Harvey
thus speaks of the Moravian missions: "With respect to our people, I
believe; I may say that in all our places here, they attend the meetings
of the church more numerously than ever, and that many are now in
frequent attendance who _could very seldom appear amongst us during
slavery_." The same statements substantially were made to us by Mr. H.,
showing that instead of any falling off the attendance was still on
the increase.

In a statement drawn up at our request by the Rector of St. John's, is
the following: "Cases of discipline are more frequent than is usual in
English congregations, but at the same time it should be observed, that
a _closer oversight_ is maintained by the ministers, and a _greater
readiness to submit themselves_ (to discipline) is manifested by the
late slaves here than by those who have always been a free people." "I
am able to speak very favorably of the attendance at church--it is
regular and crowded." "The negroes on some estates have been known to
contribute willingly to the Bible Society, since 1832. They are now
beginning to pay a penny and a half currency per week for their
children's instruction."

MORALITY.

The condition of Antigua, but a very few years previous to emancipation,
is represented to have been truly revolting. It has already been stated
that the Sabbath was the market day up to 1832, and this is evidence
enough that the Lord's day was utterly desecrated by the mass of the
population. Now there are few parts of our own country, equal in
population, which can vie with Antigua in the solemn and respectful
observance of the Sabbath. Christians in St. John's spoke with joy and
gratitude of the tranquillity of the Sabbath. They had long been shocked
with its open and abounding profanation--until they had well-nigh forgot
the aspect of a Christian Sabbath. At length the full-orbed blessing
beamed upon them, and they rejoiced in its brightness, and thanked God
for its holy repose.

All persons of all professions testify to the fact that _marriages_ are
rapidly increasing. In truth, there was scarcely such a thing as
marriage before the abolition of slavery. Promiscuous intercourse of the
sexes was almost universal. In a report of the Antigua Branch
Association of the Society for advancing the Christian Faith in the
British West Indies, (for 1836,) the following statements are made:

"The number of marriages in the six parishes of the island, in the year
1835, the first entire year of freedom, was 476; all of which, excepting
about 50, were between persons formerly slaves. The total number of
marriages between slaves solemnized in the Church during the nine years
ending December 31, 1832, was 157; in 1833, the last entire year of
slavery, it was 61."

Thus it appears that the whole number of marriages during _ten years_
previous to emancipation (by far the most favorable ten years that could
have been selected) was but _half_ as great as the number for a single
year following emancipation!

The Governor, in one of our earliest interviews with him, said, "the
great crime of this island, as indeed of all the West India Colonies,
has been licentiousness, but we are certainly fast improving in this
particular." An aged Christian, who has spent many years in the island,
and is now actively engaged in superintending several day schools for
the negro children, informed us that there was not _one third_ as much
concubinage as formerly. This he said was owing mainly to the greater
frequency of marriages, and the cessation of late night work on the
estates, and in the boiling houses, by which the females were constantly
exposed during slavery. Now they may all be in their houses by dark.
Formerly the mothers were the betrayers of their daughters, encouraging
them to form unhallowed connections, and even _selling_ them to
licentious white and colored men, for their own gain. Now they were
using great strictness to preserve the chastity of their daughters.

A worthy planter, who has been in the island since 1800, stated, that it
used to be a common practice for mothers to _sell their daughters_ to
the highest bidder!--generally a manager or overseer. "But now;" said he,
"the mothers _hold their daughters up for marriage_, and take pains to
let every body know that their virtue is not to be bought and sold any
longer." He also stated that those who live unmarried now are uniformly
neglected and suffer great deprivations. Faithfulness after marriage,
exists also to a greater extent than could have been expected from the
utter looseness to which they had been previously accustomed, and with
their ignorance of the nature and obligations of the marriage relation.
We were informed both by the missionaries and the planters, that every
year and month they are becoming more constant, as husband and wife,
more faithful as parents, and more dutiful as children. One planter said
that out of a number who left his employ after 1834, nearly all had
companions on other estates, and left for the purpose of being with
them. He was also of the opinion that the greater proportion of changes
of residence among the emancipated which took place at that time, were
owing to the same cause.[A] In an address before the Friendly Society in
St. John's, the Archdeacon stated that during the previous year (1835)
several individuals had been expelled from that society for domestic
unfaithfulness; but he was happy to say that he had not heard of a
single instance of expulsion for this cause during the year then ended.
Much inconvenience is felt on account of the Moravian and Wesleyan
missionaries being prohibited from performing the marriage service, even
for their own people. Efforts are now making to obtain the repeal of the
law which makes marriages performed by sectarians (as all save the
established church are called) void.

[Footnote A: What a resurrection to domestic life was that, when long
severed families flocked from the four corners of the island to meet
their kindred members! And what a glorious resurrection will that be in
our own country, when the millions of emancipated beings scattered over
the west and south, shall seek the embraces of parental and fraternal
and conjugal love.]

That form of licentiousness which appears among the higher classes in
every slaveholding country, abounded in Antigua during the reign of
slavery. It has yielded its redundant fruits in a population of four
thousand colored people; double the number of whites. The planters, with
but few exceptions, were unmarried and licentious. Nor was this vice
confined to the unmarried. Men with large families, kept one or more
mistresses without any effort at concealment. We were told of an
"Honorable" gentleman, who had his English wife and two concubines, a
colored and a black one. The governor himself stated as an apology for
the prevalence of licentiousness among the slaves, that the example was
set them constantly by their masters, and it was not to be wondered at
if they copied after their superiors. But it is now plain that
concubinage among the whites is nearly at an end. An unguarded statement
of a public man revealed the conviction which exists among his class
that concubinage must soon cease. He said that the present race of
colored people could not be received into the society of the whites,
_because of illegitimacy_; but the next generation would be fit
associates for the whites, _because they would be chiefly born
in wedlock_.

The uniform testimony respecting _intemperance_ was, that it _never had
been one of the vices of the negroes_. Several planters declared that
they had rarely seen a black person intoxicated. The report of the
Wesleyan missionaries already referred to, says, "Intemperance is most
uncommon among the rural negroes. Many have joined the Temperance
Society, and many act on tee-total principles." The only _colored_
person (either black or brown) whom we saw drunk during a residence of
nine weeks in Antigua, was a carpenter in St. John's, who as he reeled
by, stared in our faces and mumbled out his sentence of condemnation
against wine bibbers, "--Gemmen--you sees I'se a little bit drunk, but
'pon honor I only took th--th-ree bottles of wine--that's all." It was
"Christmas times," and doubtless the poor man thought he would venture
for once in the year to copy the example of the whites.

In conclusion, on the subject of morals in Antigua, we are warranted in
stating, 1st., That during the continuance of slavery, immoralities
were rife.

2d. That the repeated efforts of the home Government and the local
Legislature, for several successive years previous to 1834, to
_ameliorate_ the system of slavery, seconded by the labors of clergymen
and missionaries, teachers and catechists, to improve the character of
the slaves, failed to arrest the current of vice and profligacy. What
few reformations were effected were very partial, leaving the more
enormous immoralities as shameless and defiant as ever, up to the very
day of abolition; demonstrating the utter impotence of all attempts to
purify the _streams_ while the _fountain_ is poison.

3d. That the abolition of slavery gave the death blow to open vice,
overgrown and emboldened as it had become. Immediate emancipation,
instead of lifting the flood-gates, was the only power strong enough to
shut them down! It restored the proper restraints upon vice, and
supplied the incentives to virtue. Those great controllers of moral
action, _self-respect, attachment to law, and veneration for God_, which
slavery annihilated, _freedom has resuscitated_, and now they stand
round about the emancipated with flaming swords deterring from evil, and
with cheering voices exhorting to good. It is explicitly affirmed that
the grosser forms of immorality, which in every country attend upon
slavery, have in Antigua either shrunk into concealment or
become extinct.

BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.

We insert here a brief account of the benevolent institutions of
Antigua. Our design in giving it, is to show the effect of freedom in
bringing into play those charities of social life, which slavery
uniformly stifles. Antigua abounds in benevolent societies, all of which
have been _materially revived_ since emancipation, and some of them have
been formed since that event.

THE BIBLE SOCIETY.

This is the oldest society in the island. It was organized in 1815. All
denominations in the island cordially unite in this cause. The principal
design of this society is to promote the Circulation of the Scriptures
among the laboring population of the island. To secure this object
numerous branch associations--amounting to nearly fifty--have been
organized throughout the island _among the negroes themselves._ The
society has been enabled not only to circulate the Scriptures among the
people of Antigua, but to send them extensively to the neighboring
islands.

The following table, drawn up at our request by the Secretary of the
Society, will show the extent of foreign operations:

Years.     Colonies Supplied. Bibles. Test's.
1822       Anguilla             94      156
  23       Demerara             18       18
  24       Dominica             89      204
  25       Montserrat           57      149
  27       Nevis                79      117
  32       Saba                  6       12
  33       St. Bart's          111       65
  34       St. Eustatius        97      148
  35       St. Kitts           227      487
           St. Martins          48       37
  36       Tortola              69      136
To
1837       Trinidad             25       67
                              ____     ____
                   Total       920     1596

From the last annual report we quote the following cheering account,
touching the events of 1834:

"The next event of importance in or annals is the magnificent grant of
the parent society, on occasion of the emancipation of the slaves, and
the perpetual banishment of slavery from the shores of Antigua, on the
first of August, 1834; by which a choice portion of the Holy Scriptures
was gratuitously circulated to about one third of the inhabitants of
this colony. Nine thousand seven hundred copies of the New Testament,
bound together with the book of Psalms, were thus placed at the disposal
of your committee."

* * * "Following hard upon this joyful event another gratifying
circumstance occurred among us. The attention of the people was roused,
and their gratitude excited towards the Bible Society, and they who had
freely received, now freely gave, and thus a considerable sum of money
was presented to the parent society in acknowledgment of its
beneficent grant."

We here add an extract from the annual report for 1826. Its sentiments
contrast strongly with the congratulations of the last report upon 'the
joyful event' of emancipation.

"Another question of considerable delicacy and importance still remains
to be discussed. Is it advisable, under all the circumstances of the
case, to circulate the Holy Scriptures, without note of comment, among
the slave population of these islands? Your Committee can feel no
hesitation in affirming that such a measure is not merely expedient, but
one of almost indispensable necessity. The Sacred Volume is in many
respects peculiarly adapted to the slave. It enjoins upon him precepts
so plain, that the most ignorant cannot fail to understand them:
'Slaves, obey in all things your masters, not with eye service, as men
pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God.' It furnishes him
with motives the most impressive and consoling: 'Ye serve,' says the
Apostle, 'the Lord Christ.' It promises him rewards sufficient to
stimulate the most indolent to exertion: 'Whatsoever good thing any man
doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or
free.' And it holds forth to him an example so glorious, that it would
ennoble even angels to imitate it: 'Let this mind be in you which was
also in Christ Jesus, who made himself of no reputation, and took upon
him the form of a _slave_!'"

"It may here be proper to observe, that the precise import of the word,
which in general throughout the English Bible is translated _servant_,
is strictly that which has been assigned it in the foregoing quotations;
(!) and so understood, the Sacred Volume will be found to hold out to
our slaves, both by precept and example the most persuasive and the most
compelling motives to industry, obedience, and submission."

Nothing could more plainly show the corrupting influences of slavery,
upon all within its reach, than this spectacle of a noble, religious
institution, prostituted to the vile work of defending oppression, and,
in the zeal of its advocacy, blasphemously degrading the Savior into a
self-made slave!

The receipts of the Antigua Branch Society have greatly increased since
emancipation. From receipts for the year 1836, in each of the British
islands, it appears that the contributions from Antigua and Bermuda, the
only two islands which adopted entire emancipation, are about _double_
those from any other two islands.

MISSIONARY ASSOCIATIONS.

These associations are connected with the Wesleyan mission, and have
been in existence since 1820. Their object is to raise funds for the
parent society in England. Although it has been in existence for several
years, yet it was mostly confined to the whites and free people of
color, during slavery. The calling together assemblies of rural negroes,
and addressing them on the subject of missions, and soliciting
contributions in aid of the cause, is a new feature in the missionary
operations to which nothing but freedom could give birth.

TEMPERANCE SOCIETIES.

The first temperance society in Antigua was formed at the beginning of
1836. We give an extract from the first annual report: "Temperance
societies have been formed in each town, and on many of the estates. A
large number of persons who once used spirituous liquors moderately,
have entirely relinquished the use. Some who were once intemperate have
been reclaimed, and in some instances an adoption of the principles of
the temperance society, has been followed by the pursuit and enjoyment
of vital religion. Domestic peace and quietness have superseded discord
and strife, and a very general sense of astonishment at the gross
delusion which these drinks have long produced on the human species
is manifest."

"The numbers on the various books of the society amount to about 1700.
One pleasing feature in their history, is the very small number of those
who have violated their pledge."

"On several estates, the usual allowance of spirits has been
discontinued, and sugar or molasses substituted."

The temperance society in Antigua may be specially regarded as a result
of emancipation. It is one of the guardian angels which hastened to the
island as soon as the demon of slavery was cast out.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

The friendly societies are designed exclusively for the benefit of the
negro population. The general object is thus stated in the constitution
of one of these societies: "The object of this society is to assist in
the purchase of articles of mourning for the dead; to give relief in
cases of unlooked for distress; to help those who through age or
infirmities are incapable of helping themselves by marketing, or working
their grounds; _to encourage sobriety and industry, and to check
disorderly and immoral conduct."_

These societies obtain their funds by laying a tax of one shilling per
month on every member above eighteen years of age, and of six pence per
month on all members under that age and above twelve, which is the
minimum of membership. The aged members are required to pay no more than
the sum last mentioned.

The first society of this kind was established in St. John's by the
present rector, in 1829. Subsequently the Moravians and Wesleyans formed
similar societies among their own people. Independent of the pecuniary
assistance which these societies bestow, they encourage in a variety of
ways the good order of the community. For example, no one is allowed to
receive assistance who is "disabled by drunkenness, debauchery, or
disorderly living;" also, "if any member of the society, male or female,
is guilty of adultery or fornication, the offending member shall be
suspended for so long a time as the members shall see fit, and shall
lose all claim on the society for any benefit during the suspension, and
shall not be readmitted until clear and satisfactory evidence is given
of penitence." Furthermore, "If any member of the society shall be
expelled from the church to which he or she belongs, or shall commit any
offence punishable by a magistrate, that member forfeits his membership
in the society." Again, the society directly encourages marriage, by
"making a present of a young pig to every child born in wedlock, and
according as their funds will admit of it, giving rewards to those
married persons living faithfully, or single persons living virtuously,
who take a pride in keeping their houses neat and tidy, and their
gardens flourishing."

These societies have been more than doubled, both in the number of
members and in the annual receipts, since emancipation.

Of the societies connected with the established church, the rector of
St. John's thus speaks: "At the beginning of 1834 there were eleven
societies, embracing 1602 members. At the beginning of 1835 they
numbered 4197; and in 1836 there were 4560 members," _almost quadrupled
in two years!_

The societies connected with the Moravian church, have more than
doubled, both in members and funds, since emancipation. The funds now
amount to $10,000 per year.

The Wesleyans have four Friendly societies. The largest society, which
contained six hundred and fifty members, was organized in the _month of
August_, 1834. The last year it had expended £700 currency, and had then
in its treasury £600 currency.

Now, be it remembered that the Friendly societies exist solely among the
freed negroes, _and that the moneys are raised exclusively among them._
Among whom? A people who are said to be so proverbially improvident,
that to emancipate them, would be to abandon them to beggary, nakedness,
and starvation;--a people who "cannot take care of themselves;" who
"will not work when freed from the fear of the lash;" who "would
squander the earnings of the day in debaucheries at night;" who "would
never provide for to-morrow for the wants of a family, or for the
infirmities of old age." Yea, among _negroes_ these things are done; and
that, too, where the wages are but one shilling per day--less than
sufficient, one would reasonably suppose, to provide daily food.

DAILY MEAL SOCIETY.

The main object of this society is denoted by its name. It supplies a
daily meal to those who are otherwise unprovided for. A commodious house
had just been completed in the suburbs of the town, capable of lodging a
considerable number of beneficiaries. It is designed to shelter those
who are diseased, and cannot walk to and fro for their meals. The number
now fed at this house is from eighty to a hundred. The diseased, who
live at the dispensary, are mostly those who are afflicted with the
elephantiasis, by which they are rendered entirely helpless. Medical aid
is supplied free of expense. It is worthy of remark, that there is no
_public poor-house_ in Antigua,--a proof of the industry and prosperity
of the emancipated people.

DISTRESSED FEMALES' FRIEND SOCIETY.

This is a society in St. John's: there is also a similar one, called the
Female Refuge Society, at English Harbor. Both these societies were
established and are conducted by colored ladies. They are designed to
promote two objects: the support of destitute aged females of color, and
the rescue of poor young colored females from vice. The necessity for
special efforts for the first object, arose out of the fact, that the
colored people were allowed no parochial aid whatever, though they were
required to pay their parochial taxes; hence, the support of their own
poor devolved upon themselves. The demand for vigorous action in behalf
of the young, grew out of the prevailing licentiousness of slave-holding
times. The society in St. John's has been in existence since 1815. It
has a large and commodious asylum, and an annual income, by
subscriptions, of £350, currency. This society, and the Female Refuge
Society established at English Harbor, have been instrumental in
effecting a great reform in the morals of females, and particularly in
exciting reprobation against that horrid traffic--the sale of girls by
their mothers for purposes of lust. We were told of a number of cases in
which the society in St. John's had rescued young females from impending
ruin. Many members of the society itself, look to it as the guardian of
their orphanage. Among other cases related to us, was that of a lovely
girl of fifteen, who was bartered away to a planter by her mother, a
dissolute woman. The planter was to give her a quantity of cloth to the
value of £80 currency, and two young slaves; he was also to give the
grandmother, for her interest in the girl, _one gallon of rum_! The
night was appointed, and a gig in waiting to take away the victim, when
a female friend was made acquainted with the plot, just in time to save
the girl by removing her to her own house. The mother was infuriated,
and endeavored to get her back, but the girl had occasionally attended a
Sabbath school, where she imbibed principles which forbade her to yield
even to her mother for such an unhallowed purpose. She was taken before
a magistrate, and indentured herself to a milliner for two years. The
mother made an attempt to regain her, and was assisted by some whites
with money to commence a suit for that purpose. The lady who defended
her was accordingly prosecuted, and the whole case became notorious. The
prosecutors were foiled. At the close of her apprenticeship, the young
woman was married to a highly respectable colored gentleman, now
resident in St. John's. The notoriety which was given to the above case
had a happy effect. It brought the society and its object more fully
before the public, and the contributions for its support greatly
increased. Those for whose benefit the asylum was opened, heard of it,
and came begging to be received.

This society is a signal evidence that the colored people neither lack
the ability to devise, nor the hearts to cherish, nor the zeal to
execute plans of enlarged benevolence and mercy.

The Juvenile Association, too, of which we gave some account in
describing its anniversary, originated with the colored people, and
furnishes additional evidence of the talents and charities of that class
of the community. Besides the societies already enumerated, there are
two associations connected with the Established Church, called the
"Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge," and the "Branch
Association of the Society for Advancing the Christian Faith in the
British West Indies, &c." These societies are also designed chiefly for
the benefit of the negro population.

EDUCATION.

Our inquiries under this head were directed to three principal
points--first, The extent to which education prevailed previous to
emancipation; second, The improvements introduced since; and third, The
comparative capacity of negroes for receiving instruction.

Being providentially in the island at the season of the year when all
the schools have their annual examinations, we enjoyed the most
favorable opportunities for procuring intelligence on the subject of
education. From various quarters we received invitations to attend
school examinations. We visited the schools at Parham, Willoughby Bay,
Newfield; Cedar Hall, Grace Bay, Fitch's Creek, and others: besides
visiting the parochial school, the rectory school, the Moravian and
Wesleyan schools, in St. John's. All the schools, save those in St.
John's, were almost exclusively composed of emancipated children from
the estates.

VISIT TO THE PAROCHIAL SCHOOL.

At the invitation of the Governor, we accompanied him to the annual
examination of the parochial school, in St. John's, under the
superintendance of the Episcopal church. It has increased greatly, both
in scholars and efficiency, since emancipation, and contributions are
made to its support by the parents whose children receive its benefits.
We found one hundred and fifty children, of both sexes, assembled in the
society's rooms. There was every color present, from the deepest hue of
the Ethiopian, to the faintest shadowing of brown.

The boys constituting the first class, to the number of fifty, were
called up. They read with much fluency and distinctness, equalling white
boys of the same age anywhere. After reading, various questions were put
to them by the Archdeacon, which they answered with promptness and
accuracy. Words were promiscuously selected from the chapter they had
read, and every one was promptly spelled. The catechism was the next
exercise, and they manifested a thorough acquaintance with its contents.

Our attention was particularly called to the examination in arithmetic.
Many of the children solved questions readily in the compound rules, and
several of them in Practice, giving the different parts of the pound,
shilling, and penny, used in that rule, and all the whys and wherefores
of the thing, with great promptness. One lad, only ten years of age,
whose attendance had been very irregular on account of being employed in
learning a trade, performed intricate examples in Practice, with a
facility worthy the counting-house desk. We put several inquiries on
different parts of the process, in order to test their real knowledge,
to which we always received clear answers.

The girls were then examined in the same studies and exercises, except
arithmetic, and displayed the same gratifying proficiency. They also
presented specimens of needlework and strawbraiding, which the ladies,
on whose better judgment we depend, pronounced very creditable. We
noticed several girls much older than the others, who had made much less
advance in their studies, and on inquiry learned, that they had been
members of the school but a short time, having formerly been employed to
wield the heavy hoe in the cane field. The parents are very desirous to
give their children education, and make many sacrifices for that
purpose. Many who are field-laborers in the country, receiving their
shilling a day, have sent their children to reside with some relations
or friends in town, for the purpose of giving them the benefits of this
school. Several such children were pointed out to us. The increase of
female scholars during the first year of emancipation, was in this
school alone, about eighty.

For our gratification, the Governor requested that all the children
emancipated on the _first of August_, might be called up and placed on
our side of the room. Nearly one hundred children, of both sexes, who
two years ago were _slaves_, now stood up before us FREE. We noticed one
little girl among the rest, about ten years old, who bore not the least
tinge of color. Her hair was straight and light, and her face had that
mingling of vermilion and white, which Americans seem to consider, not
only the nonpareil standard of beauty, but the immaculate test of human
rights. At her side was another with the deepest hue of the native
African. There were high emotions on the countenances of those redeemed
ones, when we spoke to them of emancipation. The undying principle of
freedom living and burning in the soul of the most degraded slave, like
lamps amid the darkness of eastern sepulchres, was kindling up
brilliantly within them, young as they were, and flashing in smiles upon
their ebon faces.

The Governor made a few remarks, in which he gave some good advice, and
expressed himself highly pleased with the appearance and proficiency of
the school.

His excellency remarked to us in a tone of pleasantry, "You see,
gentlemen, these children have _souls_."

During the progress of the examination; he said to us, "You perceive
that it is our policy to give these children every chance to make _men_
of themselves. We look upon them as our _future citizens_." He had no
doubt that the rising generation would assume a position in society
above the contempt or opposition of the whites.

INFANT SCHOOLS IN THE COUNTRY.

We had the pleasure of attending one of the infant schools in the
vicinity of Parham, on the east side of the island. Having been invited
by a planter, who kindly sent his horse and carriage for our conveyance,
to call and take breakfast with him on our way, we drove out early in
the morning.

While we were walking about the estate, our attention was arrested by
distant singing. As we cast our eyes up a road crossing the estate, we
discovered a party of children! They were about twenty in number, and
were marching hand in hand to the music of their infant voices. They
were children from a neighboring estate, on their way to the examination
at Parham, and were singing the hymns which they had learned at school.
All had their Testaments in their hands, and seemed right merry-hearted.

We were received at the gate of the chapel by the Wesleyan missionary
located in this distinct, a highly respectable and intelligent colored
man, who was ten years since a _slave_. He gave us a cordial welcome,
and conducted us to the chapel, where we found the children, to the
number of _four hundred_, assembled, and the examination already
commenced. There were six schools present, representing about twenty
estates, and arranged under their respective teachers. The ages of the
pupils were from three to ten or twelve. They were all, with the
exception of two or three, the children of emancipated slaves.

They came up by classes to the superintendent's desk, where they read
and were examined. They read correctly; some of them too, who had been
in school only a few mouths, in any portion of the New Testament
selected for them. By request of the superintendent, we put several
inquiries to them, which they answered in a way which showed that they
_thought_. They manifested an acquaintance with the Bible and the use of
language which was truly surprising. It was delightful to see so many
tiny beings stand around you, dressed in their tidy gowns and frocks,
with their bright morning faces, and read with the self-composure of
manhood, any passage chosen for them. They all, large and small, bore in
their hands the charter of their freedom, the book by the influence of
which they received all the privileges they were enjoying. On the cover
of each was stamped in large capitals--"PRESENTED BY THE BRITISH AND
FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY, IN COMMEMORATION OF THE FIRST OF AUGUST, 1834."

At the close of the examination, the rewards, consisting of books,
work-bags, &c. &c., chiefly sent by a society of females in England,
were distributed. It was impossible to repress the effervescence of the
little expectants. As a little one four years old came up for her
reward, the superintendent said to her--"Well, little Becky, what do you
want?" "Me wants a bag," said Becky, "and me wants a pin-cushion, and me
wants a little book." Becky's desires were large, but being a good girl,
she was gratified. Occasionally the girls were left to choose between a
book and a work-bag, and although the bag might be gaudy and tempting,
they invariably took the book.

The teachers were all but one blacks, and were formerly slaves. They are
very devoted and faithful, but are ill-qualified for their duties,
having obtained all the learning they possess in the Sabbath school.
They are all pious, and exert a harpy influence on the morals of
their pupils.

The number of scholars has very greatly increased since emancipation,
and their morals have essentially improved. Instances of falsehood and
theft, which at first were fearfully frequent and bold, have much
lessened. They begin to have a regard for _character_. Their sense of
right and wrong is enlightened, and their power of resisting temptation,
and adhering to right, manifestly increased.

On the whole, we know not where we have looked on a more delightful
scene. To stand in front of the pulpit and look around on a multitude of
negro children, gathered from the sordid huts into which slavery had
carried ignorance and misery--to see them coming up, with their teachers
of the same proscribed hue, to hear them read the Bible, answer with
readiness the questions of their superintendent, and lift up together
their songs of infant praise, and then to remember that two years ago
these four hundred children were _slaves_, and still more to remember
that in our own country, boasting its republicanism and Christian
institutions, there are thousands of just such children under the yoke
and scourge, in utter heathenism, the victims of tyrannic _law_ or of
more tyrannic public opinion--caused the heart to swell with emotions
unutterable. There were as many intelligent countenances, and as much
activity and sprightliness, as we ever saw among an equal number of
children anywhere. The correctness of their reading, the pertinence of
their replies, the general proofs of talent which they showed through
all the exercises, evinced that they are none inferior to the children
of their white oppressors.

After singing a hymn they all kneeled down, and the school closed with a
prayer and benediction. They continued singing as they retired from the
house, and long after they had parted on their different ways home,
their voices swelled on the breeze at a distance as the little parties
from the estates chanted on their way the songs of the school room.

WILLOUGHBY BAY EXAMINATION.

When we entered the school house at Willoughby Bay, which is capable of
containing a thousand persons, a low murmur, like the notes of
preparation, ran over the multitude. One school came in after we
arrived, marching in regular file, with their teacher, a negro man, at
their head, and their _standard bearer_ following; next, a sable girl
with a box of Testaments on her head. The whole number of children was
three hundred and fifty. The male division was first called out, and
marched several times around the room, singing and keeping a regular
step. After several rounds, they came to a halt, filing off and forming
into ranks four rows deep--in quarter-circle shape. The music still
continuing, the girls sallied forth, went through the same evolutions,
and finally formed in rows corresponding with those of the boys, so as
to compose with the latter a semicircle.

The schools were successively examined in spelling, reading, writing,
cyphering, &c., after the manner already detailed. In most respects they
showed equal proficiency with the children of Parham; and in reading the
Testament, their accuracy was even greater. In looking over the writing,
several "incendiary" copies caught our eyes. One was, "_Masters, give
unto your servants that which is just and equal_." Another, "_If I
neglect the cause of my servant, what shall I do when I appear before my
Master_!" A few years ago, _had children been permitted to write at
all_, one such copy as the above would have exploded the school, and
perchance sent the teacher to jail for sedition. But now, thanks to God!
the Negro children of Antigua are taught liberty from their Bibles, from
their song books, and from their _copy books_ too; they read of liberty,
they sing of it, and they write of it; they chant to liberty in their
school rooms, and they resume the strains on their homeward way, till
every rustling lime-grove, and waving cane-field, is alive with their
notes, and every hillock and dell rings with "free" echoes.

The girls, in their turn, pressed around us with the liveliest eagerness
to display their little pieces of needle-work. Some had samplers marked
with letters and devices in vari-colored silk. Others showed specimens
of stitching; while the little ones held up their rude attempts at
hemming handkerchiefs, aprons, and so on.

During the exercises we spoke to several elderly women, who were present
to witness the scene. They were laborers on the estates, but having
children in the school, they had put on their Sunday dresses, and "come
to see." We spoke to one, of the privileges which the children were
enjoying, since freedom. Her eyes filled, and she exclaimed, "Yes,
massa, we do tank de good Lord for bring de free--never can be too
tankful." She said she had seven children present, and it made her feel
happy to know that they were learning to read. Another woman said, when
she heard the children reading so finely, she wanted to "take de word's
out of da mouts and put em in her own." In the morning, when she first
entered the school house, she felt quite sick, but all the pleasant
things she saw and heard, had made her well, and she added, "I tell you,
me massa, it do my old heart good to come here." Another aged woman, who
had grand-children in the school, said, when she saw what advantages the
children enjoyed, she almost cried to think she was not a child too.
Besides these there were a number of adult men and women, whom curiosity
or parental solicitude had brought together, and they were thronging
about the windows and doors witnessing the various exercises with the
deepest interest. Among the rest was one old patriarch, who, anxious to
bear some part however humble in the exercises of the occasion, walked
to and fro among the children, with a six feet pole in his hand, to
keep order.

These schools, and those examined at Parham, are under the general
supervision of Mr. Charles Thwaites, an indefatigable and long tried
friend of the negroes.

We here insert a valuable communication which we received from Mr. T. in
reply to several queries addressed to him. It will give further
information relative to the schools.

_Mr. Charles Thwaites' Replies to Queries on Education in Antigua._

1. What has been your business for some years past in Antigua?

A superintendent of schools, and catechist to the negroes.

2. How long have you been engaged in this business?

Twenty-four years. The first four years engaged gratuitously, ten years
employed by the Church Missionary Society, and since, by the Wesleyan
Missionary Society.

3. How many schools have you under your charge?

Sunday schools, (including all belonging to the Wesleyan Missionary
Society,) eight, with 1850 scholars; day schools, seventeen with 1250
scholars; night schools on twenty-six estates, 336 scholars. The total
number of scholars under instruction is about 3500.

4. Are the scholars principally the children who were emancipated in
August, 1834?

Yes, except the children in St. John's, most of whom were free before.

5. Are the teachers negroes, colored, or white?

One white, four colored, and sixteen black.[A]

[Footnote A: This number includes only salaried teachers, and not the
gratuitous.]

6. How many of the teachers were slaves prior to the first of August,
1834?

Thirteen.

7. What were their opportunities for learning?

The Sunday and night schools; and they have much improved themselves
since they have been in their present employment.

8. What are their qualifications for teaching, as to education,
religion, zeal, perseverance, &c.?

The white and two of the colored teachers, I presume, are well
calculated, in all respects, to carry on a school in the ablest manner.
The others are deficient in education, but are zealous, and very
persevering.

9. What are the wages of these teachers?

The teachers' pay is, some four, and some three dollars per month. This
sum is far too small, and would be greater if the funds were sufficient.

10. How and by whom are the expenses of superintendent, teachers, and
schools defrayed?

The superintendent's salary, &c., is paid by the Wesleyan Missionary
Society. The expenses of teachers and schools are defrayed by charitable
societies and friends in England, particularly the Negro Education
Society, which grants 50l. sterling per annum towards this object, and
pays the rent of the Church Missionary Society's premises in Willoughby
Bay for use of the schools. About 46l. sterling per annum is also raised
from the children; each child taught writing and needle-work, pays
1-1/2d. sterling per week.

11. Is it your opinion that the negro children are as ready to receive
instruction as white children?

Yes, perfectly so.

12. Do parents manifest interest in the education of their children?

They do. Some of the parents are, however, still very ignorant, and are
not aware how much their children lose by irregular attendance at
the schools.

13. Have there been many instances of _theft_ among the scholars?

Not more than among any other class of children.

RESULTS.

Besides an attendance upon the various schools, we procured specific
information from teachers, missionaries, planters, and others, with
regard to the past and present state of education, and the weight of
testimony was to the following effect:

First, That education was by no means extensive previous to
emancipation. The testimony of one planter was, that not a _tenth part_
of the present adult population knew the letters of the alphabet. Other
planters, and some missionaries, thought the proportion might be
somewhat larger; but all agreed that it was very small. The testimony of
the venerable Mr. Newby, the oldest Moravian missionary in the island,
was, that such was the opposition among the planters, it was impossible
to teach the slaves, excepting by night, secretly. Mr. Thwaites informed
us that the children were not allowed to attend day school after they
were six years old. All the instruction they obtained after that age,
was got at night--a very unsuitable time to study, for those who worked
all day under an exhausting sun. It is manifest that the instruction
received under six years of age, would soon be effaced by the incessant
toil of subsequent life. The account given in a former connection of the
adult school under the charge of Mr. Morrish, at Newfield, shows most
clearly the past inattention to education. And yet Mr. M. stated that
his school was a _fair specimen of the intelligence of the negroes
generally_. One more evidence in point is the acknowledged ignorance of
Mr. Thwaites' teachers. After searching through the whole freed
population for a dozen suitable teachers of children. Mr. T. could not
find even that number who could _read well_. Many children in the
schools of six years old read better than their teachers.

We must not be understood to intimate that up to the period of the
Emancipation, the planters utterly prohibited the education of their
slaves. Public sentiment had undergone some change previous to that
event. When the public opinion of England began to be awakened against
slavery, the planters were indured, for peace sake, to _tolerate_
education to some extent; though they cannot be said to have
_encouraged_ it until after Emancipation. This is the substance of the
statements made to us. Hence it appears that when the active opposition
of the planters to education ceased, it was succeeded by a general
indifference, but little less discouraging. We of course speak of the
planters as a body; there were some honorable exceptions.

Second, Education has become very extensive _since_ emancipation. There
are probably not less than _six thousand_ children who now enjoy daily
instruction. These are of all ages under twelve. All classes feel an
interest in _knowledge_. While the schools previously established are
flourishing in newness of life, additional ones are springing up in
every quarter. Sabbath schools, adult and infant schools, day and
evening schools, are all crowded. A teacher in a Sabbath school in St.
John's informed us, that the increase in that school immediately after
emancipation was so sudden and great, that he could compare it to
nothing but the rising of the mercury when the thermometer is removed
_out of the shade into the sun_.

We learned that the Bible was the principal book taught in all the
schools throughout the island. As soon as the children have learned to
read, the Bible is put into their hands. They not only read it, but
commit to memory portions of it every day:--the first lesson in the
morning is an examination on some passage of scripture. We have never
seen, even among Sabbath school children, a better acquaintance with the
characters and events recorded in the Old and New Testaments, than among
the negro children in Antigua. Those passages which inculcate _obedience
to law_ are strongly enforced; and the prohibitions against stealing,
lying, cheating, idleness, &c., are reiterated day and night.

Great attention is paid to _singing_ in all the schools.

The songs which they usually sung, embraced such topics as Love to
God--the presence of God--obedience to parents--friendship for brothers
and sisters and schoolmates--love of school--the sinfulness of sloth, of
lying, and of stealing. We quote the following hymn as a specimen of the
subjects which are introduced into their songs: often were we greeted
with this sweet hymn, while visiting the different schools throughout
the island.

BROTHERLY LOVE.

   CHORUS.

   We're all brothers, sisters, brothers,
   We're sisters and brothers,

   And heaven is our home.
   We're all brothers, sisters, brothers,
   We're sisters and brothers,
   And heaven is our home.

   The God of heaven is pleased to see
   That little children all agree;
   And will not slight the praise they bring,
   When loving children join to sing:
   We're all brothers, sisters, brothers, &c.

   For love and kindness please him more
   Than if we gave him all our store;
   And children here, who dwell in love,
   Are like his happy ones above.
   We're all brothers, sisters, brothers, &c.

   The gentle child that tries to please,
   That hates to quarrel, fret, and teaze,
   And would not say an angry word--
   That child is pleasing to the Lord.
   We're all brothers, sisters, brothers, &c.

   O God! forgive, whenever we
   Forget thy will, and disagree;
   And grant that each of us, may find
   The sweet delight of being kind.
   We're all brothers, sisters, brothers, &c.

We were convinced that the negroes were as capable of receiving
instruction as any people in the world. The testimony of teachers,
missionaries, clergymen, and planters, was uniform on this point.

Said one planter of age and long experience on the island, "The negroes
are as capable of culture as any people on earth. _Color makes no
difference in minds_. It is slavery alone that has degraded the negro."

Another planter, by way of replying to our inquiry on this subject, sent
for a negro child of five years, who read with great fluency in any part
of the Testament to which we turned her. "Now," said the gentleman, "I
should be ashamed to let you hear my own son, of the same age with that
little girl, read after her." We put the following questions to the
Wesleyan missionaries: "Are the negroes as _apt to learn_, as other
people in similar circumstances?" Their written reply was this: "We
think they are; the same diversified qualities of intellect appear among
them, as among other people." We put the same question to the Moravian
missionaries, to the clergymen, and to the teachers of each
denomination, some of whom, having taught schools in England, were well
qualified to judge between the European children and the negro children;
and we uniformly received substantially the same answer. Such, however,
was the air of surprise with which our question was often received, that
it required some courage to repeat it. Sometimes it excited a smile, as
though we could not be serious in the inquiry. And indeed we seldom got
a direct and explicit answer, without previously stating by way of
explanation that we had no doubts of our own, but wished to remove those
extensively entertained among our countrymen. After all, we were
scarcely credited in Antigua. Such cases as the following were common in
every school: children of four and five years old reading the Bible;
children beginning in their A, B, C's, and learning to read in four
months; children of five and six, answering a variety of questions on
the historical parts of the Old Testament; children but a little older,
displaying fine specimens of penmanship, performing sums in the compound
rules, and running over the multiplication table, and the pound,
shilling, and pence table, without mistake.

We were grieved to find that most of the teachers employed in the
instruction of the children, were exceedingly unfit for the work. They
are very ignorant themselves, and have but little skill in the
management of children. This however is a necessary evil. The
emancipated negroes feel a great anxiety for the education of their
children. They encourage them to go to school, and they labor to support
them, while they have strong temptation to detain them at home to work.
They also pay a small sum every week for the maintenance of the schools.

In conclusion, we would observe, that one of the prominent features of
_regenerated_ Antigua, is its _education_. An intelligent religion, and
a religious education, are the twin glories of this emancipated colony.
It is comment enough upon the difference between slavery and freedom,
that the same agents which are deprecated as the destroyers of the one,
are cherished as the defenders of the other.

Before entering upon a detail of the testimony which bears more directly
upon slavery in America, we deem it proper to consider the inquiry.

"What is the amount of freedom in Antigua, as regulated by law?"

1st. The people are entirely free from the whip, and from all compulsory
control of the master.

2d. They can change employers whenever they become dissatisfied with
their situation, by previously giving a month's notice.

3d. They have the right of trial by jury in all cases of a serious
nature, while for small offences, the magistrate's court is open. They
may have legal redress for any wrong or violence inflicted by their
employers.

4th. Parents have the entire control of their children. The planter
cannot in any way interfere with them. The parents have the whole charge
of their support.

5th. By an express provision of the legislature, it was made obligatory
upon every planter to support all the superannuated, infirm, or diseased
on the estate, _who were such at this time of emancipation_. Those who
have become so since 1834, fall upon the hands of their relatives for
maintenance.

6th. The amount of wages is not determined by law. By a general
understanding among the planters, the rate is at present fixed at a
shilling per day, or a little more than fifty cents per week, counting
five working days. This matter is wisely left to be regulated by the
character of the seasons, and the mutual agreement of the parties
concerned. As the island is suffering rather from a paucity of laborers,
than otherwise, labor must in good seasons command good wages. The
present rate of wages is extremely low, though it is made barely
tolerable by the additional perquisites which the people enjoy. They
have them houses rent free, and in connection with them small premises
forty feet square, suitable for gardens, and for raising poultry, and
pigs, &c.; for which they always find a ready market. Moreover, they are
burthened with no taxes whatever; and added to this, they are supplied
with medical attendance at the expense of the estates.

7th. The master is authorized in case of neglect of work, or turning out
late in the morning, or entire absence from labor, to reduce the wages,
or withhold them for a time, not exceeding a week.

8th. The agricultural laborers may leave the field whenever they choose,
(provided they give a month's previous notice,) and engage in any other
business; or they may purchase land and become cultivators themselves,
though in either case they are of course liable to forfeit their houses
on the estates.

9th. They may leave the island, if they choose, and seek their fortunes
in any other part of the world, by making provision for their near
relatives left behind. This privilege has been lately tested by the
emigration of some of the negroes to Demerara. The authorities of the
island became alarmed lest they should lose too many of the laboring
population, and the question was under discussion, at the time we were
in Antigua, whether it would not be lawful to prohibit the emigration.
It was settled, however, that such a measure would be illegal, and the
planters were left to the alternative of either being abandoned by their
negroes, or of securing their continuance by adding to their comforts
and treating them kindly.

10. The right of suffrage, and eligibility to office are subject to no
restrictions, save the single one of property, which is the same with
all colors. The property qualification, however, is so great, as
effectually to exclude the whole agricultural negro population for
many years.

11th. _The main constabulary force is composed of emancipated negroes,
living on the estates_. One or two trust-worthy men on each estate are
empowered with the authority of constables in relation to the people on
the same estate, and much reliance is placed upon these men, to preserve
order and to bring offenders to trial.

12th. A body of police has been established, whose duty it is to arrest
all disorderly or riotous persons, to repair to the estates in case of
trouble, and co-operate with the constables, in arraigning all persons
charged with the violation of law.

13th. The punishment for slight offences, such as stealing sugar-canes
from the field, is confinement in the house of correction, or being
sentenced to the tread-mill, for any period from three days to three
months. The punishment for burglary, and other high offences, is
solitary confinement in chains, or transportation for life to
Botany Bay.

Such are the main features in the statutes, regulating the freedom of
the emancipated population of Antigua. It will be seen that there is no
enactment which materially modifies, or unduly restrains, the liberty of
the subject. There are no secret reservations or postscript provisoes,
which nullify the boon of freedom. Not only is slavery utterly
abolished, but all its appendages are scattered to the winds; and a
system of impartial laws secures justice to all, of every color and
condition.

The measure of success which has crowned the experiment of emancipation
in Antigua--an experiment tried under so many adverse circumstances, and
with comparatively few local advantages--is highly encouraging to
slaveholders in our country. It must be evident that the balance of
advantages between the situation of Antigua and that of the South, _is
decidedly in favor of the latter_. The South has her resident
proprietors, her resources of wealth, talent, and enterprise, and her
preponderance of white population; she also enjoys a regularity of
seasons, but rarely disturbed by desolating droughts, a bracing climate,
which imparts energy and activity to her laboring population, and
comparatively numerous wants to stimulate and press the laborer up to
the _working mark_; she has close by her side the example of a free
country, whose superior progress in internal improvements, wealth, the
arts and sciences, morals and religion, all ocular demonstration to her
of her own wretched policy, and a moving appeal in favor of abolition;
and above all, site has the opportunity of choosing her own mode, and of
ensuring all the blessings of a _voluntary and peaceable manumission_,
while the energies, the resources, the sympathies, and the prayers of
the North, stand pledged to her assistance.

       *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER III.

FACTS AND TESTIMONY.

We have reserved the mass of facts and testimony, bearing immediately
upon slavery in America, in order that we might present them together in
a condensed furor, under distinct heads. These heads, it will be
perceived, consist chiefly of propositions which are warmly contested in
our country. Will the reader examine these principles in the light of
facts? Will the candid of our countrymen--whatever opinions they may
hitherto hate entertained on this subject--hear the concurrent testimony
of numerous planters, legislators, lawyers, physicians, and merchants,
who have until three years past been wedded to slavery by birth,
education, prejudice, associations, and supposed interest, but who have
since been divorced from all connection with the system?

In most cases we shall give the names, the stations, and business of our
witnesses; in a few instances, in which we were requested to withhold
the name, we shall state such circumstances as will serve to show the
standing and competency of the individuals. If the reader should find in
what follows, very little testimony unfavorable to emancipation, he may
know the reason to be, that little was to be gleaned from any part of
Antigua. Indeed, we may say that, with very few exceptions, the
sentiments here recorded as coming from individuals, are really the
sentiments of the whole community. There is no such thing known in
Antigua as an _opposing, disaffected party_. So complete and thorough
has been the change in public opinion, that it would be now
_disreputable_ to speak against emancipation.

FIRST PROPOSITION.--The transition from slavery to freedom is
represented as a greet revolution, by which a prodigious change was
effected in _the condition of the negroes_.

In conversation with us, the planters often spoke of the greatness and
suddenness of the change. Said Mr. Barnard, of Green Castle estate, "The
transition from slavery to freedom, was like passing suddenly out of a
dark dungeon into the light of the sun."

R.B. Eldridge, Esq., a member of the assembly, remarked, that, "There
never had been in the history of the world so great and instantaneous a
change in the condition of so large a body of people."

The Honorable Nicholas Nugent, speaker of the house of assembly, and
proprietor, said, "There never was so sudden a transition from one state
to another, by so large a body of people. When the clock began to strike
the hour of twelve on the last night of July, 1834, the negroes of
Antigua were _slaves_--when it ceased they were all _freemen!_ It was a
stupendous change," he said, "and it was one of the sublimest spectacles
ever witnessed, to see the subjects of the change engaged at the very
moment it occurred, in worshipping God."

These, and very many similar ones, were the spontaneous expressions of
men _who had long contended against the change_ of which they spoke.

It is exceedingly difficult to make slaveholders see that there is any
material difference between slavery and freedom; but when they have once
renounced slavery, they _will magnify this distinction_ more than any
other class of men.

SECOND PROPOSITION.--Emancipation in Antigua was the result of political
and pecuniary considerations merely.

Abolition was seen to be inevitable, and there were but two courses left
to the colonists--to adopt the apprenticeship system, or immediate
emancipation. Motives of convenience led them to choose the latter.
Considerations of general philanthropy, of human rights, and of the
sinfulness of slavery, were scarcely so much as thought of.

Some time previous to the abolition of slavery, a meeting of the
influential men of the island was called in St. John's, to memorialize
parliament against the measure of abolition. When the meeting convened,
the Hon. Samuel O. Baijer, who had been the champion of the opposition,
was called upon to propose a plan of procedure. To the consternation of
the pro-slavery meeting, their leader arose and spoke to the following
effect:--"Gentlemen, my previous sentiments on this subject are well
known to you all; be not surprised to learn that they have undergone an
entire change, I have not altered my views without mature deliberation.
I have been making calculations with regard to the probable results of
emancipation, and _I have ascertained beyond a doubt, that I can
cultivate my estate at least one third cheaper by free labor than by
slave labor_." After Mr. B. had finished his remarks, Mr. S. Shands,
member of assembly, and a wealthy proprietor, observed that he
entertained precisely the same views with those just expressed; but he
thought that the honorable gentleman had been unwise in uttering them in
so public a manner; "for," said he, "should these sentiments reach the
ear of parliament, as coming from us, _it might induce them to withhold
the compensation_."

Col. Edwards, member of the assembly, then arose and said, that he had
long been opposed to slavery, but he had not _dared to avow his
sentiments_.

As might be supposed, the meeting adjourned without effecting the object
for which it was convened.

When the question came before the colonial assembly, similar discussions
ensued, and finally the bill for immediate emancipation passed both
bodies _unanimously_. It was an evidence of the spirit of selfish
expediency, which prompted the whole procedure, that they clogged the
emancipation bill with the proviso that a certain governmental tax on
exports, called the four and a half per cent tax[A], should be repealed.
Thus clogged, the bill was sent home for sanction, but it was rejected
by parliament, and sent back with instructions, that before it could
receive his majesty's seal, it must appear wholly unencumbered with
extraneous provisoes. This was a great disappointment to the
legislature, and it so chagrined them that very many actually withdrew
their support from the bill for emancipation, which passed finally in
the assembly only by the casting vote of the speaker.

[Footnote A: We subjoin the following brief history of the four and a
half per cent. tax, which we procured from the speaker of the assembly.
In the rein of Charles II., Antigua was conquered by the French, and the
inhabitants were forced to swear allegiance to the French government. In
a very short time the French were driven off the island and the English
again took possession of it. It was then declared, by order of the king,
that as the people had, by swearing allegiance to another government,
forfeited the protection of the British government, and all title to
their lands, they should not again receive either, except on condition
of paying to the king a duty of four and a half per cent on every
article exported from the island--and that they were to do in
_perpetuity_. To this hard condition they were obliged to submit, and
they have groaned under the onerous duty ever since. On every occasion,
which offered any hope, they have sought the repeal of the tax, but have
uniformly been defeated. When they saw that the abolition question was
coming to a crisis, they resolved to make a last effort for the repeal
of the four and a half percent duty. They therefore adopted immediate
emancipation, and then, covered as they were, with the laurels of so
magnanimous an act, they presented to parliament their cherished object.
The defeat was a humiliating one, and it produced such a reaction in the
island, as well nigh led to the rescinding of the abolition bill.]

The verbal and written statements of numerous planters also confirm the
declaration that emancipation was a measure solely of selfish policy.

Said Mr. Bernard, of Green Castle estate "Emancipation was preferred to
apprenticeship, because it was attended with less trouble, and left the
planters independent, instead of being saddled with a legion of
stipendiary magistrates."

Said Dr. Daniell, member of the council, and proprietor--"The
apprenticeship was rejected by us solely from motives of policy. We did
not wish to be annoyed with stipendiary magistrates."

Said Hon. N. Nugent--"We wished to let ourselves down in the easiest
manner possible; _therefore_ we chose immediate freedom in preference to
the apprenticeship."

"Emancipation was preferred to apprenticeship, because of the inevitable
and endless perplexities connected with the latter system."--_David
Cranstoun, Esq., colonial magistrate and planter_.

"It is not pretended that emancipation was produced by the influence of
religious considerations. It was a measure of mere convenience and
interest."--_A Moravian Missionary_.

The following testimony is extracted from a letter addressed to us by a
highly respectable merchant of St. John's--a gentleman of long
experience on the island, and now agent for several estates.
"Emancipation was an act of mere policy, adopted as _the safest and most
economic_ measure."

Our last item of testimony under this head is from a written statement
by the Hon. N. Nugent, speaker of the assembly, at the time of
emancipation. His remarks on this subject, although long, we are sure
will be read with interest. Alluding to the adoption of immediate
emancipation in preference to the apprenticeship, he observes:--

"The reasons and considerations which led to this step were various, of
course impressing the minds of different individuals in different
degrees. As slave emancipation could not be averted, and must inevitably
take place very shortly, it was better to meet the crisis at once, than
to have it hanging over our heads for six years, with all its harassing
doubts and anxieties; better to give an air of grace to that which would
be ultimately unavoidable; the slaves should rather have a motive of
gratitude and kind reciprocation, than to feel, on being declared free,
that their emancipation could neither be withheld nor retarded by their
owners. The projected apprenticeship, while it destroyed the means of an
instant coercion in a state of involuntary labor, equally withdrew or
neutralized all those urgent motives which constrain to industrious
exertion in the case of freemen. It abstracted from the master, in a
state of things then barely remunerative, one fourth of the time and
labor required in cultivation, and gave it to the servant, while it
compelled the master to supply the same allowances as before. With many
irksome restraints, conditions, and responsibilities imposed on the
master, it had no equivalent advantages. There appeared no reason, in
short, why general emancipation would not do as well in 1834 as in 1840.
Finally, a strong conviction existed that from peculiarity of climate
and soil, the physical wants and necessities of the peasantry would
compel them to labor for their subsistence, to seek employment and wages
from the proprietors of the soil; and if the _transformation_ could be
safely and quietly brought about, that the _free_ system might be
cheaper and more profitable than the other."

The general testimony of planters, missionaries, clergymen, merchants,
and others, was in confirmation of the same truth.

There is little reason to believe that the views of the colonists on
this subject have subsequently undergone much change. We did not hear,
excepting occasionally among the missionaries and clergy, the slightest
insinuation thrown out that _slavery was sinful_; that the slaves had a
right to freedom, or that it would have been wrong to have continued
them in bondage. The _politics_ of anti-slavery the Antiguans are
exceedingly well versed in, but of its _religion_, they seem to feel but
little. They seem never to have examined slavery in its moral relations;
never to have perceived its monstrous violations of right and its
impious tramplings upon God and man. The Antigua planters, it would
appear, have _yet_ to repent of the sin of slaveholding.

If the results of an emancipation so destitute of _principle_, so purely
selfish, could produce such general satisfaction, and be followed by
such happy results, it warrants us in anticipating still more decided
and unmingled blessings in the train of a voluntary, conscientious, and
religious abolition.

THIRD PROPOSITION.--The _event_ of emancipation passed PEACEFULLY. The
first of August, 1834, is universally regarded in Antigua, as having
presented a most imposing and sublime moral spectacle. It is almost
impossible to be in the company of a missionary, a planter, or an
emancipated negro, for ten minutes, without hearing some allusion to
that occasion. Even at the time of our visit to Antigua, after the lapse
of nearly three years, they spoke of the event with an admiration
apparently unabated.

For some time previous to the first of August, forebodings of disaster
lowered over the island. The day was fixed! Thirty thousand degraded
human beings were to be brought forth from the dungeon of slavery and
"turned loose on the community!" and this was to be done "in a moment,
in the twinkling of an eye."

Gloomy apprehensions were entertained by many of the planters. Some
timorous families did not go to bed on the night of the 31st of July;
fear drove sleep from their eyes, and they awaited with fluttering pulse
the hour of midnight, fearing lest the same bell which sounded the
jubilee of the slaves might toll the death knell of the masters.[A]

[Footnote A: We were informed by a merchant of St. John's, that several
American vessels which had lain for weeks in the harbor, weighed anchor
on the 31st of July, and made their escape, through actual fear, that
the island would be destroyed on the following day. Ere they set sail
they earnestly besought our informant to escape from the island, as he
valued his life.]

The more intelligent, who understood the disposition of the negroes, and
contemplated the natural tendencies of emancipation, through
philosophical principles, and to the light of human nature and history,
were free from alarm.

To convey to the reader some idea of the manner in which the great
crisis passed, we give the substance of several accounts which were
related to us in different parts of the island, by those who
witnessed them.

The Wesleyans kept "watch-night" in all their chapels on the night of
the 31st July. One of the Wesleyan missionaries gave us an account of
the watch meeting at the chapel in St. John's. The spacious house was
filled with the candidates for liberty. All was animation and eagerness.
A mighty chorus of voices swelled the song of expectation and joy, and
as they united in prayer, the voice of the leader was drowned in the
universal acclamations of thanksgiving and praise, and blessing, and
honor, and glory, to God, who had come down for their deliverance. In
such exercises the evening was spent until the hour of twelve
approached. The missionary then proposed that when the clock on the
cathedral should begin to strike, the whole congregation should fall
upon their knees and receive the boon of freedom in silence.
Accordingly, as the loud bell tolled its first note, the immense
assembly fell prostrate on their knees. All was silence, save the
quivering half-stifled breath of the struggling spirit. The slow notes
of the clock fell upon the multitude; peal on peal, peal on peal, rolled
over the prostrate throng, in tones of angels' voices, thrilling among
the desolate chords and weary heart strings. Scarce had the clock
sounded its last note, when the lightning flashed vividly around, and a
loud peal of thunder roared along the sky--God's pillar of fire, and
trump of jubilee! A moment of profoundest silence passed--then came the
_burst_--they broke forth in prayer; they shouted, they sung, "Glory,"
"alleluia;" they clapped their hands, leaped up, fell down, clasped each
other in their free arms, cried, laughed, and went to and fro, tossing
upward their unfettered hands; but high above the whole there was a
mighty sound which ever and anon swelled up; it was the utterings in
broken negro dialect of gratitude to God.

After this gush of excitement had spent itself; and the congregation
became calm, the religious exercises were resumed, and the remainder of
the night was occupied in singing and prayer, in reading the Bible, and
in addresses from the missionaries explaining the nature of the freedom
just received, and exhorting the freed people to be industrious, steady,
obedient to the laws, and to show themselves in all things worthy of the
high boon which God had conferred upon them.

The first of August came on Friday, and a release was proclaimed from
all work until the next Monday. The day was chiefly spent by the great
mass of the negroes in the churches and chapels. Thither they flocked
"as clouds, and as doves to their windows." The clergy and missionaries
throughout the island were actively engaged, seizing the opportunity in
order to enlighten the people on all the duties and responsibilities of
their new relation, and above all, urging them to the attainment of that
higher liberty with which Christ maketh his children free. In every
quarter we were assured that the day was like a Sabbath. Work had
ceased; the hum of business was still, and noise and tumult were unheard
on the streets. Tranquillity pervaded the towns and country. A Sabbath
indeed! when the wicked ceased from troubling, and the weary were at
rest, and the slave was free from his master! The planters informed us
that they went to the chapels where their own people were assembled,
greeted them, shook hands with them, and exchanged the most hearty
good wishes.

The churches and chapels were thronged all over the island. At Cedar
Hall, a Moravian station, the crowd was so great that the minister was
obliged to remove the meeting from the chapel to a neighboring grove.

At Grace Hill, another Moravian station, the negroes went to the
Missionary on the day before the first of August, and begged that they
might be allowed to have a meeting in the chapel at sunrise. It is the
usual practice among the Moravians to hold but one sunrise meeting
during the year, and that is on the morning of Easter: but as the people
besought very earnestly for this special favor on the Easter morning of
their freedom, it was granted to them.

Early in the morning they assembled at the chapel. For some time they
sat in perfect silence. The missionary then proposed that they should
kneel down and sing. The whole audience fell upon their knees, and sung
a hymn commencing with the following verse:

   "Now let us praise the Lord,
   With body, soul and spirit,
   Who doth such wondrous things,
   Beyond our sense and merit."

The singing was frequently interrupted with the tears and sobbings of
the melted people, until finally it was wholly arrested, and a tumult of
emotion overwhelmed the congregation.

During the day, repeated meetings were held. At eleven o'clock, the
people assembled in vast numbers. There were at least a _thousand_
persons around the chapel, who could not get in. For once the house of
God suffered violence, and the violent took it by force. After all the
services of the day, the people went again to the missionaries in a
body, and petitioned to have a meeting in the evening.

At Grace Bay, the people, all dressed in white, assembled in a spacious
court in front of the Moravian chapel. They formed a procession and
walked arm in arm into the chapel. Similar scenes occurred at all the
chapels and at the churches also. We were told by the missionaries that
the dress of the negroes on that occasion was uncommonly simple and
modest. There was not the least disposition of gaiety.

We were also informed by planters and missionaries in every part of the
island, that there was not a single dance known of, either day or night,
nor so much as a fiddle played. There were no riotous assemblies, no
drunken carousals. It was not in such channels that the excitement of
the emancipated flowed. They were as far from dissipation and
debauchery, as they were from violence and carnage. GRATITUDE was the
absorbing emotion. From the hill-tops, and the valleys, the cry of a
disenthralled people went upward like the sound of many waters, "Glory
to God, glory to God."

The testimony of the planters corresponds fully with that of the
missionaries.

Said R.B. Eldridge, Esq., after speaking of the number emancipated, "Yet
this vast body, (30,000,) _glided_ out of slavery into freedom with the
utmost tranquillity."

Dr. Daniell observed, that after so prodigious a revolution in the
condition of the negroes, he expected that some irregularities would
ensue; but he had been entirely disappointed. He also said that he
anticipated some relaxation from labour during the week following
emancipation. But he found his hands in the field early on Monday
morning, and not one missing. The same day he received word from another
estate, of which he was proprietor,[A] that the negroes had to a man
refused to go to the field. He immediately rode to the estate and found
the people standing with their hoes in their hands doing nothing. He
accosted them in a friendly manner: "What does this mean, my fellows,
that you are not at work this morning?" They immediately replied, "It's
not because we don't want to work, massa, but we wanted to see you first
and foremost to _know what the bargain would be_." As soon as that
matter was settled, the whole body of negroes turned out cheerfully,
without a moment's cavil.

[Footnote A: It is not unusual in the West Indies for proprietors to
commit their own estates into the hands of managers; and be themselves,
the managers of other men's estates.]

Mr. Bourne, of Millar's, informed us that the largest gang he had ever
seen in the field on his property, turned out the _week after
emancipation_.

Said Hon. N. Nugent, "Nothing could surpass the universal propriety of
the negroes' conduct on the first of August, 1834! Never was there a
more beautiful and interesting spectacle exhibited, than on that
occasion."

FOURTH PROPOSITION.--There has been _since_ emancipation, not only _no
rebellion in fact_, but NO FEAR OF IT in Antigua.

Proof 1st. The militia were not called out during Christmas holidays.
_Before_ emancipation, martial law invariably prevailed on the holidays,
but the very first Christmas after emancipation, the Governor made a
proclamation stating that _in consequence of the abolition of slavery_
it was no longer necessary to resort to such a precaution. There has not
been a parade of soldiery on any subsequent Christmas.[B]

[Footnote B: This has been followed by a measure on the part of the
Legislature, which is further proof of the same thing. It is "an Act for
amending and further continuing the several Acts at present in force for
better organizing and ordering the militia."

The preamble reads thus:

    "WHEREAS the abolition of slavery in this island renders it
    expedient to provide against an unnecessary augmentation of the
    militia, and the existing laws for better organizing and ordering
    that local force require amendment."

The following military advertisement also shows the increasing
confidence which is felt in the freed men:

    "RECRUITS WANTED.--The free men of Antigua are now called on to show
    their gratitude and loyalty to King WILLIAM, for the benefits he has
    conferred on them and their families, by volunteering their services
    as soldiers in his First West India Regiment; in doing which they
    will acquire a still higher rank in society, by being placed on a
    footing of perfect equality with the other troops in his Majesty's
    service, and receive the same bounty, pay, clothing, rations and
    allowances.

    None but young men of good character can be received, and all such
    will meet with every encouragement by applying at St. John's
    Barracks, to

    H. DOWNIE, _Capt. 1st W.I. Regt_. _September 15th_, 1836."
]

2d. The uniform declaration of planters and others:

"Previous to emancipation, many persons apprehended violence and
bloodshed as the consequence of turning the slaves all loose. But when
emancipation took place, all these apprehensions vanished. The sense of
personal security is universal. We know not of a single instance in
which the negroes have exhibited a _revengeful spirit_."

_S. Bourne, Esq., of Millar's.--Watkins, Esq., of Donovan's._

"It has always appeared to me self-evident, that if a man is peaceable
while a _slave_, he will be so when a _free man_."

_Dr. Ferguson._

"There is no possible danger of personal violence from the slaves;
should a foreign power invade our island, I have no doubt that the
negroes would, to a man, fight for the planters. I have the utmost
confidence in all the people who are under my management; they are my
friends, and they consider me their friend."

_H. Armstrong, Esq., of Fitch's Creek._

The same gentleman informed us that during slavery, he used frequently
to lie sleepless on his bed, thinking about his dangerous situation--a
lone white person far away from help, and surrounded by hundreds of
savage slaves; and he had spent hours thus, in devising plans of
self-defence in case the house should be attacked by the negroes. "If
they come," he would say to himself, "and break down the door, and fill
my bedroom, what shall I do? It will be useless to fire at them; my only
hope is to frighten the superstitious fellows by covering myself with a
white sheet, and rushing into the midst of them, crying,
'ghost, ghost.'"

Now Mr. A. sleeps in peace and safety, without conjuring up a ghost to
keep guard at his bedside. His bodyguard is a battalion of substantial
flesh and blood, made up of those who were once the objects of his
nightly terror!

"There has been no instance of personal violence since freedom. Some
persons pretended, prior to emancipation, to apprehend disastrous
results; but for my part I cannot say that I ever entertained such
fears. I could not see any thing which was to instigate negroes to
rebellion, _after_ they had obtained their liberty. I have not heard of
a single case of even _meditated_ revenge."

_Dr. Daniell, Proprietor, Member of Council, Attorney of six estates,
and Manager of Weatherill's._

"One of the blessings of emancipation has been, that it has banished the
_fear_ of insurrections, incendiarism, &c."

_Mr. Favey, Manager of Lavicount's._

"In my extensive intercourse with the people, as missionary, I have
never heard of an instance of violence or revenge on the part of the
negroes, even where they had been ill-treated during slavery."

_Rev. Mr. Morrish, Moravian Missionary._

"Insurrection or revenge is in no case dreaded, not even by those
planters who were most cruel in the time of slavery. My family go to
sleep every night with the doors unlocked, and we fear neither violence
nor robbery."

_Hon. N. Nugent._

Again, in a written communication, the same gentleman remarks:--"There
is not the slightest feeling of insecurity--quite the contrary. Property
is more secure, _for all idea of insurrection is abolished forever_."

"We have no cause now to fear insurrections; emancipation has freed us
from all danger on this score."

_David Cranstoun, Esq._

Extract of a letter from a merchant of St. John's who has resided in
Antigua more than thirty years:

"There is no sense of personal danger arising from insurrections or
conspiracies among the blacks. Serious apprehensions of this nature were
formerly entertained; but they gradually died away _during the first
year of freedom_."

We quote the following from a communication addressed to us by a
gentleman of long experience in Antigua--now a merchant in St.
John's--_James Scotland, Sen., Esq._

"Disturbances, insubordinations, and revelry, have greatly decreased
since emancipation; and it is a remarkable fact, that on the day of
abolition, which was observed with the solemnity and services of the
Sabbath, not an instance of common insolence was experienced from any
freed man."

"There is no feeling of insecurity. A stronger proof of this cannot be
given than the dispensing, within five months after emancipation, with
the Christmas guards, which had been regularly and uninterruptedly kept,
for nearly one hundred years--during the whole time of slavery."

"The military has never been called out, but on one occasion, since the
abolition, and that was when a certain planter, the most violent enemy
of freedom, reported to the Governor that there were strong symptoms of
insurrection among his negroes. The story was generally laughed at, and
the reporter of it was quite ashamed of his weakness and fears."

"My former occupation, as editor of a newspaper, rendered it necessary
for me to make incessant inquiries into the conduct as well as the
treatment of the emancipated, and I have _never heard any instance of
revenge_ for former injuries. The negroes have _quitted_ managers who
were _harsh or cruel_ to them in their bondage, but they removed in a
peaceable and orderly manner."

"Our negroes, and I presume other negroes too, are very little less
sensible to the force of those motives which lead to the peace, order,
and welfare of society, than any other set of people."

"The general conduct of the negroes has been worthy of much praise,
especially considering the sudden transition from slavery to
unrestricted freedom. Their demeanor is peaceable and orderly."

_Ralph Higinbothom, U. S. Consul._

As we mingled with the missionaries, both in town and country, they all
bore witness to the security of their persons and families. They,
equally with the planters, were surprised that we should make any
inquiries about insurrections. A question on this subject generally
excited a smile, a look of astonishment, or some exclamation, such as
"_Insurrection_! my dear sirs, we do not think of such a thing;" or,
"Rebellion indeed! why, what should they rebel for _now_, since they
have got their liberty!"

Physicians informed us that they were in the habit of riding into the
country at all hours of the night, and though they were constantly
passing negroes, both singly and in companies, they never had
experienced any rudeness, nor even so much as an insolent word. They
could go by night or day, into any part of the island where their
professional duties called them, without the slightest sense of danger.

A residence of nine weeks in the island gave us no small opportunity of
testing the reality of its boasted security. The hospitality of planters
and missionaries, of which we have recorded so many instances in a
previous part of this work, gave us free access to their houses in every
part of the island. In many cases we were constrained to spend the night
with them, and thus enjoyed, in the intimacies of the domestic circle,
and in the unguarded moments of social intercourse, every opportunity of
detecting any lurking fears of violence, if such there had been; but we
saw no evidence of it, either in the arrangements of the houses or in
the conduct of the inmates[A].

[Footnote A: In addition to the evidence derived from Antigua, we
would mention the following fact:

A planter, who is also an attorney, informed us that on the neighboring
little island of Barbuda, (which is leased from the English government
by Sir Christopher Coddrington,) there are five hundred negroes and only
_three white men_. The negroes are entirely free, yet the whites
continue to live among them without any fear of having their throats
cut. The island is cultivated in sugar.--Barbuda is under the
government of Antigua, and accordingly the act of entire emancipation
extended to that island.]

FIFTH PROPOSITION.--There has been no fear of house breaking, highway
robberies, and like misdemeanors, since emancipation. Statements,
similar to those adduced under the last head, from planters, and other
gentlemen, might be introduced here; but as this proposition is so
intimately involved in the foregoing, separate proof is not necessary.
The same causes which excite apprehensions of insurrection, produce
fears of robberies and other acts of violence; so also the same state of
society which establishes security of person, insures the safety of
property. Both in town and country we heard gentlemen repeatedly speak
of the slight fastenings to their houses. A mere lock, or bolt, was all
that secured the outside doors, and they might be burst open with ease,
by a single man. In some cases, as has already been intimated, the
planters habitually neglect to fasten their doors--so strong is their
confidence of safety. We were not a little struck with the remark of a
gentleman in St. John's. He said he had long been desirous to remove to
England, his native country, and had slavery continued much longer in
Antigua, he certainly should have gone; but _now_ the _security of
property was so much greater in Antigua than it was in England_, that he
thought it doubtful whether he should ever _venture_ to take his
family thither.

SIXTH PROPOSITION.--Emancipation is regarded by all classes as a great
blessing to the island.

There is not a class, or party, or sect, who do not esteem the abolition
of slavery as a _special blessing to them_. The rich, because it
relieved them of "property" which was fast becoming a disgrace, as it
had always been a vexation and a tax, and because it has emancipated
them from the terrors of insurrection, which kept them all their life
time subject to bondage. The poor whites--because it lifted from off
them the yoke of civil oppression. The free colored population--because
it gave the death blow to the prejudice that crushed them, and opened
the prospect of social, civil, and political equality with the whites.
The _slaves_--because it broke open their dungeon, led them out to
liberty, and gave them, in one munificent donation, their wives, their
children, their bodies, their souls--every thing!

The following extracts from the journals of the legislature, show the
state of feeling existing shortly after emancipation. The first is dated
October 30, 1834:

"The Speaker said, that he looked with exultation at the prospect before
us. The hand of the Most High was evidently working for us. Could we
regard the universal tranquillity, the respectful demeanor of the lower
classes, as less than an interposition of Providence? The agricultural
and commercial prosperity of the island were absolutely on the advance;
and for his part he would not hesitate to purchase estates to-morrow."

The following remark was made in the course of a speech by a member of
the council, November 12, 1834:

"Colonel Brown stated, that since emancipation he had never been without
a sufficient number of laborers, and he was certain he could obtain as
many more to-morrow as he should wish."

The general confidence in the beneficial results of emancipation, has
grown stronger with every succeeding year and month. It has been seen
that freedom will bear trial; that it will endure, and continue to bring
forth fruits of increasing value.

The Governor informed us that "it was _universally admitted_, that
emancipation had been a great blessing to the island."

In a company of proprietors and planters, who met us on a certain
occasion, among whom were lawyers, magistrates, and members of the
council, and of the assembly, the sentiment was distinctly avowed, that
emancipation was highly beneficial to the island, and there was not a
dissenting opinion.

"Emancipation is working most admirably, especially for the planters. It
is infinitely better policy than slavery or the apprenticeship either."
--_Dr. Ferguson_.

"Our planters find that freedom answers a far better purpose than
slavery ever did. A gentleman, who is attorney for eight estates,
assured me that there was no comparison between the benefits and
advantages of the two systems."--_Archdeacon Parry_.

"All the planters in my neighborhood (St. Philip's parish) are highly
pleased with the operation of the new system."--_Rev. Mr. Jones, Rector
of St. Philip's_.

"I do not know of more than one or two planters in the whole island, who
do not consider emancipation as a decided advantage to all parties."
--_Dr. Daniell_.

That emancipation should be universally regarded as a blessing, is
remarkable, when we consider that combination of untoward circumstances
which it has been called to encounter--a combination wholly
unprecedented in the history of the island. In 1835, the first year of
the new system, the colony was visited by one of the most desolating
hurricanes which has occurred for many years. In the same year,
cultivation was arrested, and the crops greatly reduced, by drought.
About the same time, the yellow fever prevailed with fearful mortality.
The next year the drought returned, and brooded in terror from March
until January, and from January until June: not only blasting the
harvest of '36, but extending its blight over the crops of '37.

Nothing could be better calculated to try the confidence in the new
system. Yet we find all classes zealously exonerating emancipation, and
in despite of tornado, plague, and wasting, still affirming the
blessings and advantages of freedom!

SEVENTH PROPOSITION.--_Free labor_ is decidedly LESS EXPENSIVE than
_slave labor_. It costs the planter actually less to pay his free
laborers daily wages, than it did to maintain his slaves. It will be
observed in the testimony which follows, that there is some difference
of opinion as to the _precise amount_ of reduction in the expenses,
which is owing to the various modes of management on different estates,
and more particularly, to the fact that some estates raise all their
provisions, while others raise none. But as to the fact itself, there
can scarcely be said to be any dispute among the planters. There was one
class of planters whose expenses seemed to be somewhat increased, viz.
those who raised all their provisions before emancipation, and ceased to
raise any _after_ that event. But in the opinion of the most intelligent
planters, even these did not really sustain any loss, for originally it
was bad policy to raise provisions, since it engrossed that labor which
would have been more profitably directed to the cultivation of sugar;
and hence they would ultimately be gainers by the change.

S. Bourne, Esq. stated that the expenses on Millar's estate, of which he
is manager, had diminished about _one third_.

Mr. Barnard, of Green Castle, thought his expenses were about the same
that they were formerly.

Mr. Favey, of Lavicount's estate, enumerated, among the advantages of
freedom over slavery, "the diminished expense."

Dr. Nugent also stated, that "the expenses of cultivation were greatly
diminished."

Mr. Hatley, manager of Fry's estate, said that the expenses on his
estate had been greatly reduced since emancipation. He showed us the
account of his expenditures for the last year of slavery, and the first
full year of freedom, 1835. The expenses during the last year of slavery
were 1371_l._ 2_s._ 4-1/2_d._; the expenses for 1835 were 821_l._ 16_s._
7-1/2_d._: showing a reduction of more than one third.

D. Cranstoun, Esq., informed us that his weekly expenses during slavery,
on the estate which he managed, were, on an average, 45_l._; the average
expenses now do not exceed 20_l._

Extract of a letter from Hon. N. Nugent:

"The expenses of cultivating sugar estates have in no instance, I
believe, been found _greater_ than before. As far as my experience goes,
they are certainly less, particularly as regards those properties which
were overhanded before, when proprietors were compelled to support more
dependents than they required. In some cases, the present cost is less
by _one third_. I have not time to furnish you with any detailed
statements, but the elements of the calculation are simple enough."

It is not difficult to account for the diminution in the cost of
cultivation. In the first place, for those estates that bought their
provision previous to emancipation, it cost more money to purchase their
stores than they now pay out in wages. This was especially true in dry
seasons, when home provisions failed, and the island was mainly
dependent upon foreign supplies.

But the chief source of the diminution lies in the reduced number of
people to be supported by the planter. During slavery, the planter was
required by law to maintain _all_ the slaves belonging to the estate;
the superannuated, the infirm, the pregnant, the nurses, the young
children, and the infants, as well as the working slaves. Now it is only
the latter class, the effective laborers, (with the addition of such as
were superannuated or infirm at the period of emancipation,) who are
dependent upon the planter. These are generally not more than one half,
frequently less than a third, of the whole number of negroes resident on
the estate; consequently a very considerable burthen has been removed
from the planter.

The reader may form some estimate of the reduced expense to the planter,
resulting from these causes combined, by considering the statement made
to us by Hon. N. Nugent, and repeatedly by proprietors and managers,
that had slavery been in existence during the present drought, many of
the smaller estates _must have been inevitably ruined_; on account of
the high price of imported provisions, (home provisions having fallen
short) and the number of slaves to be fed.

EIGHTH PROPOSITION.--The negroes work _more cheerfully_, and _do their
work better_ than they did during slavery. Wages are found to be an
ample substitute for the lash--they never fail to secure the amount of
labor desired. This is particularly true where task work is tried, which
is done occasionally in cases of a pressing nature, when considerable
effort is required. We heard of no complaints on the score of idleness,
but on the contrary, the negroes were highly commended for the
punctuality and cheerfulness with which they performed the work
assigned them.

The Governor stated, that "he was assured by planters, from every part
of the island, that the negroes were very industriously disposed."

"My people have become much more industrious since they were
emancipated. I have been induced to extend the sugar cultivation over a
number of acres more than have ever been cultivated before."--_Mr.
Watkins, of Donovan's_.

"Fearing the consequences of emancipation, I reduced my cultivation in
the year '34; but soon finding that my people would work as well as
ever, I brought up the cultivation the next year to the customary
extent, and this year ('36) I have added fifteen acres of new
land."--_S. Bourne, of Millar's_.

"Throughout the island the estates were never in a more advanced state
than they now are. The failure in the crops is not in the slightest
degree chargeable to a deficiency of labor. I have frequently adopted
the job system for short periods; the results have always been
gratifying--the negroes accomplished twice as much as when they worked
for daily wages, because they made more money. On some days they would
make three shillings--three times the ordinary wages."--_Dr. Daniell_.

"They are as a body _more_ industrious than when slaves, for the obvious
reason that they are _working for themselves_."--_Ralph Higinbothom,
U.S. Consul_.

"I have no hesitation in saying that on my estate cultivation is more
forward than ever it has been at the same season. The failure of the
crops is not in the least degree the fault of the laborers. They have
done well."--_Mr. Favey, of Lavicount's estate_.

"The most general apprehension prior to emancipation was, that the
negroes would not work after they were made free--that they would be
indolent, buy small parcels of land, and '_squat_' on them to the
neglect of sugar cultivation. Time, however, has proved that there was
no foundation for this apprehension. The estates were never in better
order than they are at present. If you are interrogated on your return
home concerning the cultivation of Antigua, you can say that every thing
depends upon the _weather_. If we have _sufficient rain_, you may be
certain that we shall realize abundant crops. If we have no rain, the
crops _must inevitably_ fail. _But we always depend upon the laborers_.
On account of the stimulus to industry which wages afford, there is far
less feigned sickness than there was during slavery. When slaves, the
negroes were glad to find any excuse for deserting their labor, and they
were incessantly feigning sickness. The sick-house was thronged with
real and pretended invalids. After '34, it was wholly deserted. The
negroes would not go near it; and, in truth, I have lately used it for a
stable."--_Hon. N. Nugent_.

"Though the laborers on both the estates under my management have been
considerably reduced since freedom, yet the grounds have never been in a
finer state of cultivation, than they are at present. When my work is
backward, I give it out in jobs, and it is always done in half the
usual time."

"Emancipation has almost wholly put an end to the practice of
_skulking_, or pretending to be sick. That was a thing which caused the
planter a vast deal of trouble during slavery. Every Monday morning
regularly, when I awoke, I found ten or a dozen, or perhaps twenty men
and women, standing around my door, waiting for me to make my first
appearance, and begging that I would let them off from work that day on
account of sickness. It was seldom the case that one fourth of the
applicants were really unwell; but every one would maintain that he was
very sick, and as it was hard to contend with them about it, they were
all sent off to the sick-house. Now this is entirely done away, and my
sick-house is converted into a chapel for religious worship."--_James
Howell, Esq._

"I find my people much more disposed to work than they formerly were.
The habit of feigning sickness to get rid of going to the field, is
completely broken up. This practice was very common during slavery. It
was often amusing to hear their complaints. One would come carrying an
arm in one hand, and declaring that it had a mighty pain in it, and he
could not use the hoe no way; another would make his appearance with
both hands on his breast, and with a rueful look complain of a great
pain in the stomach; a third came limping along, with a _dreadful
rheumatiz_ in his knees; and so on for a dozen or more. It was vain to
dispute with them, although it was often manifest that nothing earthly
was ailing them. They would say, 'Ah! me massa, you no tink how bad me
feel--it's _deep in_, massa.' But all this trouble is passed. We have no
sick-house now; no feigned sickness, and really much less actual illness
than formerly. My people say, '_they have not time to be sick now_.' My
cultivation has never been so far advanced at the same season, or in
finer order than it is at the present time. I have been encouraged by
the increasing industry of my people to bring several additional acres
under cultivation."--_Mr. Hatley, Fry's estate_.

"I get my work done better than formerly, and with incomparably more
cheerfulness. My estate was never in a finer state of cultivation than
it is now, though I employ _fewer_ laborers than during slavery. I have
occasionally used job, or task work, and with great success. When I give
out a job, it is accomplished in about half the time that it would have
required by giving the customary wages. The people will do as much in
one week at job work, as they will in two, working for a shilling a day.
I have known them, when they had a job to do, turn out before three
o'clock in the morning, and work by moonlight."--_D. Cranstoun, Esq._

"My people work very well for the ordinary wages; I have no fault to
find with them in this respect."--_Manager of Scotland's estate_.

_Extract from the Superintendent's Report to the Commander in Chief_.

SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE, _June 6th_. 1836.

    "During the last month I have visited the country in almost every
    direction, with the express object of paying a strict attention to
    all branches of agricultural operations at that period progressing.

    The result of my observations is decidedly favorable, as regards
    proprietors and laborers. The manufacture of sugar has advanced as
    far as the long and continued want of rain will admit; the lands,
    generally, appear to be in a forward state of preparation for the
    ensuing crop, and the laborers seem to work with more steadiness and
    satisfaction to themselves and their employers, than they have
    manifested for some length of time past, and their work is much more
    correctly performed.

    Complaints are, for the most part, adduced by the employers against
    the laborers, and principally consist, (as hitherto,) of breaches of
    contract; but I am happy to observe, that a diminution of
    dissatisfaction on this head even, has taken place, as will be seen
    by the accompanying general return of offences reported.

    Your honor's most obedient, humble servant,

    _Richard S. Wickham, Superintendent of police_."

NINTH PROPOSITION.--The negroes are _more easily managed_ as freemen
than they were when slaves.

On this point as well as on every other connected with the system of
slavery, public opinion in Antigua has undergone an entire revolution,
since 1834. It was then a common maxim that the peculiar characteristics
of the negro absolutely required a government of terror and brute force.

The Governor said, "The negroes are as a race remarkable for _docility_;
they are very easily controlled by kind influence. It is only necessary
to gain their confidence, and you can sway them as you please."

"Before emancipation took place, I dreaded the consequence of abolishing
the power of compelling labor, but I have since found by experience that
forbearance and kindness are sufficient for all purposes of authority. I
have seldom had any trouble in managing my people. They consider me
their friend, and the expression of my wish is enough for them. Those
planters who have retained their _harsh manner_ do not succeed under the
new system. The people will not bear it."--_Mr. J. Howell_.

"I find it remarkably easy to manage my people. I govern them entirely
by mildness. In every instance in which managers have persisted in their
habits of arbitrary command, they have failed. I have lately been
obliged to discharge a manager from one of the estates under my
direction, on account of his overbearing disposition. If I had not
dismissed him, the people would have abandoned the estate _en
masse_."--_Dr. Daniell_.

"The management of an estate under the free system is a much lighter
business than it used to be. We do not have the trouble to get the
people to work, or to keep them in order."--_Mr. Favey_.

"Before the abolition of slavery, I thought it would be utterly
impossible to manage my people without tyrannizing over them as usual,
and that it would be giving up the reins of government entirely, to
abandon the whip; but I am now satisfied that I was mistaken. I have
lost all desire to exercise arbitrary power. I have known of several
instances in which unpleasant disturbances have been occasioned by
managers giving way to their anger, and domineering over the laborers.
The people became disobedient and disorderly, and remained so until the
estates went into other hands, and a good management immediately
restored confidence and peace."--_Mr. Watkins_.

"Among the advantages belonging to the free system, may he enumerated
the greater facility in managing estates. We are freed from a world of
trouble and perplexity."--_David Cranstoun, Esq._

"I have no hesitation in saying, that if I have a supply of cash, I can
take off any crop it may please God to send. Having already, since
emancipation, taken off one fully sixty hogsheads above the average of
the last twenty years. I can speak with confidence."--_Letter from S.
Bourne, Esq._

Mr. Bourne stated a fact which illustrates the ease with which the
negroes are governed by gentle means. He said that it was a prevailing
practice during slavery for the slaves to have a dance soon after they
had finished gathering in the crop. At the completion of his crop in
'35, the people made arrangements for having the customary dance. They
were particularly elated because the crop which they had first taken off
was the largest one that had ever been produced by the estate, and it
was also the largest crop on the island for that year. With these
extraordinary stimulants and excitements, operating in connection with
the influence of habit, the people were strongly inclined to have a
dance. Mr. B. told them that dancing was a bad practice--and a very
childish, barbarous amusement, and he thought it was wholly unbecoming
_freemen_. He hoped therefore that they would dispense with it. The
negroes could not exactly agree with their manager--and said they did
not like to be disappointed in their expected sport. Mr. B. finally
proposed to them that he would get the Moravian minister, Rev. Mr.
Harvey, to ride out and preach to them on the appointed evening. The
people all agreed to this. Accordingly, Mr. Harvey preached, and they
said no more about the dance--nor have they ever attempted to get up a
dance since.

We had repeated opportunities of witnessing the management of the
laborers on the estates, and were always struck with the absence of
every thing like coercion.

By the kind invitation of Mr. Bourne, we accompanied him once on a
morning circuit around his estate. After riding some distance, we came
to the 'great gang' cutting canes. Mr. B. saluted the people in a
friendly manner, and they all responded with a hearty 'good mornin,
massa.' There were more than fifty persons, male and female, on the
spot. The most of them were employed in cutting canes[A], which they did
with a heavy knife called a _bill_. Mr. B. beckoned to the
superintendent, a black man, to come to him, and gave him some
directions for the forenoon's work, and then, after saying a few
encouraging words to the people, took us to another part of the estate,
remarking as we rode off, "I have entire confidence that those laborers
will do their work just as I want to have it done." We next came upon
some men, who were hoeing in a field of corn. We found that there had
been a slight altercation between two of the men. Peter, who was a
foreman, came to Mr. B., and complained that George would not leave the
cornfield and go to another kind of work as he had bid him. Mr. B.
called George, and asked for an explanation. George had a long story to
tell, and he made an earnest defence, accompanied with impassioned
gesticulation; but his dialect was of such outlandish description, that
we could not understand him. Mr. B. told us that the main ground of his
defence was that Peter's direction was _altogether unreasonable_. Peter
was then called upon to sustain his complaint; he spoke with equal
earnestness and equal unintelligibility. Mr. B. then gave his decision,
with great kindness of manner, which quite pacified both parties.

[Footnote A: The process of cutting canes is this:--The leafy part, at
top is first cut off down as low as the saccharine matter A few of the
lowest joints of the part thus cut off, are then stripped of the leaves,
and cut off for _plants_, for the next crop. The stalk is then cut off
close to the ground--and it is that which furnishes the juice for
sugar. It is from three to twelve feet long, and from one to two inches
in diameter, according to the quality of the soil, the seasonableness of
the weather, &c. The cutters are followed by _gatherers_, who bind up
the plants and stalks, as the cutters cast them behind them, in
different bundles. The carts follow in the train, and take up the
bundles--carrying the stalks to the mill to be ground, and the plants in
another direction.]

As we rode on, Mr. B. informed us that George was himself the foreman of
a small weeding gang, and felt it derogatory to his dignity to be
ordered by Peter.

We observed on all the estates which we visited, that the planters, when
they wish to influence their people, are in the habit of appealing to
them as _freemen_, and that now better things are expected of them. This
appeal to their self-respect seldom fails of carrying the point.

It is evident from the foregoing testimony, that if the negroes do not
work well on any estate, it is generally speaking the _fault of the
manager_. We were informed of many instances in which arbitrary men were
discharged from the management of estates, and the result has been the
restoration of order and industry among the people.

On this point we quote the testimony of James Scotland, Sen., Esq., an
intelligent and aged merchant of St. John's:

"In this colony, the evils and troubles attending emancipation have
resulted almost entirely from the perseverance of the planters in their
old habits of domination. The planters very frequently, indeed, _in the
early stage of freedom_, used their power as employers to the annoyance
and injury of their laborers. For the slightest misconduct, and
sometimes without any reason whatever, the poor negroes were dragged
before the magistrates, (planters or their friends,) and mulcted in
their wages, fined otherwise, and committed to jail or the house of
correction. And yet those harassed people remained patient, orderly and
submissive. _Their treatment now is much improved. The planters have
happily discovered, that as long as they kept the cultivators of their
lands in agitations and sufferings, their own interests were
sacrificed._"

TENTH PROPOSITION.--The negroes are _more trust-worthy, and take a
deeper interest in their employers' affairs_, since emancipation.

"My laborers manifest an increasing attachment to the estate. In all
their habits they are becoming more settled, and they begin to feel that
they have a personal interest in the success of the property on which
they live."--_Mr. Favey_.

"As long as the negroes felt uncertain whether they would remain in one
place, or be dismissed and compelled to seek a home elsewhere, they
manifested very little concern for the advancement of their employers'
interest; but in proportion as they become permanently established on an
estate, they seem to identify themselves with its prosperity. The
confidence between master and servant is mutually increasing."--_Mr.
James Howell_.

The Hon. Mr. Nugent, Dr. Daniell, D. Cranstoun, Esq., and other
planters, enumerated among the advantages of freedom, the planters being
released from the perplexities growing out of want of confidence in the
sympathy and honesty of the slaves.

S. Bourne, Esq., of Millar's, remarked as we were going towards his mill
and boiling-house, which had been in operation about a week, "I have not
been near my works for several days; yet I have no fears but that I
shall find every thing going on properly."

The planters have been too deeply experienced in the nature of slavery,
not to know that mutual jealousy, distrust, and alienation of feeling
and interest, are its legitimate offspring; and they have already seen
enough of the operation of freedom, to entertain the confident
expectation, that fair wages, kind treatment, and comfortable homes,
will attach the laborers to the estates, and identify the interests of
the employer and the employed.

ELEVENTH PROPOSITION.--The experiment in Antigua proves that emancipated
slaves can _appreciate law_. It is a prevailing opinion that those who
have long been slaves, cannot at once be safely subjected to the
control of law.

It will now be seen how far this theory is supported by facts. Let it be
remembered that the negroes of Antigua passed, "by a single _jump_, from
absolute slavery to unqualified freedom."[A] In proof of _their
subordination to law_, we give the testimony of planters, and quote also
from the police reports sent in monthly to the Governor, with copies of
which we were kindly furnished by order of His Excellency.

[Footnote A: Dr. Daniell.]

"I have found that the negroes are readily controlled by law; more so
perhaps than the laboring classes in other countries."--_David
Cranstoun, Esq._

"The conduct of the negro population generally, has surpassed all
expectation. They are as pliant to the hand of legislation, as any
people; perhaps more so than some." _Wesleyan Missionary_.

Similar sentiments were expressed by the Governor, the Hon. N. Nugent,
R.B. Eldridge, Esq., Dr. Ferguson, Dr. Daniell, and James Scotland, Jr.,
Esq., and numerous other planters, managers, &c. This testimony is
corroborated by the police reports, exhibiting, as they do,
comparatively few crimes, and those for the most part minor ones. We
have in our possession the police reports for every month from
September, 1835, to January, 1837. We give such specimens as will serve
to show the general tenor of the reports.

    _Police-Office, St. John's, Sept_. 3, 1835.

    "From the information which I have been able to collect by my own
    personal exertions, and from the reports of the assistant
    inspectors, at the out stations, I am induced to believe that, in
    general, a far better feeling and good understanding at present
    prevails between the laborers and their employers, than hitherto.

    Capital offences have much decreased in number, as well as all minor
    ones, and the principal crimes lately submitted for the
    investigation of the magistrates, seem to consist chiefly in
    trifling offences and breaches of contract.

    _Signed, Richard S. Wickham,

    Superintendent of Police_."

       *       *       *       *       *

    "To his excellency,

    _Sir C.I. Murray McGregor, Governor, &c_.

    _St. John's, Antigua, Oct_. 2, 1835.

    Sir--The general state of regularity and tranquillity which prevails
    throughout the island, admits of my making but a concise report to
    your Excellency, for the last month.

    The autumnal agricultural labors continue to progress favorably, and
    I have every reason to believe, that the agriculturalists,
    generally, are far more satisfied with the internal state of the
    island affairs, than could possibly have been anticipated a short
    period since.

    From conversations which I have had with several gentlemen of
    extensive interest and practical experience, united with my own
    observations, I do not hesitate in making a favorable report of the
    general easy and quietly progressing state of contentedness,
    evidently showing itself among the laboring class; and I may add,
    that with few exceptions, a reciprocity of kind and friendly feeling
    at present is maintained between the planters and their laborers.

    Although instances do occur of breach of contract, they are not very
    frequent, and in many cases I have been induced to believe, that the
    crime has originated more from the want of a proper understanding of
    the time, intent, and meaning of the contract into which the
    laborers have entered, than from the actual existence of any
    dissatisfaction on their part."

    _Signed, &c._

       *       *       *       *       *

    _St. John's, Antigua, Dec. 2d_, 1835.

    "Sir--I have the honor to report that a continued uninterrupted
    state of peace and good order has happily prevailed throughout the
    island, during the last month.

    The calendar of offences for trial at the ensuing sessions, bears
    little comparison with those of former periods, and I am happy to
    state, that the crimes generally, are of a trifling nature, and
    principally petty thefts.

    By a comparison of the two last lists of offences submitted for
    investigation, it will be found that a decrease has taken place in
    that for November."

    _Signed, &c_.

       *       *       *       *       *

    St. John's, January 2d, 1836.

    "Sir--I have great satisfaction in reporting to your Honor the
    peaceable termination of the last year, and of the
    Christmas vacation.

    At this period of the year, which has for ages been celebrated for
    scenes of gaiety and amusement among the laboring, as well as all
    other classes of society, and when several successive days of
    idleness occur, I cannot but congratulate your Honor, on the quiet
    demeanor and general good order, which has happily been maintained
    throughout the island.

    It may not be improper here to remark, that during the holidays, I
    had only one prisoner committed to my charge, and that even his
    offence was of a minor nature."

    _Signed, &c_.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Extract of Report for February, 1836._

    "The operation of the late Contract Acts, caused some trifling
    inconvenience at the commencement, but now that they are clearly
    understood, even by the young and ignorant, I am of opinion, that
    the most beneficial effects have resulted from these salutary Acts,
    equally to master and servant, and that a permanent understanding is
    fully established.

    A return of crimes reported during the month of January, I beg leave
    to enclose, and at the same time, to congratulate your Honor on the
    vast diminution of all minor misdemeanors, and of the continued
    total absence of capital offences."

       *       *       *       *       *

    _Superintendent's office_, _Antigua, April 4th_, 1836.

    "SIR--I am happy to remark, for the information of your Honor, that
    the Easter holidays have passed off, without the occurrence of any
    violation of the existing laws sufficiently serious to merit
    particular observation."[A]

    _Signed, &c_.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Footnote A: This and the other reports concern, not St. John's merely,
but the entire population of the island.]

_Extract from the Report for May, 1836._

    "It affords me great satisfaction in being able to report that the
    continued tranquillity prevailing throughout the island, prevents
    the necessity of my calling the particular attention of your Honor
    to the existence of any serious or flagrant offence.

    The crop season having far advanced, I have much pleasure in
    remarking the continued steady and settled disposition, which on
    most properties appear to be reciprocally established between the
    proprietors and their agricultural laborers; and I do also venture
    to offer as my opinion, that a considerable improvement has taken
    place, in the behavior of domestic, as well as other laborers, not
    immediately employed in husbandry."

We quote the following table of offences as a specimen of the monthly
reports:

_Police Office, St. John's, 1836._

RETURN OF OFFENCES REPORTED AT THE POLICE STATIONS FROM 1ST TO 31ST MAY.

NATURE OF   St.      E.     Par-  John-    Total.  More    Less
OFFENSES.  John's.  Har-    ham.  ston's           than    than
                    bour.         Point.           last    last
                                                  month.  month.

Assaults.    2       2                       4               5
  Do. and
  Batteries. 2       3       5              10               8

Breach of
Contract.    4      11      59              74              16

Burglaries.  2               3               5       2

Commitments
  under
  Vagrant
  Act.       4       1                       5              10
  Do. for
  Fines.     5                               5       2
  Do under
  amended
  Porter's
  and
  Jobber's
  Act.                                                       7

Felonies.    2                               2       2

Injury to
property.    4       9       7              20               5

Larcenies.   4                               4       4

Misdemeanors.3      12                      15      15

Murders.

Petty
Thefts.              1                       1              10

Trespasses.  1       2       2               5

Riding
improperly
thro' the
streets.

Total       33      41      76             150      25      61

_Signed_,     Richard S. Wickham,
_Superintendent of Police_.

       *       *       *       *       *

     _Superintendent's office_,
     _Antigua, July 6th_, 1836.

    "SIR,--I have the honor to submit for your information, a general
    return of all offences reported during the last month, by which your
    Honor will perceive, that no increase of 'breach of contract' has
    been recorded.

    While I congratulate your Honor on the successful maintenance of
    general peace, and a reciprocal good feeling among all classes of
    society, I beg to assure you, that the opinion which I have been
    able to form in relation to the behavior of the laboring population,
    differs but little from my late observations.

    At a crisis like this, when all hopes of the ultimate success of so
    grand and bold an experiment, depends, almost entirely, on a cordial
    co-operation of the community, I sincerely hope, that no obstacles
    or interruptions will now present themselves, to disturb that
    general good understanding so happily established, since the
    adoption of unrestricted freedom."

       *       *       *       *       *

    _Superintendent's office_,
    _St. John's, Sept. 4th_, 1836.

    "SIR--I have the honor to enclose, for the information of your
    Excellency, the usual monthly return of offences reported for
    punishment.

    It affords me very great satisfaction to report, that the internal
    peace and tranquillity of the island has remained uninterrupted
    during the last month; the conduct of all classes of the community
    has been orderly and peaceable, and strictly obedient to the laws of
    their country.

    The agricultural laborers continue a steady and uniform line of
    conduct, and with some few exceptions, afford a general satisfaction
    to their several employers.

    Every friend to this country, and to the liberties of the world,
    must view with satisfaction the gradual improvement in the character
    and behavior of this class of the community, under the constant
    operation of the local enactments.

    The change must naturally be slow, but I feel sure that, in due
    time, a general amelioration in the habits and industry of the
    laborers will be sensibly experienced by all grades of society in
    this island, and will prove the benign effects and propitious
    results of the co-operated exertions of all, for their general
    benefit and future advancement.

    Complaints have been made in the public prints of the robberies
    committed in this town, as well as the neglect of duty of the police
    force, and as these statements must eventually come under the
    observation of your Excellency, I deem it my duty to make a few
    observations on this point.

    The town of St. John's occupies a space of one hundred and sixty
    acres of land, divided into fourteen main, and nine cross streets,
    exclusive of lanes and alleys--with a population of about three
    thousand four hundred persons.

    The numerical strength of the police force in this district, is
    eleven sergeants and two officers; five of these sergeants are on
    duty every twenty-four hours. One remains in charge of the premises,
    arms, and stores; the other four patrole by day and night, and have
    also to attend to the daily duties of the magistrates, and the
    eleventh is employed by me (being an old one) in general patrole
    duties, pointing out nuisances and irregularities.

    One burglary and one felony alone were reported throughout the
    island population of 37,000 souls in the month of July; and no
    burglary, and three felonies, were last month reported.

    The cases of robbery complained of, have been effected without any
    violence or noise, and have principally been by concealment in
    stores, which, added to the great want of a single lamp, or other
    light, in any one street at night, must reasonably facilitate the
    design of the robber, and defy the detection of the most active and
    vigilant body of police."

    _Signed, &c._

       *       *       *       *       *

    _Superintendent's office,_
    _Antigua, January 4th, 1837._

    "SIR--It is with feelings of the most lively gratification that I
    report, for your notice the quiet and peaceable termination of
    Christmas vacation, and the last year, which were concluded without
    a single serious violation of the governing laws.

    I cannot refrain from cordially congratulating your Excellency on
    the regular and steady behavior, maintained by all ranks of society,
    at this particular period of the year.

    Not one species of crime which can be considered of an heinous
    nature, has yet been discovered; and I proudly venture to declare my
    opinion, that in no part of his Majesty's dominions, has a
    population of thirty thousand conducted themselves with more strict
    propriety, at this annual festivity, or been more peaceably obedient
    to the laws of their country."

    _Signed, &c._

       *       *       *       *       *

In connection with the above quotation from the monthly reports, we
present an extract of a letter from the superintendent of the police,
addressed to us.

    _St. John's, 9th February, 1837._

    "MY DEAR SIRS--In compliance with your request, I have not any
    hesitation in affording you any information on the subject of the
    free system adopted in this island, which my public situation has
    naturally provided me with.

    The opinion which I have formed has been, and yet remains, in favor
    of the emancipation; and I feel very confident that the system has
    and continues to work well, in almost all instances. The laborers
    have conducted themselves generally in a highly satisfactory manner
    to all the authorities, and strikingly so when we reflect that the
    greater portion of the population of the island were at once removed
    from a state of long existing slavery, to one of unrestricted
    freedom. Unacquainted as they are with the laws newly enacted for
    their future government and guidance, and having been led in their
    ignorance to expect incalculable wonders and benefits arising from
    freedom, I cannot but reflect with amazement on the peace and good
    order which have been so fortunately maintained throughout the
    island population of thirty thousand subjects.

    Some trifling difficulties sprang up on the commencement of the new
    system among the laborers, but even these, on strict investigation,
    proved to originate more from _an ignorance of their actual
    position_, than from any bad feeling, or improper motives, and
    consequently _were of short duration_. In general the laborers are
    peaceable orderly, and civil, not only to those who move in higher
    spheres of life than themselves, but also to each other.

    The crimes they are generally guilty of, are petty thefts, and other
    minor offences against the local acts; but crimes of an heinous
    nature are very rare among them; and I may venture to say, that
    petty thefts, _breaking sugar-canes to eat_, and offences of the
    like description, _principally_ swell the calendars of our quarterly
    courts of sessions. _Murder_ has been a stranger to this island for
    many years; no execution has occurred among the island population
    for a very long period; the only two instances were two
    _Irish_ soldiers.

    The lower class having become more acquainted with their governing
    laws, have also become infinitely more obedient to them, and I have
    observed _that particular care is taken among most of them to
    explain to each other the nature of the laws_, and to point out in
    their usual style the ill consequences attending any violation of
    them. ==> _A due fear of, and a prompt obedience to, the
    authority of the magistrates, is a prominent feature of the lower
    orders_, and to this I mainly attribute the successful maintenance
    of rural tranquillity.

    Since emancipation, the agricultural laborer has had to contend with
    two of the most obstinate droughts experienced for many years in the
    island, which has decreased the supply of his accustomed vegetables
    and ground provisions, and consequently subjected him and family to
    very great privations; but this even, I think, has been submitted to
    with becoming resignation.

    To judge of the past and present state of society throughout the
    island, I presume that _the lives and properties of all classes are
    as secure in this, as in any other portion of his Majesty's
    dominions_; and I sincerely hope that the future behavior of all,
    will more clearly manifest the correctness of my views of this
    highly important subject.

    I remain, dear sirs, yours faithfully, RICHARD S. WICKHAM,
    _Superintendent of police_."

       *       *       *       *       *

This testimony is pointed and emphatic; and it comes from one whose
_official business it is to know_ the things whereof he here affirms. We
have presented not merely the opinions of Mr. W., relative to the
subordination of the emancipated negroes in Antigua, but likewise the
_facts_ upon which be founded his opinion.

On a point of such paramount importance we cannot be too explicit. We
therefore add the testimony of planters as to the actual state of crime
compared with that previous to emancipation.

Said J. Howell, Esq., of T. Jarvis's estate, "I do not think that
aggressions on property, and crime in general, have increased since
emancipation, but rather decreased. They _appear_ to be more frequent,
because they are made _more public_. During slavery, all petty thefts,
insubordination, insolence, neglect of work, and so forth, were punished
summarily on the estate, by order of the manager, and not even so much
as the rumor of them ever reached beyond the confines of the property.
Now all offences, whether great or trifling, are to be taken cognizance
of by the magistrate or jury, and hence they become notorious. Formerly
each planter knew only of those crimes which occurred on his own
property; now every one knows something about the crimes committed on
every other estate, as well as his own."

It will be remembered that Mr. H. is a man of thorough and long
experience in the condition of the island, having lived in it since the
year 1800, and being most of that time engaged directly is the
management of estates.

"Aggression on private property, such as breaking into houses, cutting
canes, &c., are decidedly fewer than formerly. It is true that crime is
made more _public_ now, than during slavery, when the master was his own
magistrate."--_Dr. Daniell_.

"I am of the opinion that crime in the island has diminished rather than
increased since the abolition of slavery. There is an _apparent_
increase of crime, because every misdemeanor, however petty, floats to
the surface."--_Hon. N. Nugent_.

We might multiply testimony on this point; but suffice it to say that
with very few exceptions, the planters, many of whom are also civil
magistrates, concur in these two statements; that the amount of crime is
actually less than it was during slavery; and that it _appears_ to _be
greater_ because of the publicity which is necessarily given by legal
processes to offences which were formerly punished and forgotten on the
spot where they occurred.

Some of the prominent points established by the foregoing evidence are,

1st. That most of the crimes committed are petty misdemeanors such as
turning out to work late in the morning, cutting canes to eat, &c. _High
penal offences_ are exceedingly rare.

2d. That where offences of a serious nature do occur, or any open
insubordination takes place, they are founded in ignorance or
misapprehension of the law, and are seldom repeated a second time, if
the law be properly explained and fully understood.

3d. That the above statements apply to no particular part of the island,
where the negroes are peculiarly favored with intelligence and religion,
but are made with reference to tire island generally. Now it happens
that in one quarter of the island the negro population are remarkably
ignorant and degraded. We were credibly informed by various
missionaries, who had labored in Antigua and in a number of the other
English islands, that they had not found in any colony so much
debasement among the people, as prevailed in the part of Antigua just
alluded to. Yet they testified that the negroes in that quarter were as
peaceable, orderly, and obedient to law, as in any other part of the
colony. We make this statement here particularly for the purpose of
remarking that in the testimony of the planters, and in the police
reports; there is not a single allusion to this portion of the island as
forming an exception to the prevailing state of order and subordination.

After the foregoing facts and evidences, we ask, what becomes of the
dogma, that slaves cannot be immediately placed under the government of
_equitable laws_ with safety to themselves and the community?

Twelfth proposition.--The emancipated negroes have shown _no disposition
to roam from place to place._ A tendency to rove about, is thought by
many to be a characteristic of the negro; he is not allowed even an
ordinary share of local attachment, but must leave the chain and staple
of slavery to hold him amidst the graves of his fathers and the society
of his children. The experiment in Antigua shows that such sentiments
are groundless prejudices. There a large body of slaves were "_turned
loose_;" they had full liberty to leave their old homes and settle on
other properties--or if they preferred a continuous course of roving,
they might change employers every six weeks, and pass from one estate to
another until they had accomplished the circuit of the island. But, what
are the facts? "The negroes are not disposed to leave the estates on
which they have formerly lived, unless they are forced away by bad
treatment. I have witnessed many facts which illustrate this remark. Not
unfrequently one of the laborers will get dissatisfied about something,
and in the excitement of the moment will notify me that he intends to
leave my employ at the end of a month. But in nine cases out of ten such
persons, before the month has expired, beg to be allowed to remain on
the estate. The strength of their _local attachment_ soon overcomes
their resentment and even drives them to make the most humiliating
confessions in order to be restored to the favor of their employer, and
thus be permitted to remain in their old homes."--_H. Armstrong, Esq._

"Nothing but bad treatment on the part of the planters has ever caused
the negroes to leave the estates on which they were accustomed to live,
and in such cases a _change of management_ has almost uniformly been
sufficient to induce them to return. We have known several instances of
this kind."--_S. Bourne, Esq., of Millar's, and Mr. Watkins, of
Donavan's_.

"The negroes are remarkably attached to their homes. In the year 1828,
forty-three slaves were sold from the estate under my management, and
removed to another estate ten miles distant. After emancipation, the
whole of these came back, and plead with me to employ them, that they
might live in their former houses."--_James Howell, Esq._

"Very few of my people have left me. The negroes are peculiar for their
attachment to their homes."--_Samuel Barnard, Esq., of Green Castle_.

"Love of home is very remarkable in the negroes. It is a passion with
them. On one of the estates of which I am attorney, a part of the
laborers were hired from other proprietors. They had been for a great
many years living on the estate, and they became so strongly attached to
it, that they all continued to work on it after emancipation, and they
still remain on the same property. The negroes are loth to leave their
homes, and they very seldom do so unless forced away by ill
treatment."--_Dr. Daniell_.

On a certain occasion we were in the company of four planters, and among
other topics this subject was much spoken of. They all accorded
perfectly in the sentiment that the negroes were peculiarly sensible to
the influence of local attachments. One of the gentlemen observed that
it was a very common saying with them--"_Me nebber leave my bornin'
ground_,"--i.e., birth-place.

An aged gentleman in St. John's, who was formerly a planter, remarked,
"The negroes have very strong local attachments. They love their little
hut, where the calabash tree, planted at the birth of a son, waves over
the bones of their parents. They will endure almost any hardship and
suffer repeated wrongs before they will desert that spot."

Such are the sentiments of West India planters; expressed, in the
majority of cases, spontaneously, and mostly in illustration of other
statements. We did not hear a word that implied an opposite sentiment.
It is true, much was said about the emigration to Demerara, but the
facts in this case only serve to confirm the testimony already quoted.
In the first place, nothing but the inducement of very high wages[A]
could influence any to go, and in the next place, after they got there
they sighed to return, (but were not permitted,) and sent back word to
their relatives and friends not to leave Antigua.

[Footnote A: From fifty cents to a dollar per day.]

Facts clearly prove, that the negroes, instead of being indifferent to
local attachments, are peculiarly alive to them. That nothing short of
cruelty can drive them from their homes--that they will endure even
that, as long as it can be borne, rather than leave; and that as soon as
the instrument of cruelty is removed, they will hasten back to their
"_bornin' ground._"

THIRTEENTH PROPOSITION.--"The gift of unrestricted freedom, though so
suddenly bestowed, has not made the negroes more insolent than they were
while slaves, but has rendered them _less so_."--_Dr. Daniell_.

Said James Howell, Esq.--"A short time after emancipation, the negroes
showed some disposition to assume airs and affect a degree of
independence; but this soon disappeared, and they are now respectful and
civil. There has been a mutual improvement in this particular. The
planters treat the laborers more like fellow men, and this leads the
latter to be respectful in their turn."

R.B. Eldridge, Esq., asked us if we had not observed the civility of the
lower classes as we passed them on the streets, both in town and in the
country. He said it was their uniform custom to bow or touch their hat
when they passed a white person. They did so during slavery, and he had
not discovered any change in this respect since emancipation.

Said Mr. Bourne--"The negroes are decidedly less insolent now than they
were during slavery."

Said Mr. Watkins, of Donovan's--"The negroes are now all _cap in hand_;
as they know that it is for their interest to be respectful to their
employers."

Said Dr. Nugent--"Emancipation has not produced insolence among the
negroes."

During our stay in Antigua, we saw no indications whatsoever of
insolence. We spoke in a former part of this work of the uncommon
civility manifested in a variety of ways on the road-sides.

A trifling incident occurred one day in St. John's, which at first
seemed to be no small rudeness. As one of us was standing in the
verandah of our lodging house, in the dusk of the evening, a brawny
negro man who was walking down the middle of the street, stopped
opposite us, and squaring himself, called out. "Heigh! What for you
stand dare wid your arms so?" placing his arms akimbo, in imitation of
ours. Seeing we made no answer, he repeated the question, still standing
in the same posture. We took no notice of him, seeing that his supposed
insolence was at most good-humored and innocent. Our hostess, a colored
lady, happened to step out at the moment, and told us that the man had
mistaken us for her son, with whom he was well acquainted, at the same
time calling to the man, and telling him of his mistake. The negro
instantly dropped his arms, took off his hat, begged pardon, and walked
away apparently quite ashamed.

FOURTEENTH PROPOSITION.--Emancipation in Antigua has demonstrated that
GRATITUDE _is a prominent trait of the negro character_. The conduct of
the negroes on the first of August, 1834, is ample proof of this; and
their uniform conduct since that event manifests an _habitual_ feeling
of gratitude. Said one, "The liberty we received from the king, we can
never sufficiently thank God for; whenever we think of it, our hearts go
out in gratitude to God." Similar expressions we heard repeatedly from
the negroes.--We observed that the slightest allusion to the first of
August in a company of freed persons, would awaken powerful emotions,
accompanied with exclamations of "tank de good Lord," "bless de Savior,"
"praise de blessed Savior," and such like.

It was the remark of Mr. James Howell, manager of Thibou Jarvis's--"That
the negroes evinced very little gratitude to their _masters_ for
freedom. Their gratitude all flowed toward God and the king, whom they
regarded as the sole authors of their liberty."

Mr. Watkins observed that "the negroes' motto was God and the king. This
feeling existed particularly at the time of emancipation, and shortly
after it. They have since become more attached to their former masters."

It is by no means strange that the negroes should feel little gratitude
toward their late masters, since they knew their opposition to the
benevolent intentions of the English government. We were informed by Dr.
Daniell and many others, that for several months before emancipation
took place, the negroes had an idea that the king had sent them 'their
free papers,' and that _their masters were keeping them back._ Besides,
it was but two years before that period, that they had come into fierce
and open hostility with the planters for abolishing the Sunday market,
and giving them no market-day instead thereof. In this thing their
masters had shown themselves to be their enemies.

That any good thing could come from such persons the slaves were
doubtless slow to believe. However, it is an undeniable fact, that since
emancipation, kind treatment on the part of the masters, has never
failed to excite gratitude in the negroes. The planters understand fully
how they may secure the attachment and confidence of their people. A
_grateful_ and _contented_ spirit certainly characterizes the negroes of
Antigua. They do not lightly esteem what they have got, and murmur
because they have no more. They do not complain of small wages, and
strike for higher. They do not grumble about their simple food and their
coarse clothes, and flaunt about, saying '_freemen ought to live
better_.' They do not become dissatisfied with their lowly,
cane-thatched huts, and say we ought to have as good houses as massa.
They do not look with an evil eye upon the political privileges of the
whites, and say we have the majority, and we'll rule. It is the common
saying with them, when speaking of the inconveniences which they
sometimes suffer, "Well, we must be satify and conten."

FIFTEENTH PROPOSITION.--The freed negroes of Antigua have proved that
_they are able to take care of themselves_. It is affirmed by the
opponents of emancipation in the United States, that if the slaves were
liberated, they could not take care of themselves. Some of the reasons
assigned for entertaining this view are--1st, "The negro is naturally
improvident." 2d, "He is constitutionally indolent." 3d, "Being of an
inferior race, he is deficient in that shrewdness and management
necessary to prevent his being imposed upon, and which are indispensable
to enable him to conduct any business with success." 4th, "All these
natural defects have been aggravated by slavery. The slave never
provides for himself, but looks to his master for everything he needs.
So likewise he becomes increasingly averse to labor, by being driven to
it daily, and flogged for neglecting it. Furthermore, whatever of mind
he had originally has been extinguished by slavery." Thus by nature and
by habit the negro is utterly unqualified to take care of himself. So
much for theory; now for testimony. First, what is the evidence with
regard to the _improvidence_ of the negroes?

"During slavery, the negroes squandered every cent of money they got,
because they were sure of food and clothing. Since their freedom, they
have begun to cultivate habits of carefulness and economy".--_Mr.
James Howell_.

Facts--1st. The low wages of the laborers is proof of their providence.
Did they not observe the strictest economy, they could not live on fifty
cents per week.

2d. That they buy small parcels of land to cultivate, is proof of
economy and foresight. The planters have to resort to every means in
their power to induce their laborers not to purchase land.

3d. The Friendly Societies are an evidence of the same thing. How can we
account for the number of these societies, and for the large sums of
money annually contributed in them? And how is it that these societies
have trebled, both in members and means since emancipation, if it be
true that the negroes are thus improvident, and that freedom brings
starvation?

4th. The weekly and monthly contributions to the churches, to benevolent
societies, and to the schools, demonstrate the economy of the negroes;
and the _great increase_ of these contributions since August, 1834,
proves that emancipation has not made them less economical.

5th. The increasing attention paid to the cultivation of their private
provision grounds is further proof of their foresight. For some time
subsequent to emancipation, as long as the people were in an unsettled
state, they partially neglected their grounds. The reason was, they did
not know whether they should remain on the same estate long enough to
reap their provisions, should they plant any. This state of uncertainty
very naturally paralyzed all industry and enterprise; and their
neglecting the cultivation of their provision grounds, _under such
circumstances_, evinced foresight rather than improvidence. Since they
have become more permanently established on the estates, they are
resuming the cultivation of their grounds with renewed vigor.

Said Dr. Daniell--"There is an increasing attention paid by the negroes
to cultivating their private lands, since they have become more
permanently settled."

6th. The fact that the parents take care of the wages which their
children earn, shows their provident disposition. We were informed that
the mothers usually take charge of the money paid to their children,
especially their daughters, and this, in order to teach them proper
subordination, and to provide against casualties, sickness, and the
infirmities of age.

7th. The fact that the negroes are able to support their aged parents,
is further proof.

As it regards the second specification, viz., _constitutional
indolence_, we may refer generally to the evidence on this subject under
a former proposition. We will merely state here two facts.

1st. Although the negroes are not obliged to work on Saturday, yet they
are in the habit of going to estates that are weak-handed, and hiring
themselves out on that day.

2d. It is customary throughout the island to give two hours (from 12 to
2) recess from labor. We were told that in many cases this time is spent
in working on their private provision grounds, or in some active
employment by which a pittance may be added to their scanty earnings.

What are the facts respecting the natural _inferiority_ of the negro
race, and their incompetency to manage their own affairs?

Said Mr. Armstrong--"The negroes are exceedingly quick _to turn a
thought_. They show a great deal of shrewdness in every thing which
concerns their own interests. To a stranger it must be utterly
incredible how they can manage to live on such small wages. They are
very exact in keeping their accounts with the manager."

"The negroes are very acute in making bargains. A difficulty once arose
on an estate under my charge, between the manager and the people, in
settling for a job which the laborers had done. The latter complained
that the manager did not give them as much as was stipulated in the
original agreement. The manager contended that he had paid the whole
amount. The people brought their complaint before me, as attorney, and
maintained that there was one shilling and six-pence (about nineteen
cents) due each of them. I examined the accounts and found that they
were right, and that the manager had really made a mistake to the very
amount specified."--_Dr. Daniell_.

"The emancipated people manifest as much cunning and address in
business, as any class of persons."--_Mr. J. Howell_.

"The capabilities of the blacks for education are conspicuous; so also
as to mental acquirements and trades."--_Hon. N. Nugent_.

It is a little remarkable that while Americans fear that the negroes, if
emancipated, could not take care of themselves, the West Indians fear
lest they _should_ take care of themselves; hence they discourage them
from buying lands, from learning trades, and from all employments which
might render them independent of sugar cultivation.

SIXTEENTH PROPOSITION.--Emancipation has operated at once to elevate and
improve the negroes. It introduced them into the midst of all relations,
human and divine. It was the first formal acknowledgment that they were
MEN--personally interested in the operations of law, and the
requirements of God. It laid the corner-stone in the fabric of their
moral and intellectual improvement.

"The negroes have a growing self-respect and regard for character. This
was a feeling which was scarcely known by them during slavery."--_Mr.
J. Howell_.

"The negroes pay a great deal more attention to their personal
appearance, than they were accustomed to while slaves. The _women_ in
particular have improved astonishingly in their dress and
manners."--_Dr. Daniell_.

Abundant proof of this proposition may be found in the statements
already made respecting the decrease of licentiousness, the increased
attention paid to marriage, the abandonment by the mothers of the
horrible practice of selling their daughters to vile white men, the
reverence for the Sabbath, the attendance upon divine worship, the
exemplary subordination to law, the avoidance of riotous conduct,
insolence, and intemperance.

SEVENTEENTH PROPOSITION--Emancipation promises a vast improvement in the
condition of woman. What could more effectually force woman from her
sphere, than slavery has done by dragging her to the field, subjecting
her to the obscene remarks, and to the vile abominations of licentious
drivers and overseers; by compelling her to wield the heavy hoe, until
advancing pregnancy rendered her useless then at the earliest possible
period driving her back to the field with her infant swung at her back,
or torn from her and committed to a stranger. Some of these evils still
exist in Antigua, but there has already been a great abatement of them,
and the humane planters look forward to their complete removal, and to
the ultimate restoration of woman to the quiet and purity of
domestic life.

Samuel Bourne, Esq., stated, that there had been a great improvement in
the treatment of mothers on his estate. "Under the old system, mothers
were required to work half the time after their children were six weeks
old; but now we do not call them out for _nine months_ after their
confinement, until their children are entirely weaned."

"In those cases where women have husbands in the field, they do not turn
out while they are nursing their children. In many instances the
husbands prefer to have their wives engaged in other work, and I do not
require them to go to the field."--_Mr. J Howell_.

Much is already beginning to be said of the probability that the women
will withdraw from agricultural labor. A conviction of the impropriety
of females engaging in such employments is gradually forming in the
minds of enlightened and influential planters.

A short time previous to emancipation, the Hon. N. Nugent, speaker of
the assembly, made the following remarks before the house:--"At the
close of the debate, he uttered his fervent hope, that the day would
come when the principal part of the agriculture of the island would be
performed by males, and that the women would be occupied in keeping
their cottages in order, and in increasing their domestic comforts. The
desire of improvement is strong among them; they are looking anxiously
forward to the instruction and advancement of their children, and even
of themselves."--_Antigua Herald, of March_, 1834.

In a written communication to us, dated January 17, 1837, the Speaker
says: "Emancipation will, I doubt not, improve the condition of the
females. There can be no doubt that they will ultimately leave the
field, (except in times of emergency,) and confine themselves to their
appropriate domestic employments."

EIGHTEENTH PROPOSITION.--Real estate has risen in value since
emancipation; mercantile and mechanical occupations have received a
fresh impulse; and the general condition of the colony is decidedly more
flourishing than at any former period.

"The credit of the island has decidedly improved. The internal
prosperity of the island is advancing in an increased ratio. More
buildings have been erected since emancipation, than for twenty years
before. Stores and shops have multiplied astonishingly; I can safely say
that their number has more than quintupled since the abolition of
slavery."--_Dr. Ferguson_.

"Emancipation has very greatly increased the value of, and consequently
the demand for, real estate. That which three years ago was a drug
altogether unsaleable by private bargain; has now many inquirers after
it, and ready purchasers at good prices. The importation of British
manufactured goods has been considerably augmented, probably one fourth."

"The credit of the planters who have been chiefly affected by the
change, has been much improved. And _the great reduction of expense in
managing the estates_, has made them men of more real wealth, and
consequently raised their credit both with the English merchants and our
own."--_James Scotland, Sen., Esq._

"The effect of emancipation upon the commerce of the island _must needs_
have been beneficial, as the laborers indulge in more wheaten flour,
rice, mackerel, dry fish, and salt-pork, than formerly. More lumber is
used in the superior cottages now built for their habitations. More dry
goods--manufactures of wool, cotton, linen, silk, leather, &c., are also
used, now that the laborers can better afford to indulge their
propensity for gay clothing."--_Statement of a merchant and agent
for estates_.

"Real estate has risen in value, and mercantile business has greatly
improved."--_H. Armstrong, Esq._

A merchant of St. John's informed us, that real estate had increased in
value at least fifty per cent. He mentioned the fact, that an estate
which previous to emancipation could not be sold for £600 current,
lately brought £2000 current.

NINETEENTH PROPOSITION--Emancipation has been followed by the
introduction of labor-saving machinery.

"Various expedients for saving manual labor have already been
introduced, and we anticipate still greater improvements. Very little
was thought of this subject previous to emancipation."--_S.
Bourne, Esq._

"Planters are beginning to cast about for improvements in labor. My own
mind has been greatly turned to this subject since emancipation."--_H.
Armstrong, Esq._

"The plough is beginning to be very extensively used."--_Mr. Hatley_.

"There has been considerable simplification in agricultural labor
already, which would have been more conspicuous, had it not been for
the excessive drought which has prevailed since 1834. The plough is
more used, and the expedients for manuring land are less
laborious."--_Extract of a letter from Hon. N. Nugent_.



TWENTIETH PROPOSITION.--Emancipation has produced the most decided
change in the views of the _planters_.

"Before emancipation took place, there was the bitterest opposition to
it among the planters. But after freedom came, they were delighted with
the change. I felt strong opposition myself, being exceedingly unwilling
to give up my power of command. But I shall never forget how differently
I felt when freedom took place I arose from my bed on the first of
August, exclaiming with joy, 'I am free, I am free; I _was the greatest
slave on the estate_, but now I am free.'"--_Mr. J. Howell_.

"We all resisted violently the measure of abolition, when it first began
to be agitated in England. We regarded it as an outrageous interference
with our rights, with our property. But we are now rejoiced that slavery
is abolished."--_Dr. Daniell_.

"I have already seen such decided benefits growing out of the free labor
system, that for my part I wish never to see the face of slavery again."
--_Mr. Hatley_.

"I do not know of a single planter who would be willing to return to
slavery. We all feel that it was a great curse."--_D. Cranstoun, Esq._

The speaker of the assembly was requested to state especially the
advantages of freedom both to the master and the slave; and he kindly
communicated the following reply:

    "The benefits to the master are conspicuous--he has got rid of the
    cark and care, the anxiety and incessant worry of managing slaves;
    all the trouble and responsibility of rearing them from infancy, of
    their proper maintenance in health, and sickness, and decrepitude,
    of coercing them to labor, restraining, correcting, and punishing
    their faults and crimes--settling all their grievances and disputes.
    He is now entirely free from all apprehension of injury, revenge, or
    insurrection, however transient and momentary such impression may
    have formerly been. He has no longer the reproach of being a
    _slaveholder_; his property has lost all the _taint_ of slavery, and
    is placed on as secure a footing, in a moral and political point of
    view, as that in any other part of the British dominions.

    As regards the _other_ party, it seems almost unnecessary to point
    out the advantages of being a free man rather than a slave. He is no
    longer liable to personal trespass of any sort; he has a right of
    self-control, and all the immunities enjoyed by other classes of his
    fellow subjects--he is enabled to better his condition as he thinks
    proper--he can make what arrangements he likes best, as regards his
    kindred, and all his domestic relations--he takes to his _own_ use
    and behoof, all the wages and profits of his own labor; he receives
    money wages instead of weekly allowances, and can purchase such
    particular food and necessaries as he prefers--_and so on_! IT WOULD
    BE ENDLESS TO ATTEMPT TO ENUMERATE ALL THE SUPERIOR ADVANTAGES OF A
    STATE OF FREEDOM TO ONE OF SLAVERY!"

The writer says, at the close of his invaluable letter, "I was born in
Antigua, and have resided here with little interruption since 1809.
Since 1814, I have taken an active concern in plantation affairs." He
was born heir to a large slave property, and retained it up to the hour
of emancipation. He is now the proprietor of an estate.

We have, another witness to introduce to the reader, Ralph Higinbothom,
Esq., the UNITED STATES CONSUL!--_Hear him_!--

"Whatever may have been the dissatisfaction as regards emancipation
among the planters at its commencement, there are few, indeed, if any,
who are not _now_ well satisfied that under the present system, their
properties are better worked, and their laborers more contented and
cheerful, than in the time of slavery."

In order that the reader may see the _revolution_ that has taken place
since emancipation in the views of the highest class of society in
Antigua, we make a few extracts.

"There was the most violent opposition in the legislature, and
throughout the island, to the anti-slavery proceedings in Parliament.
The anti-slavery party in England were detested here for their
_fanatical and reckless course_. Such was the state of feeling previous
to emancipation, that it would have been certain disgrace for any
planter to have avowed the least sympathy with anti-slavery sentiments.
The humane might have their hopes and aspirations, and they might
secretly long to see slavery ultimately terminated; but they did not
dare to make such feelings public. _They would at once have been branded
as the enemies of their country!"--Hon. N. Nugent_.

"There cannot be said to have been any _anti-slavery party_ in the
island before emancipation. There were some individuals in St. John's,
and a very few planters, who favored the anti-slavery views, but they
dared not open their mouths, because of the bitter hostility which
prevailed."--_S. Bourne, Esq._

"The opinions of the clergymen and missionaries, with the exception of,
I believe, a few clergymen, were favorable to emancipation; but neither
in their conduct, preaching, or prayers, did they declare themselves
openly, until the measure of abolition was determined on. The
missionaries felt restrained by their instructions from home, and the
clergymen thought that it did not comport with their order 'to take part
in politics!' I never heard of a single _planter_ who was favorable,
until about three months before the emancipation took place; when some
few of them began to perceive that it would be advantageous to their
_interests_. Whoever was known or suspected of being an advocate for
freedom, became the object of vengeance, and was sure to suffer, if in
no other way, by a loss of part of his business. My son-in-law[A], my
son[B], and myself, were perhaps the chief marks for calumny and
resentment. The first was twice elected a member of the Assembly, and as
often put out by scrutinies conducted by the House, in the most
flagrantly dishonest manner. Every attempt was made to deprive the
second of his business, as a lawyer. With regard to myself, I was thrown
into prison, without any semblance of justice, without any form of
trial, but in the most summary manner, simply upon the complaint of one
of the justices, and without any opportunity being allowed me of saying
one word in my defence. I remained in jail until discharged by a
peremptory order from the Colonial Secretary, to whom I
appealed."--_James Scotland, Sen., Esq._

[Footnote A: Dr. Ferguson, physician in St. John's.]

[Footnote B: James Scotland, Jun., Esq., barrister, proprietor, and
member of Assembly.]

Another gentleman, a white man, was arrested on the charge of being in
the interest of the English Anti-Slavery party, and in a manner equally
summary and illegal, was cast into prison, and confined there for
one year.

From the foregoing statements we obtain the following comparative view
of the past and present state of sentiment in Antigua.

Views and conduct of the planters previous to emancipation:

1st. They regarded the negroes as an inferior race, fit only for slaves.

2d. They regarded them as their rightful property.

3d. They took it for granted that negroes could never be made to work
without the use of the whip; hence,

4th. They supposed that emancipation would annihilate sugar cultivation;
and,

5th. That it would lead to bloodshed and general rebellion.

6th. Those therefore who favored it, were considered the "_enemies of
their country_"--"TRAITORS"--and were accordingly persecuted in various
ways, not excepting imprisonment in the common jail.

7th. So popular was slavery among the higher classes, that its morality
or justice could not be questioned by a missionary--an editor--or a
_planter_ even, without endangering the safety of the individual.

8th. The anti-slavery people in England were considered detestable men,
intermeddling with matters which they did not understand, and which at
any rate did not concern them. They were accused of being influenced by
selfish motives, and of designing to further their own interests by the
ruin of the planters. They were denounced as _fanatics, incendiaries,
knaves, religious enthusiasts_.

9th The abolition measures of the English Government were considered a
gross outrage on the rights of private property, a violation their
multiplied pledges of countenance and support, and a flagrant usurpation
of power over the weak.

Views and conduct of the planters subsequent to emancipation:

1st. The negroes are retarded as _men_--equals standing on the same
footing as fellow-citizens.

2d. Slavery is considered a foolish, impolitic, and wicked system.

3d. Slaves are regarded as an _unsafe_ species of property, and to hold
them disgraceful.

4th. The planters have become the _decided enemies_ of slavery. The
worst thing they could say against the apprenticeship, was, that "it was
only another name for _slavery_."

5th. The abolition of slavery is applauded by the planters as one of the
most noble and magnanimous triumphs ever achieved by the British
government.

6th. Distinguished abolitionists are spoken of in terms of respect and
admiration. The English Anti-slavery Delegation[A] spent a fortnight in
the island, and left it the same day we arrived. Wherever we went we
heard of them as "the respectable gentlemen from England," "the worthy
and intelligent members of the Society of Friends," &c. A distinguished
agent of the English anti-slavery society now resides in St. John's, and
keeps a bookstore, well stocked with anti-slavery books and pamphlets.
The bust of GEORGE THOMPSON stands conspicuously upon the counter of the
bookstore, looking forth upon the public street.

[Footnote A: Messrs. Sturge and Harvey.]

7th. The planters affirm that the abolition of slavery put an end to all
danger from insurrection, rebellion, privy conspiracy, and sedition, on
the part of the slaves.

8th. Emancipation is deemed an incalculable blessing, because it
released the planters from an endless complication of responsibilities,
perplexities, temptations and anxieties, and because it _emancipated
them from the bondage of the whip_.

9th. _Slavery--emancipation--freedom_--are the universal topics of
conversation in Antigua. Anti-slavery is the popular doctrine among all
classes. He is considered an enemy to his country who opposes the
principles of liberty. The planters look with astonishment on the
continuance of slavery in the United States, and express their strong
belief that it must soon terminate here and throughout the world. They
hailed the arrival of French and American visitors on tours of inquiry
as a bright omen. In publishing our arrival, one of the St. John's
papers remarks, "We regard this as a pleasing indication that the
American public have their eyes turned upon our experiment, with a view,
we may hope, of ultimately following our excellent example." (!) All
classes showed the same readiness to aid us in what the Governor was
pleased to call "the objects of our philanthropic mission."

Such are the views now entertained among the planters of Antigua. What a
complete change[B]--and all in less than three years, and effected by
the abolition of slavery and a trial of freedom! Most certainly, if the
former views of the Antigua planters resemble those held by pro-slavery
men in this country, their present sentiments are a _fac simile_ of
those entertained by the immediate abolitionists.

[Footnote B: The following little story will further illustrate the
wonderful revolution which has taken place in the public sentiment of
this colony. The facts here stated all occurred while we were in
Antigua, and we procured them from a variety of authentic sources. They
were indeed publicly known and talked of, and produced no little
excitement throughout the island. Mr. Corbett was a respectable and
intelligent planter residing on an estate near Johnson's Point. Several
months previous to the time of which we now speak, a few colored
families (emancipated negroes) bought of a white man some small parcels
of land lying adjacent to Mr. C.'s estate. They planted their lands in
provisions, and also built them houses thereon, and moved into them.
After they had become actively engaged in cultivating their provisions,
Mr. Corbett laid claim to the lands, and ordered the negroes to leave
them forthwith.

They of course refused to do so. Mr. C. then flew into a violent rage,
and stormed and swore, and threatened to burn their houses down over
their heads. The terrified negroes forsook their property and fled. Mr.
C. then ordered his negroes to tear down their huts and burn up the
materials--which was accordingly done. He also turned in his cattle upon
the provision grounds, and destroyed them. The negroes made a complaint
against Mr. C., and he was arrested and committed to jail in St. John's
for trial on the charge of _arson_.

We heard of this circumstance on the day of Mr. C.'s commitment, and we
were told that it would probably go very hard with him on his trial, and
that he would be very fortunate if he escaped the _gallows_ or
_transportation_. A few days after this we were surprised to hear that
Mr. C. had died in prison. Upon inquiry, we learned that he died
literally from _rage and mortification_. His case defied the, skill and
power of the physicians. They could detect the presence of no disease
whatever, even on a minute post-mortem examination. They pronounced it
as their opinion that he had died from the violence of his
passions--excited by being imprisoned, together with his apprehensions
of the fatal issue of the trial.

Not long before emancipation, Mr. Scotland was imprisoned for
_befriending_ the negroes. After emancipation, Mr. Corbett was
imprisoned for wronging them.

Mr. Corbett was a respectable planter, of good family and moved in the
first circles in the island]

TWENTY-FIRST PROPOSITION.--Emancipation has been followed by a manifest
diminution of "_prejudice against color_," and has opened the prospect
off its speedy extirpation.

Some thirty years ago, the president of the island, Sir Edward Byam,
issued an order forbidding the great bell in the cathedral of St. John's
being tolled at the funeral of a colored person; and directing a
_smaller_ bell to be hung up in the same belfry, and used on such
occasions. For twenty years this distinction was strictly maintained.
When a white person, however _vile_, was buried, the great bell was
tolled; when a colored person, whatever his moral worth, intelligence,
or station, was carried to his grave, the little bell was tinkled. It
was not until the arrival of the present excellent Rector, that this
"prejudice bell" was silenced. The Rev. Mr. Cox informed us that
prejudice had greatly decreased since emancipation. It was very common
for white and colored gentlemen to be seen walking arm in arm an the
streets of St. John's.

"Prejudice against color is fast disappearing. The colored people have
themselves contributed to prolong this feeling, _by keeping aloof from
the society of the whites_."--_James Howell, of T. Jarvis's_.

How utterly at variance is this with the commonly received opinion, that
the colored people are disposed to _thrust_ themselves into the society
of the whites!

"_Prejudice against color_ exists in this community only to a limited
extent, and that chiefly among those who could never bring themselves to
believe that emancipation would really take place. Policy dictates to
them the propriety of confining any expression of their feelings to
those of the same opinions. Nothing is shown of this prejudice in their
intercourse with the colored class--it is '_kept behind the
scenes_.'"--_Ralph Higginbotham, U. S. Consul._

Mr. H. was not the only individual standing in "high places" who
insinuated that the whites that still entertained prejudice were ashamed
of it. His excellency the Governor intimated as much, by his repeated
assurances for himself and his compeers of the first circles, that there
was no such feeling in the island as prejudice against _color_. The
reasons for excluding the colored people from their society, he said,
were wholly different from that. It was chiefly because of their
_illegitimacy_, and also because they were not sufficiently refined, and
because their _occupations_ were of an inferior kind, such as mechanical
trades, small shop keeping, &c. Said he, "You would not wish to ask your
tailor, or your shoemaker, to dine with you?" However, we were too
unsophisticated to coincide in his Excellency's notions of social
propriety.

TWENTY-SECOND PROPOSITION.--The progress of the anti-slavery discussions
in England did not cause the masters to treat their slaves worse, but on
the contrary restrained them from outrage.

"The treatment of the slaves during the discussions in England, was
manifestly milder than before."--_Dr. Daniell._

"The effect of the proceedings in parliament was to make the planters
treat their slaves better. Milder laws were passed by the assembly, and
the general condition of the slave was greatly ameliorated."--_H.
Armstrong, Esq._

"The planters did not increase the rigor of their discipline because of
the anti-slavery discussions; but as a general thing, were more lenient
than formerly."--_S. Bourne. Esq._

"We pursued a much milder policy toward our slaves after the agitation
began in England."--_Mr. Jas. Hawoil_.

"The planters did not treat their slaves worse on account of the
discussions; but were more lenient and circumspect."--_Letter of Hon.
N. Nugent._

"There was far less cruelty exercised by the planters during the
anti-slavery excitement in gland. They were always on their guard to
escape the notice of the abolitionists. _They did not wish to have their
names published abroad, and to be exposed as monsters of
cruelty!_"--_David Cranstoun, Esq._

We have now completed our observations upon Antigua. It has been our
single object in the foregoing account to give an accurate statement of
the results of IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION. We have not taken a single step
beyond the limits of testimony, and we are persuaded that testimony
materially conflicting with this, cannot be procured from respectable
sources in Antigua. We now leave it to our readers to decide, whether
emancipation in Antigua has been to all classes in that island a
_blessing_ or a _curse_.

We cannot pass from this part of our report without recording the
kindness and hospitality which we everywhere experienced during our
sojourn in Antigua. Whatever may have been our apprehensions of a cool
reception from a community of ex-slaveholders, none of our forebodings
were realized. It rarely Falls to the lot of strangers visiting a
distant land, with none of the contingencies of birth, fortune, or fame,
to herald their arrival, and without the imposing circumstance of a
popular mission to recommend them, to meet with a warmer reception, or
to enjoy a more hearty confidence, than that with which we were honored
in the interesting island of Antigua. The very _object_ of our visit,
humble, and even odious as it may appear in the eyes of many of our own
countrymen, was our passport to the consideration and attention of the
higher classes in that free colony. We hold in grateful remembrance the
interest which all--not excepting those most deeply implicated in the
late system of slavery--manifested in our investigations. To his
excellency the Governor, to officers both civil and military, to
legislators and judges, to proprietors and planters, to physicians,
barristers, and merchants, to clergymen, missionaries, and teachers, we
are indebted for their uniform readiness in furthering our objects, and
for the mass of information with which they were pleased to furnish us.
To the free colored population, also, we are lasting debtors for their
hearty co-operation and assistance. To the emancipated, we recognise our
obligations as the friends of the slave, for their simple-hearted and
reiterated assurances that they should remember the oppressed of our
land in their prayers to God. In the name of the multiplying hosts of
freedom's friends, and in behalf of the millions of speechless but
grateful-hearted slaves, we render to our acquaintances of every class
in Antigua our warmest thanks for their cordial sympathy with the cause
of emancipation in America. We left Antigua with regret. The natural
advantages of that lovely island; its climate, situation, and scenery;
the intelligence and hospitality of the higher orders, and the
simplicity and sobriety of the poor; the prevalence of education,
morality, and religion; its solemn Sabbaths and thronged sanctuaries;
and above _all_, its rising institutions of liberty--flourishing so
vigorously,--conspire to make Antigua one of the fairest portions of the
earth. Formerly it was in our eyes but a speck on the world's map, and
little had we checked if an earthquake had sunk, or the ocean had
overwhelmed it; but now, the minute circumstances in its condition, or
little incidents in its history, are to our minds invested with
grave interest.

None, who are alive to the cause of religious freedom in the world, can
be indifferent to the movements and destiny of this little colony.
Henceforth, Antigua is the morning star of our nation, and though it
glimmers faintly through a lurid sky, yet we hail it, and catch at every
ray as the token of a bright sun which may yet burst gloriously upon us.



BARBADOES

CHAPTER I.

PASSAGE

Barbadoes was the next island which we visited. Having failed of a
passage in the steamer,[A] (on account of her leaving Antigua on the
Sabbath,) we were reduced to the necessity of sailing in a small
schooner, a vessel of only seventeen tons burthen, with no cabin but a
mere _hole_, scarcely large enough to receive our baggage. The berths,
for there were two, had but one mattress between them; however, a
foresail folded made up the complement.

[Footnote A: There are several English steamers which ply between
Barbadoes and Jamaica, touching at several of the intermediate and
surrounding islands, and carrying the mails.]

The being for the most part directly against us, we were seven days in
reaching Barbadoes. Our aversion to the sepulchre-like cabin obliged us
to spend, not the days only, but the nights mostly on the open deck.
Wrapping our cloaks about us, and drawing our fur caps over our faces,
we slept securely in the soft air of a tropical clime, undisturbed save
by the hoarse voice of the black captain crying "ready, bout" and the
flapping of the sails, and the creaking of the cordage, in the frequent
tackings of our staunch little sea-boat. On our way we passed under the
lee of Guadaloupe and to the windward of Dominica, Martinique and St.
Lucia. In passing Guadaloupe, we were obliged to keep at a league's
distance from the land, in obedience to an express regulation of that
colony prohibiting small English vessels from approaching any nearer.
This is a precautionary measure against the escape of slaves to the
English islands. Numerous small vessels, called _guarda costas_, are
stationed around the coast to warn off vessels and seize upon all slaves
attempting to make their escape. We were informed that the eagerness of
the French negroes to taste the sweets of liberty, which they hear to
exist in the surrounding English islands, is so great, that
notwithstanding all the vigilance by land and sea, they are escaping in
vast numbers. They steal to the shores by night, and seizing upon any
sort of vessel within their reach, launch forth and make for Dominica,
Montserrat, or Antigua. They have been known to venture out in skiffs,
canoes, and such like hazardous conveyances, and make a voyage of fifty
or sixty miles; and it is not without reason supposed, that very many
have been lost in these eager darings for freedom.

Such is their defiance of dangers when liberty is to be won, that old
ocean, with its wild storms, and fierce monsters, and its yawning deep,
and even the superadded terrors of armed vessels ever hovering around
the island, are barriers altogether ineffectual to prevent escape. The
western side of Guadaloupe, along which we passed, is hilly and little
cultivated. It is mostly occupied in pasturage. The sugar estates are on
the opposite side of the island, which stretches out eastward in a low
sloping country, beautifully situated for sugar cultivation. The hills
were covered with trees, with here and there small patches of cultivated
grounds where the negroes raise provisions. A deep rich verdure covered
all that portion of the island which we saw. We were a day and night in
passing the long island of Guadaloupe. Another day and night were spent
in beating through the channel between Gaudaloupe and Dominica: another
day in passing the latter island, and then we stood or Martinique. This
is the queen island of the French West Indies. It is fertile and
healthful, and though not so large as Guadaloupe, produces a larger
revenue. It has large streams of water, and many of the sugar mills are
worked by them. Martinique and Dominica are both very mountainous. Their
highest peaks are constantly covered with clouds, which in their varied
siftings, now wheeling around, then rising or falling, give the hills
the appearance of smoking volcanoes. It was not until the eighth day of
the voyage, that we landed at Barbadoes. The passage from Barbadoes to
Antigua seldom occupies more than three days, the wind being mostly in
that direction.

In approaching Barbadoes, it presented an entirely difference appearance
from that of the islands we had passed on the way. It is low and level,
almost wholly destitute of trees. As we drew nearer we discovered in
every direction the marks of its extraordinary cultivation. The cane
fields and provision grounds in alternate patches cover the island with
one continuous mantle of green. The mansions of the planters, and the
clusters of negro houses, appear at shore intervals dotting the face of
the island, and giving to it the appearance of a vast village
interspersed with verdant gardens.

We "rounded up" in the bay, off Bridgetown, the principal place in
Barbadoes, where we underwent a searching examination by the health
officer; who, after some demurring, concluded that we might pass muster.
We took lodgings in Bridgetown with Mrs. M., a colored lady.

The houses are mostly built of brick or stone, or wood plastered. They
are seldom more than two stories high, with flat roofs, and huge window
shutters and doors--the structures of a hurricane country. The streets
are narrow and crooked, and formed of white marle, which reflects the
sun with a brilliancy half blinding to the eyes. Most of the buildings
are occupied as stores below and dwelling houses above, with piazzas to
the upper story, which jut over the narrow streets, and afford a shade
for the side walks. The population of Bridgetown is about 30,000. The
population of the island is about 140,000, of whom nearly 90,000 are
apprentices, the remainder are free colored and white in the proportion
of 30,000 free colored and 20,000 whites. The large population exists on
an island not more than twenty miles long, by fifteen broad. The whole
island is under the most vigorous and systematic culture. There is
scarcely a foot of productive land that is not brought into requisition.
There is no such thing as a forest of any extent in the island. It is
thus that, notwithstanding the insignificance of its size, Barbadoes
ranks among the British islands next to Jamaica in value and importance.
It was on account of its conspicuous standing among the English
colonies, that we were induced to visit it, and there investigate the
operations of the apprenticeship system.

Our principal object in the following tales is to give an account of the
working of the apprenticeship system, and to present it in contrast with
that of entire freedom, which has been described minutely in our account
of Antigua. The apprenticeship was designed as a sort of preparation for
freedom. A statement of its results will, therefore, afford no small
data for deciding upon the general principle of _gradualism_!

We shall pursue a plan less labored and prolix than that which it seemed
necessary to adopt in treating of Antigua. As that part of the testimony
which respects the abolition of slavery, and the sentiments of the
planters is substantially the same with what is recorded in the
foregoing pages, we shall be content with presenting it in the sketch of
our travels throughout the island, and our interviews with various
classes of men. The testimony respecting the nature and operations of
the apprenticeship system, will be embodied in a more regular form.

VISIT TO THE GOVERNOR.

At an early day after our arrival we called on the Governor, in
pursuance of the etiquette of the island, and in order to obtain the
assistance of his Excellency in our inquiries. The present Governor is
Sir Evan John Murray McGregor, a Scotchman of Irish reputation. He is
the present chieftain of the McGregor clan, which figures so
illustriously in the history of Scotland. Sir Evan has been
distinguished for his victory in war, and he now bears the title of
Knight, for his achievements in the British service. He is
Governor-General of the windward islands, which include Barbadoes,
Grenada, St. Vincent's, and Tobago. The government house, at which he
resides, is about two miles from town. The road leading to it is a
delightful one, lined with cane fields, and pasture grounds, all verdant
with the luxuriance of midsummer. It passes by the cathedral, the king's
house, the noble residence of the Archdeacon, and many other fine
mansions. The government house is situated in a pleasant eminence, and
surrounded with a large garden, park, and entrance yard. At the large
outer gate, which gives admittance to the avenue leading to the house,
stood a _black_ sentinel in his military dress, and with a gun on his
shoulder, pacing to and fro. At the door of the house we found another
black soldier on guard. We were ushered into the dining hall, which
seems to serve as ante-chamber when not otherwise used. It is a spacious
airy room, overhung with chandeliers and lamps in profusion, and bears
the marks of many scenes of mirth and wassail. The eastern windows,
which extend from the ceiling to the floor, look out upon a garden
filled with shrubs and flowers, among which we recognised a rare variety
of the floral family in full bloom. Every thing around--the extent of
the buildings, the garden, the park, with deer browsing amid the tangled
shrubbery--all bespoke the old English style and dignity.

After waiting a few minutes, we were introduced to his Excellency, who
received us very kindly. He conversed freely on the subject of
emancipation, and gave his opinion decidedly in favor of unconditional
freedom. He has been in the West Indies five years, and resided at
Antigua and Dominica before he received his present appointment; he has
visited several other islands besides. In no island that he has visited
have affairs gone on so quietly and satisfactorily to all parties as in
Antigua. He remarked that he was ignorant of the character of the black
population of the United States, but from what he knew of their
character in the West Indies, he could not avoid the conclusion that
immediate emancipation was entirely safe. He expressed his views of the
apprenticeship system with great freedom. He said it was vexatious to
all parties.

He remarked that he was so well satisfied that emancipation was safe and
proper, and that unconditional freedom was better than apprenticeship,
that had he the power, he would emancipate every apprentice to-morrow.
It would be better both for the planter and the laborer.

_He thought the negroes in Barbadoes, and in the windward islands
generally, now as well prepared for freedom as the slaves of Antigua._

The Governor is a dignified but plain man, of sound sense and judgement,
and of remarkable liberality. He promised to give us every assistance,
and said, as we arose to leave him, that he would mention the object of
our visit to a number of influential gentlemen, and that we should
shortly hear from him again.

A few days after our visit to the Governor's, we called on the Rev.
Edward Elliott, the Archdeacon at Barbadoes, to whom we had been
previously introduced at the house of a friend in Bridgetown. He is a
liberal-minded man. In 1812, he delivered a series of lectures in the
cathedral on the subject of slavery. The planters became
alarmed--declared that such discourses would lead to insurrection, and
demanded that they should lie abandoned. He received anonymous letters
threatening him with violence unless he discontinued them. Nothing
daunted, however, he went through the course, and afterwards published
the lectures in a volume.

The Archdeacon informed us that the number of churches and clergymen had
increased since emancipation; religious meetings were more fully
attended, and the instructions given had manifestly a greater influence.
Increased attention was paid to _education_ also. Before emancipation
the planters opposed education, and as far as possible, prevented the
teachers from coming to the estates. Now they encouraged it in many
instances, and where they do not directly encourage, they make no
opposition. He said that the number of marriages had very much increased
since the abolition of slavery. He had resided in Barbados for twelve
years, during which time he had repeatedly visited many of the
neighboring islands. He thought the negroes of Barbadoes _were as well
prepared for freedom in 1834, as those of Antigua_, and that there would
have been no bad results had entire emancipation been granted at that
time. He did not think there was the least danger of insurrection. On
this subject he spoke the sentiments of the inhabitants generally. He
did not suppose there were five planters on the island, who entertained
any fears on this score _now_.

On one other point the Archdeacon expressed himself substantially thus:
The planters undoubtedly treated their slaves better during the
anti-slavery discussions in England.

The condition of the slaves was very much mitigated by the efforts which
were made for their entire freedom. The planters softened down, the
system of slavery as much as possible. _They were exceedingly anxious to
put a stop to discussion and investigation._

Having obtained a letter of introduction from an American merchant here
to a planter residing about four miles from town, we drove out to his
estate. His mansion is pleasantly situated on a small eminence, in one
of the coolest and most inviting retreats which is to be seen in this
clime, and we were received by its master with all the cordiality and
frankness for which Barbados is famed. He introduced us to his family,
consisting of three daughters and two sons, and invited us to stop to
dinner. One of his daughters, now here on a visit, is married to an
American, a native of New York, but now a merchant in one of the
southern states, and our connection as fellow countrymen with one dear
to them, was an additional claim to their kindness and hospitality.

He conducted us through all the works and out-buildings, the mill,
boiling-house, caring-house, hospital, store-houses, &c. The people were
at work in the mill and boiling-house, and as we passed, bowed and bade
us "good mornin', massa," with the utmost respect and cheerfulness. A
white overseer was regulating the work, but wanted the insignia of
slaveholding authority, which he had borne for many years, the _whip_.
As we came out, we saw in a neighboring field a gang of seventy
apprentices, of both sexes, engaged in cutting up the cane, while others
were throwing it into carts to be carried to the mill. They were all as
quietly and industriously at work as any body of our own farmers or
mechanics. As we were looking at them, Mr. C., the planter, remarked,
"those people give me more work than when slaves. This estate was never
under so good cultivation as at the present time."

He took us to the building used as the mechanics' shop. Several of the
apprentices were at work in it, some setting up the casks for sugar,
others repairing utensils. Mr. C. says all the work of the estate is
done by the apprentices. His carts are made, his mill kept in order, his
coopering and blacksmithing are all done by them. "All these buildings,"
said he, "even to the dwelling-house, were built after the great storm
of 1831, by the slaves."

As we were passing through the hospital, or sick-house, as it is called
by the blacks, Mr. C. told us he had very little use for it now. There
is no skulking to it as there was under the old system.

Just as we were entering the door of the house, on our return, there was
an outcry among a small party of the apprentices who were working near
by. Mr. C. went to them and inquired the cause. It appeared that the
overseer had struck one of the lads with a stick. Mr. C. reproved him
severely for the act, and assured him if he did such a thing again he
would take him before a magistrate.

During the day we gathered the following information:--

Mr. C. had been a planter for thirty-six years. He has had charge of the
estate on which he now resides ten years. He is the attorney for two
other large estates a few miles from this, and has under his
superintendence, in all, more than a thousand apprenticed laborers. This
estate consists of six hundred and sixty-six acres of land, most of
which is under cultivation either in cane or provisions, and has on it
three hundred apprentices and ninety-two free children. The average
amount of sugar raised on it is two hundred hogsheads of a ton each, but
this year it will amount to at least two hundred and fifty
hogsheads--the largest crop ever taken off since he has been connected
with it. He has planted thirty acres additional this year. The island
has never been under so good cultivation, and is becoming better
every year.

During our walk round the works, and during the day, he spoke several
times in general terms of the great blessings of emancipation.

Emancipation is as great a blessing to the master as to the slave.
"Why," exclaimed Mr. C., "it was emancipation to me. I assure you the
first of August brought a great, _great_ relief to me. I felt myself,
for the first time, a freeman on that day. You cannot imagine the
responsibilities and anxieties which were swept away with the extinction
of slavery."

There were many unpleasant and annoying circumstances attending slavery,
which had a most pernicious effect on the master. There was continual
jealousy and suspicion between him and those under him. They looked on
each other as sworn enemies, and there was kept up a continual system of
plotting and counterplotting. Then there was the flogging, which was a
matter of course through the island. To strike a slave was as common as
to strike a horse--then the punishments were inflicted so unjustly, in
innumerable instances, that the poor victims knew no more why they were
punished than the dead in their graves. The master would be a little
ill--he had taken a cold, perhaps, and felt irritable--something were
wrong--his passion was up, and away went some poor fellow to the
whipping post. The slightest offence at such a moment, though it might
have passed unnoticed at another time, would meet with the severest
punishment. He said he himself had more than once ordered his slaves to
be flogged in a passion, and after he became cool he would have given
guineas not to have done it. Many a night had he been kept awake in
thinking of some poor fellow whom he had shut up in the dungeon, and had
rejoiced when daylight came. He feared lest the slave might die before
morning; either cut his throat or dash his head against the wall in his
desperation. He has known such cases to occur.

The apprenticeship will not have so beneficial an effect as he hoped it
would, on account of an indisposition on the part of many of the
planters to abide by its regulations. The planters generally are doing
very little to prepare the apprentices for freedom; but some are doing
very much to unprepare them. They are driving the people from them by
their conduct.

Mr. C. said he often wished for emancipation. There were several other
planters among his acquaintance who had the same feelings, but did not
dare express them. Most of the planters, however, were violently
opposed. Many of them declared that emancipation could not and should
not take place. So obstinate were they, that they would have sworn on
the 31st of July, 1831, that emancipation could not happen. _These very
men now see and acknowledge the benefits which have resulted from the
new system_.

The first of August passed off very quietly. The people labored on that
day as usual, and had a stranger gone over the island, he would not have
suspected any change had taken place. Mr. C. did not expect his people
would go to work that day. He told them what the conditions of the new
system were, and that after the first of August, they would be required
to turn out to work at six o'clock instead of five o'clock as before. At
the appointed hour every man was at his post in the field. Not one
individual was missing.

The apprentices do more work in the nine hours required by law, than in
twelve hours during slavery.

His apprentices are perfectly willing to work for him during their own
time. He pays them at the rate of twenty-five cents a day. The people
are less quarrelsome than when they were slaves.

About eight o'clock in the evening, Mr. C. invited us to step out into
the piazza. Pointing to the houses of the laborers, which were crowded
thickly together, and almost concealed by the cocoa-nut and calabash
trees around them, he said, "there are probably more than four hundred
people in that village. All my own laborers, with their free children,
are retired for the night, and with them are many from the neighboring
estates." We listened, but all was still, save here and there a low
whistle from some of the watchmen. He said that night was a specimen of
every night now. But it had not always been so. During slavery these
villages were oftentimes a scene of bickering, revelry, and contention.
One might hear the inmates reveling and shouting till midnight.
Sometimes it would be kept up till morning. Such scenes have much
decreased, and instead of the obscene and heathen songs which they used
to sing, they are learning hymns from the lips of their children.

The apprentices are more trusty. They are more faithful in work which is
given them to do. They take more interest in the prosperity of the
estate generally, in seeing that things are kept in order, and that the
property is not destroyed.

They are more open-hearted. Formerly they used to shrink before the eyes
of the master, and appear afraid to meet him. They would go out of their
way to avoid him, and never were willing to talk with him. They never
liked to have him visit their houses; they looked on him as a spy, and
always expected a reprimand, or perhaps a flogging. Now they look up
cheerfully when they meet him, and a visit to their homes is esteemed a
favor. Mr. C. has more confidence in his people than he ever had before.

There is less theft than during slavery. This is caused by greater
respect for character, and the protection afforded to property by law.
For a slave to steal from his master was never considered wrong, but
rather a meritorious act. He who could rob the most without being
detected was the best fellow. The blacks in several of the islands have
a proverb, that for a thief to steal from a thief makes God laugh.

The blacks have a great respect for, and even fear of law. Mr. C.
believes no people on earth are more influenced by it. They regard the
same punishment, inflicted by a magistrate, much more than when
inflicted by their master. Law is a kind of deity to them, and they
regard it with great reverence and awe.

There is no insecurity now. Before emancipation there was a continual
fear of insurrection. Mr. C. said he had lain down in bed many a night
fearing that his throat would be cut before morning. He has started up
often from a dream in which he thought his room was filled with armed
slaves. But when the abolition bill passed, his fears all passed away.
He felt assured there would be no trouble then. The motive to
insurrection was taken away. As for the cutting of throats, or insult
and violence in any way, he never suspects it. He never thinks of
fastening his door at night now. As we were retiring to bed he looked
round the room in which we had been sitting, where every thing spoke of
serenity and confidence--doors and windows open, and books and plate
scattered about on the tables and sideboards. "You see things now," he
said, "just as we leave them every night, but you would have seen quite
a different scene had you come here a few years ago."

_Mr. C. thinks the slaves of Barbadoes might have been entirely and
immediately emancipated as well as those of Antigua._ The results, he
doubts not, would have been the same.

He has no fear of disturbance or insubordination in 1840. He has no
doubt that the people will work. That there may be a little unsettled,
excited, _experimenting_ feeling for a short time, he thinks
probable--but feels confident that things generally will move on
peaceably and prosperously. He looks with much more anxiety to the
emancipation of the non-praedials in 1838.

There is no disposition among the apprentices to revenge their wrongs.
Mr. C. feels the utmost security both of person and property.

The slaves were very much excited by the discussions in England. They
were well acquainted, with them, and looked and longed for the result.
They watched every arrival of the packet with great anxiety. The people
on his estate often knew its arrival before he did. One of his daughters
remarked, that she could see their hopes flashing from their eyes. They
manifested, however, no disposition to rebel, waiting in anxious but
quiet hope for their release. Yet Mr. C. had no doubt, that if
parliament had thrown out the emancipation bill, and all measures had
ceased for their relief, there would have been a general
insurrection.--While there was hope they remained peaceable, but had
hope been destroyed it would have been buried in blood.

There was some dissatisfaction among the blacks with the apprenticeship.
They thought they ought to be entirely free, and that their masters were
deceiving them. They could not at first understand the conditions of the
new system--there was some murmuring among them, but they thought it
better, however, to wait six years for the boon, than to run the risk of
losing it altogether by revolt.

The expenses of the apprenticeship are about the same as during slavery.
But under the free system, Mr. C. has no doubt they will be much less.
He has made a calculation of the expenses of cultivating the estate on
which he resides for one year during slavery, and what they will
probably be for one year under the free system. He finds the latter are
less by about $3,000.

Real estate has increased in value more than thirty per rent. There is
greater confidence in the security of property. Instances were related
to us of estates that could not be sold at any price before
emancipation, that within the last two years have been disposed of at
great prices.

The complaints to the magistrates, on the part of the planters, were
very numerous at first, but have greatly diminished. They are of the
most trivial and even ludicrous character. One of the magistrates says
the greater part of the cases that come before him are from old women
who cannot get their coffee early enough in the morning! and for
offences of equal importance.

Prejudice has much diminished since emancipation. The discussions in
England prior to that period had done much to soften it down, but the
abolition of slavery has given it its death blow.

Such is a rapid sketch of the various topics touched upon during our
interview with Mr. C. and his family.

Before we left the hospitable mansion of Lear's, we had the pleasure of
meeting a company of gentlemen at dinner. With the exception of one, who
was provost-marshal, they were merchants of Bridgetown. These gentlemen
expressed their full concurrence in the statements of Mr. C., and gave
additional testimony equally valuable.

Mr. W., the provost-marshal, stated that he had the supervision of the
public jail, and enjoyed the best opportunity of knowing the state of
crime, and he was confident that there was a less amount of crime since
emancipation than before. He also spoke of the increasing attention
which the negroes paid to neatness of dress and personal appearance.

The company broke up about nine o'clock, but not until we had seen ample
evidence of the friendly feelings of all the gentlemen toward our
object. There was not a single dissenting voice to any of the statements
made, or any of the sentiments expressed. This fact shows that the
prevailing feeling is in favor of freedom, and that too on the score of
policy and self-interest.

Dinner parties are in one sense a very safe pulse in all matters of
general interest. They rarely beat faster than the heart of the
community. No subject is likely to be introduced amid the festivities of
a fashionable circle, until it is fully endorsed by public sentiment.

Through the urgency of Mr. C., we were induced to remain all night.
Early the next morning, he proposed a ride before breakfast to Scotland.
Scotland is the name given to an abrupt, hilly section, in the north of
the island. It is about five miles from Mr. C.'s, and nine from
Bridgetown. In approaching, the prospect bursts suddenly upon the eye,
extorting an involuntary exclamation of surprise. After riding for
miles, through a country which gradually swells into slight elevations,
or sweeps away in rolling plains, covered with cane, yams, potatoes,
eddoes, corn, and grass, alternately, and laid out with the regularity
of a garden; after admiring the cultivation, beauty, and skill exhibited
on every hand, until almost wearied with viewing the creations of art;
the eye at once falls upon a scene in which is crowded all the wildness
and abruptness of nature in one of her most freakish moods--a scene
which seems to defy the hand of cultivation and the graces of art. We
ascended a hill on the border of this section, which afforded us a
complete view. To describe it in one sentence, it is an immense basin,
from two to three miles in diameter at the top, the edges of which are
composed of ragged hills, and the sides and bottom of which are
diversified with myriads of little hillocks and corresponding
indentations. Here and there is a small sugar estate in the bottom, and
cultivation extends some distance up the sides, though this is at
considerable risk, for not infrequently, large tracts of soil, covered
with cane or provisions, slide down, over-spreading the crops below, and
destroying those which they carry with them.

Mr. C. pointed to the opposite side of the basin to a small group of
stunted trees, which he said were the last remains of the Barbadoes
forests. In the midst of them there is a boiling spring of considerable
notoriety.

In another direction, amid the rugged precipices, Mr. C. pointed out the
residences of a number of poor white families, whom he described as the
most degraded, vicious, and abandoned people in the island--"very far
below the negroes." They live promiscuously, are drunken, licentious,
and poverty-stricken,--a body of most squalid and miserable
human beings.

From the height on which we stood, we could see the ocean nearly around
the island, and on our right and left, overlooking the basin below us,
rose the two highest points of land of which Barbadoes can boast. The
white marl about their naked tops gives them a bleak and desolate
appearance, which contrasts gloomily with the verdure of the surrounding
cultivation.

After we had fully gratified ourselves with viewing the miniature
representation of old Scotia, we descended again into the road, and
returned to Lear's. We passed numbers of men and women going towards
town with loads of various kinds of provisions on their heads. Some were
black, and others were white--of the same class whose huts had just been
shown us amid the hills and ravines of Scotland. We observed that the
latter were barefoot, and carried their loads on their heads precisely
like the former. As we passed these busy pedestrians, the blacks almost
uniformly courtesied or spoke; but the whites did not appear to notice
us. Mr. C inquired whether we were not struck with this difference in
the conduct of the two people, remarking that he had always observed it.
It is very seldom, said he, that I meet a negro who does not speak to me
politely; but this class of whites either pass along without looking up,
or cast a half-vacant, rude stare into one's face, without opening their
mouths. Yet this people, he added, veriest raggamuffins that they are,
despise the negroes, and consider it quite degrading to put themselves
on term of equity with them. They will beg of blacks more provident and
industrious than themselves, or they will steal their poultry and rob
their provision grounds at night; but they would disdain to associate
with them. Doubtless these _sans culottes_ swell in their dangling rags
with the haughty consciousness that they possess _white skins_. What
proud reflections they must have, as they pursue their barefoot way,
thinking on their high lineage, and running back through the long list
of their illustrious ancestry whose notable badge was a _white skin_! No
wonder they cannot stop to bow to the passing stranger. These sprouts of
the Caucasian race are known among the Barbadians by the rather
ungracious name of _Red Shanks_. They are considered the pest of the
island, and are far more troublesome to the police, in proportion to
their members, than the apprentices. They are estimated at about
eight thousand.

The origin of this population we learned was the following: It has long
been a law in Barbadoes, that each proprietor should provide a white man
for every sixty slaves in his possession, and give him an acre of land,
a house, and arms requisite for defence of the island in case of
insurrection. This caused an importation of poor whites from Ireland and
England, and their number has been gradually increasing until the
present time.

During our stay of nearly two days with Mr. C., there was nothing to
which he so often alluded as to the security from danger which was now
enjoyed by the planters. As he sat in his parlor, surrounded by his
affectionate family, the sense of personal and domestic security
appeared to be a luxury to him. He repeatedly expressed himself
substantially thus: "During the existence of slavery, how often have I
retired to bed _fearing_ _that I should have my throat cut before
morning_, but _now_ the danger is all over."

We took leave of Lear's, after a protracted visit, not without a
pressing invitation from Mr. C. to call again.

SECOND VISIT TO LEAR'S.

The following week, on Saturday afternoon, we received a note from Mr.
C., inviting us to spend the Sabbath at Lear's, where we might attend
service at a neighboring chapel, and see a congregation composed chiefly
of apprentices. On our arrival, we received a welcome from the
residents, which reassured us of their sympathy in our object. We joined
the family circle around the centre table, and spent the evening in free
conversation on the subject of slavery.

During the evening Mr. C. stated, that he had lately met with a planter
who, for some years previous to emancipation, and indeed up to the very
event, maintained that it was utterly impossible for such a thing ever
to take place. The mother country, he said, could not be so mad as to
take a step which must inevitably ruin the colonies. _Now_, said Mr. C.,
this planter would be one of the last in the island to vote for a
restoration of slavery; nay, he even wishes to have the apprenticeship
terminated at once, and entire freedom given to the people. Such changes
as this were very common.

Mr. C. remarked that during slavery, if the negro ventured to express an
opinion about any point of management, he was met at once with a
reprimand. If one should say, "I think such a course would he best," or,
"Such a field of cane is fit for cutting," the reply would be, "_Think_!
you have no right to think any thing about it. _Do as I bid you_." Mr.
C. confessed frankly, that he had often used such language himself. Yet
at the same time that he affected such contempt for the opinions of the
slaves, he used to go around secretly among the negro houses at night to
overhear their conversation, and ascertain their views. Sometimes he
received very valuable suggestions from them, which he was glad to avail
himself of, though he was careful not to acknowledge their origin.

Soon after supper, Miss E., one of Mr. C.'s daughters, retired for the
purpose of teaching a class of colored children which came to her on
Wednesday and Saturday nights. A sister of Miss E. has a class on the
same days at noon.

During the evening we requested the favor of seeing Miss E.'s school. We
were conducted by a flight of stairs into the basement story, where we
found her sitting in a small recess, and surrounded by a dozen negro
girls; from the ages of eight to fifteen. She was instructing them from
the Testament, which most of them could read fluently. She afterwards
heard them recite some passages which they had committed to memory, and
interspersed the recitations with appropriate remarks of advice and
exhortation.

It is to be remarked that Miss E. commenced instructing after the
abolition; before that event the idea of such an employment would have
been rejected as degrading.

At ten o'clock on Sabbath morning, we drove to the chapel of the parish,
which is a mile and a half from Lear's. It contains seats for five
hundred persons. The body of the house is appropriated to the
apprentices. There were upwards of four hundred persons, mostly
apprentices, present, and a more quiet and attentive congregation we
have seldom seen. The people were neatly dressed. A great number of the
men wore black or blue cloth. The females were generally dressed in
white. The choir was composed entirely of blacks, and sung with
characteristic excellence.

There was so much intelligence in the countenances of the people, that
we could scarcely believe we were looking on a congregation of lately
emancipated slaves.

We returned to Lear's. Mr. C. noticed the change which has taken place
in the observance of the Sabbath since emancipation. Formerly the smoke
would be often seen at this time of day pouring from the chimneys of the
boiling-houses; but such a sight has not been seen since slavery
disappeared.

Sunday used to be the day for the negroes to work on their grounds; now
it is a rare thing for them to do so. Sunday markets also prevailed
throughout the island, until the abolition of slavery.

Mr. C. continued to speak of slavery. "I sometimes wonder," said he, "at
myself, when I think how long I was connected with slavery; but
self-interest and custom blinded me to its enormities." Taking a short
walk towards sunset, we found ourselves on the margin of a beautiful
pond, in which myriads of small gold fishes were disporting--now
circling about in rapid evolutions, and anon leaping above the surface,
and displaying their brilliant sides in the rays of the setting sun.
When we had watched for some moments their happy gambols, Mr. C. turned
around and broke a twig from a bush that stood behind us; "_there is a
bush_," said he, "_which has committed many a murder_." On requesting
him to explain, he said, that the root of it was a most deadly poison,
and that the slave women used to make a decoction of it and give to
their infants to destroy them; many a child had been murdered in this
way. Mothers would kill their children, rather than see them _grow up to
be slaves_. "Ah," he continued, in a solemn tone, pausing a moment and
looking at us in a most earnest manner, "I could write a book about the
evils of slavery. I could write a book about these things."

What a volume of blackness and blood![A]

[Footnote A: We are here reminded of a fact stated by Mr. C. on another
occasion. He said, that he once attended at the death of a planter who
had been noted for his severity to his slaves. It was the most horrid
scene he ever witnessed. For hours before his death he was in the
extremest agony, and the only words which he uttered were, "Africa. O
Africa!" These words he repeated every few minutes, till he died. And
such a ghastly countenance, such distortions of the muscles, such a
hellish glare of the eye, and such convulsions of the body--it made him
shudder to think of them.]

When we arose on Monday morning, the daylight has scarcely broken. On
looking out of the window, we saw the mill slowly moving in the wind,
and the field gang were going out to their daily work. Surely, we
thought, this does not look much like the laziness and insubordination
of freed negroes. After dressing, we walked down to the mill, to have
some conversation with the people. They all bade us a cordial "good
mornin'." The _tender_ of the mill was an old man, whose despised locks
were gray and thin, and on whose brow the hands of time and sorrow had
written many effaceless lines. He appeared hale and cheerful, and
answered our questions in distinct intelligible language. We asked him
how they were all getting along under the new system. "Very well,
massa," said he, "very well, thank God. All peaceable and good." "Do you
like the apprenticeship better then slavery?" "Great deal better, massa;
we is doing well now." "You like the apprenticeship as well as freedom,
don't you?" "O _no_ me massa, freedom _till better_."

"What will you do when you are entirely free?"

"We must work; all have to work when de free come, white and black."
"You are old, and will not enjoy freedom long; why do you wish for
freedom, then?" "Me want to _die_ free, massa--good ting to die free,
and me want to see _children_ free too."

We continued at Lear's during Monday, to be in readiness for a tour to
the windward of the island, which Mr. C. had projected for us, and on
which we were to set out early the next morning. In the course of the
day we had opportunities of seeing the apprentices in almost every
situation--in the field, at the mill, in the boiling-house, moving to
and from work, and at rest. In every aspect in which we viewed them,
they appeared cheerful, amiable, and easy of control. It was admirable
to see with what ease and regularity every thing moved. An estate of
nearly seven hundred acres, with extensive agriculture, and a large
manufactory and distillery, employing three hundred apprentices, and
supporting twenty-five horses, one hundred and thirty head of horned
cattle, and hogs, sheep; and poultry in proportion, is manifestly a most
complicated machinery. No wonder it should have been difficult to manage
during slavery, when the main spring was absent, and every wheel out
of gear.

We saw the apprentices assemble after twelve o'clock, to receive their
allowances of yams. These provisions are distributed to them twice every
week--on Monday and Thursday. They were strewed along the yard in heaps
of fifteen pounds each. The apprentices came with baskets to get their
allowances. It resembled a market scene, much chattering and talking,
but no anger. Each man, woman, and child, as they got their baskets
filled, placed them of their heads, and marched off to their
several huts.

On Tuesday morning, at an early hour, Mr. C. took us in his phaeton on
our projected excursion. It was a beautiful morning. There was a full
breeze from the east, which had already started the ponderous wings of
the wind-mills, in every direction. The sun was shaded by light clouds,
which rendered the air quite cool. Crossing the rich valley in which the
Bell estate and other noble properties are situated, we ascended the
cliffs of St. John's--a ridge extending through the parish of that name
and as we rode along its top, eastward, we had a delightful view of sea
and land. Below us on either hand lay vast estates glowing in the,
verdure of summer, and on three sides in the distance stretched the
ocean. Rich swells of land, cultivated and blooming like a vast garden,
extended to the north as far as the eye could reach, and on every other
side down to the water's edge. One who has been accustomed to the
wildness of American scenery, and to the imperfect cultivation,
intercepted with woodland, which yet characterizes the even the oldest
portions of the United States, might revel for a time amid the sunny
meadows. The waving cane fields, the verdant provision grounds, the
acres of rich black soil without a blade of grass, and divided into beds
two feet square for the cane plants with the precision almost of the
cells of a honey comb; and withal he might be charmed with the luxurious
mansions--more luxurious than superb--surrounded with the white cedar,
the cocoa-nut tree, and the tall, rich mountain cabbage--the most
beautiful of all tropical trees; but perchance it would not require a
very long excursion to weary him with the artificiality of the scenery,
and cause him to sigh for the "woods and wilds," the "banks and braes,"
of his own majestic country.

After an hour and a half's drive, we reached Colliton estate, where we
were engaged to breakfast. We met a hearty welcome from the manager,
Samuel Hinkston, Esq. we were soon joined by several gentlemen whom Mr.
H. had invited to take breakfast with us; these were the Rev. Mr.
Gittens, rector of St. Philip's parish, (in which Colliton estate is
situated,) and member of the colonial council; Mr. Thomas, an extensive
attorney of Barbadoes; and Dr. Bell, a planter of Demerara--then on a
visit to the island. We conversed with each of the gentlemen separately,
and obtained their individual views respecting emancipation.

Mr. Hinkston has been a planter for thirty-six years, and is highly
esteemed throughout the island. The estate which he manages, ranks among
the first in the island. It comprises six hundred acres of superior
land, has a population of two hundred apprentices, and yields an average
crop of one hundred and eighty hogsheads. Together with his long
experience and standing as a planter, Mr. H. has been for many years
local magistrate for the parish in which he resides. From these
circumstances combined, we are induced to give his opinions on a variety
of points.

1. He remarked that the planters were getting along _infinitely_ better
under the new system than they ever did under the old. Instead of
regretting that the change had taken place, he is looking forward with
pleasure to a better change in 1840, and he only regrets that it is not
to come sooner.

2. Mr. H. said it was generally conceded that the island was never under
better cultivation than at the present time. The crops for this year
will exceed the average by several thousand hogsheads. The canes were
planted in good season, and well attended to afterwards.

3. Real estate has risen very much since emancipation. Mr. H. stated
that he had lately purchased a small sugar estate, for which he was
obliged to give several hundred pounds more than it would have cost him
before 1834.

4. There is not the least sense of insecurity now. Before emancipation
there was much fear of insurrection, but that fear passed away
with slavery.

5. The prospect for 1840 is good. That people have no fear of ruin after
emancipation, is proved by the building of sugar works on estates which
never had any before, and which were obliged to cart their canes to
neighbouring estates to have them ground and manufactured. There are
also numerous improvements making on the larger estates. Mr. H. is
preparing to make a new mill and boiling-house on Colliton, and other
planters are doing the same. Arrangements are making too in various
directions to build new negro villages on a more commodious plan.

6. Mr. H. says he finds his apprentices perfectly ready to work for
wages during their own time. Whenever he needs their labor on Saturday,
he has only to ask them, and they are ready to go to the mill, or field
at once. There has not been an instance on Colliton estate in which the
apprentices have refused to work, either during the hours required by
law, or during their own time. When he does not need their services on
Saturday, they either hire themselves to other estates or work on their
own grounds.

7. Mr. H. was ready to say, both as a planter and a magistrate, that
vice and crime generally had decreased, and were still on the decrease.
Petty thefts are the principal offences. He has not had occasion to send
a single apprentice to the court of sessions for the last six months.

8. He has no difficulty in managing his people--far less than he did
when they were slaves. It is very seldom that he finds it necessary to
call in the aid of the special magistrate. Conciliatory treatment is
generally sufficient to maintain order and industry among the
apprentices.

9. He affirms that the negroes have no disposition to be revengeful. He
has never seen any thing like revenge.

10. His people are as far removed from insolence as from vindictiveness.
They have been uniformly civil.

11. His apprentices have more interest in the affairs of the estate, and
he puts more confidence in them than he ever did before.

12. He declares that the working of the apprenticeship, as also that of
entire freedom, depends entirely on the _planters_. If they act with
common humanity and reason, there is no fear but that the apprentices
will be peaceable.

Mr. Thomas is attorney for fifteen estates, on which there are upwards
of two thousand five hundred apprentices. We were informed that he had
been distinguished as a _severe disciplinarian_ under the old reign, or
in plain terms, had been a _cruel man and a hard driver_; but he was one
of those who, since emancipation, have turned about and conformed their
mode of treatment to the new system. In reply to our inquiry how the
present system was working, he said, "infinitely better (such was his
language) than slavery. I succeed better on all the estates under my
charge than I did formerly. I have far less difficulty with the people.
I have no reason to complain of their conduct. However, I think they
will do still better after 1840."

We made some inquiries of Dr. Bell concerning the results of abolition
in Demerara. He gave a decidedly flattering account of the working of
the apprenticeship system. No fears are entertained that Demerara will
be ruined after 1840. On the contrary it will be greatly benefited by
emancipation. It is now suffering from a want of laborers, and after
1840 there will be an increased emigration to that colony from the older
and less productive colonies. The planters of Demerara are making
arrangements for cultivating sugar on a larger scale than ever before.
Estates are selling at very high prices. Every thing indicates the
fullest confidence on the part of the planters that the prosperity of
the colony will not only be permanent, but progressive.

After breakfast we proceeded to the Society's estate. We were glad to
see this estate, as its history is peculiar. In 1726 it was bequeathed
by General Coddington to a society in England, called "The Society for
the promotion of Christian Knowledge." The proceeds of the estate were
to be applied to the support of an institution in Barbadoes, for
educating missionaries of the established order. Some of the provisions
of the will were that the estate should always have three hundred slaves
upon it; that it should support a school for the education of the negro
children who were to be taught a portion of every day until they were
twelve years old, when they were to go into the field; and that there
should be a chapel built upon it. The negroes belonging to the estate
have for upwards of a hundred years been under this kind of instruction.
They have all been taught to read, though in many instances they have
forgotten all they learned, having no opportunity to improve after they
left school. They enjoy some other comforts peculiar to the Society's
estate. They have neat cottages built apart--each on a half-acre lot,
which belongs to the apprentice and for the cultivation of which he is a
allowed one day out of the five working days. Another peculiarity is,
that the men and women work in separate gangs.

At this estate we procured horses to ride to the College. We rode by the
chapel and school-house belonging to the Society's estate which are
situated on the row of a high hill. From the same hill we caught a view
of Coddrington college, which is situated on a low bottom extending from
the foot of the rocky cliff on which we stood to the sea shore, a space
of quarter of a mile. It is a long, narrow, ill-constructed edifice.

We called on the principal, Rev. Mr. Jones, who received us very
cordially, and conducted us over the buildings and the grounds connected
with them. The college is large enough to accommodate a hundred
students. It is fitted out with lodging rooms, various professors'
departments, dining hall, chapel, library, and all the appurtenances of
a university. The number of student at the close of the last term was
_fifteen_.

The professors, two in number, are supported by a fund, consisting of
£40,000 sterling, which has in part accumulated from the revenue of
the estate.

The principal spoke favorably of the operation of the apprenticeship in
Barbadoes, and gave the negroes a decided superiority over the lower
class of whites. He had seen only one colored beggar since he came to
the island, but he was infested with multitudes of white ones.

It is intended to improve the college buildings as soon as the toil of
apprentices on the Society's estate furnishes the requisite means. This
robbing of God's image to promote education is horrible enough, taking
the wages of slavery to spread the kingdom of Christ!

On re-ascending the hill, we called at the Society's school. There are
usually in attendance about one hundred children, since the abolition of
slavery. Near the school-house is the chapel of the estate, a neat
building, capable of holding three or four hundred people. Adjacent to
the chapel is the burial ground for the negroes belonging to the
Society's estate. We noticed several neat tombs, which appeared to have
been erected only a short time previous. They were built of brick, and
covered over with lime, so as to resemble white marble slabs. On being
told that these were erected by the negroes themselves over the bodies
of their friends, we could not fail to note so beautiful an evidence of
their civilization and humanity. We returned to the Society's estate,
where we exchanged our saddles for the phaeton, and proceeded on our
eastward tour.

Mr. C. took us out of the way a few miles to show us one of the few
curiosities of which Barbadoes can boast. It is called the "Horse." The
shore for some distance is a high and precipitous ledge of rocks, which
overhangs the sea in broken cliffs. In one place a huge mass has been
riven from the main body of rock and fallen into the sea. Other huge
fragments have been broken off in the same manner. In the midst of
these, a number of steps have been cut in the rock for the purpose of
descending to the sea. At the bottom of these steps, there is a broad
platform of solid rock, where one may stand securely, and hear the waves
breaking around him like heavy thunders. Through the fissures we could
see the foam and spray mingling with the blue of the ocean, and flashing
in the sunshine. To the right, between the largest rock and the main
land, there is a chamber of about ten feet wide, and twenty feet long.
The fragment, which forms one of its sides, leans towards the main rock,
and touches it at top, forming a roof, with here and there a fissure,
through which the light enters. At the bottom of the room there is a
clear bed of water, which communicates with the sea by a small aperture
under the rock. It is as placid as a summer pond, and is fitted with
steps for a bathing place. Bathe, truly! with the sea ever dashing
against the side, and roaring and reverberating with deafening echo.

On a granite slab, fixed in the side of the rock at the bottom of the
first descent is an inscription. Time has very much effaced the letters,
but by the aid of Mr. C.'s memory, we succeeded in deciphering them.
They will serve as the hundred and first exemplification of the
Bonapartean maxim--"There is but one step from the sublime to the
ridiculous."

  "In this remote, and hoarse resounding place,
   Which billows clash, and craggy cliffs embrace,
   These babbling springs amid such horrors rise,
   But armed with virtue, horrors we despise.
   Bathe undismayed, nor dread the impending rock,
   'Tis virtue shields us from each adverse shock.

   GENIO LOCI SACRUM POSUIT
   J.R.
   MARTIS MENSE
   1769"

From the "Crane," which is the name given to that section of the country
in which the "Horse" is situated, we bent our way in a southerly
direction to the Ridge estate, which was about eight miles distant,
where we had engaged to dine. On the way we passed an estate which had
just been on fire. The apprentices, fearing lest their houses should be
burnt, had carried away all the moveables from them, and deposited them
in separate heaps, on a newly ploughed field. The very doors and window
shutters had been torn off and carried into the field, several acres of
which were strewed over with piles of such furniture. Mr. C. was
scarcely less struck with this scene than we were, and he assured us
that he had never known such providence manifested on a similar occasion
during slavery.

At the Ridge estate we met Mr. Clarke, manager at Staple Grove estate,
Mr. Applewhitte of Carton, and a brother of Mr. C. The manager, Mr.
Cecil, received us with the customary cordiality.

Mr. Clarke is the manager of an estate on which there are two hundred
apprentices. His testimony was, that the estate was better cultivated
since abolition than before, and that it is far easier to control the
laborers, and secure uniformity of labor under the present system. He
qualified this remark, by saying, that if harsh or violent measures were
used, there would be more difficulty now than during slavery; but kind
treatment and a conciliatory spirit never failed to secure peace and
industry. At the time of abolition, Mr. C. owned ten slaves, whom he
entirely emancipated. Some of these still remain with him as domestics;
others are hired on an adjoining estate. One of those who left him to
work on another estate, said to him, "Massa, whenever you want anybody
to help you, send to me, and I'll come. It makes no odds when it
is--I'll be ready at any time--day or night." Mr. C. declared himself
thoroughly convinced of the propriety of immediate emancipation; though
he was once a violent opposer of abolition. He said, that if he had the
power, be would emancipate every apprentice on his estate to-morrow. As
we were in the sugar-house examining the quality of the sugar, Mr. C.
turned to one of us, and putting his hand on a hogshead, said, "You do
not raise this article in your state, (Kentucky,) I believe." On being
answered in the negative, he continued, "Well, we will excuse you, then,
somewhat in your state--you can't treat your slaves so cruelly there.
_This, this_ is the dreadful thing! Wherever sugar is cultivated by
slaves, there is extreme suffering."

Mr. Applewhitte said emphatically, that there was no danger in entire
emancipation. He was the proprietor of more than a hundred apprentices
and he would like to see them all free at once.

During a long sitting at the dinner table, emancipation was the topic,
and we were gratified with the perfect unanimity of sentiment among
these planters. After the cloth was removed, and we were about leaving
the table, Mr. Clarke begged leave to propose a toast. Accordingly, the
glasses of the planters were once more filled, and Mr. C., bowing to us,
gave our health, and "success to our laudable undertaking,"--"_most_
laudable undertaking," added Mr. Applewhitte, and the glasses were
emptied. Had the glasses contained water instead of wine, our
gratification would have been complete. It was a thing altogether beyond
our most sanguine expectations, that a company of planters, all of whom
were but three years previous the actual oppressors of the slave, should
be found wishing success to the cause of emancipation.

At half past eight o'clock, we resumed our seats in Mr. C.'s phaeton,
and by the nearest route across the country, returned to Lear's. Mr. C.
entertained us by the way with eulogies upon the industry and
faithfulness of his apprentices. It was, he said, one of the greatest
pleasures he experienced, to visit the different estates under his
charge, and witness the respect and affection which the apprentices
entertained towards him. Their joyful welcome, their kind attentions
during his stay with them, and their hearty 'good-bye, massa,' when he
left, delighted him.

VISIT TO COLONEL ASHBY'S.

We were kindly invited to spend a day at the mansion of Colonel Ashby,
an aged and experienced planter, who is the proprietor of the estate on
which he resides. Colonel A.'s estate is situated in the parish of
Christ Church, and is almost on the extreme point of a promontory, which
forms the southernmost part of the island. An early and pleasant drive
of nine miles from Bridgetown, along the southeastern coast of the
island, brought us to his residence. Colonel A. is a native of
Barbadoes, has been a practical planter since 1795, and for a long time
a colonial magistrate, and commander of the parish troops. His present
estate contains three hundred and fifty acres, and has upon it two
hundred and thirty apprentices, with a large number of free children.
His average crop is eighty large hogsheads. Colonel A. remarked to us,
that he had witnessed many cruelties and enormities under "the reign of
terror." He said, that the abolition of slavery had been an incalculable
blessing, but added, that he had not always entertained the same views
respecting emancipation. Before it took place, he was a violent opposer
of any measure tending to abolition. He regarded the English
abolitionists, and the anti-slavery members in parliament, with
unmingled hatred. He had often cursed Wilberforce most bitterly, and
thought that no doom either in this life, or in the life to come, was
too bad for him. "But," he exclaimed, "how mistaken I was about that
man--I am convinced of it now--O he was a good man--_a noble
philanthropist_!--_if there is a chair in heaven, Wilberforce is in
it_!" Colonel A. is somewhat sceptical, which will account for his
hypothetical manner of speaking about heaven.

He said that he found no trouble in managing his apprentices. As local
or colonial magistrate, in which capacity he still continued to act he
had no cases of serious crime to adjudicate, and very few cases of petty
misdemeanor. Colonel A. stated emphatically, that the negroes were not
disposed to leave their employment, unless the master was intolerably
passionate and hard with them; as for himself, he did not fear losing a
single laborer after 1840.

He dwelt much on the trustiness and strong attachment of the negroes,
where they are well treated. There were no people in the world that he
would trust his property or life with sooner than negroes, provided he
had the previous management of them long enough to secure their
confidence. He stated the following fact in confirmation of this
sentiment. During the memorable insurrection of 1816, by which the
neighboring parishes were dreadfully ravaged, he was suddenly called
from home on military duty. After he had proceeded some distance, he
recollected that he had left five thousand dollars in an open desk at
home. He immediately told the fact to his slave who was with him, and
sent him back to take care of it. He knew nothing more of his money
until the rebellion was quelled, and peace restored. On returning home,
the slave led him to a cocoa-nut tree near by the house, and dug up the
money, which he had buried under its roots. He found the whole sum
secure. The negro, he said, might have taken the money, and he would
never have suspected him, but would have concluded that it had been, in
common with other larger sums, seized upon by the insurgents. Colonel A.
said that it was impossible for him to mistrust the negroes as a body.
He spoke in terms of praise also of the _conjugal attachment_ of the
negroes. His son, a merchant, stated a fact on this subject. The wife of
a negro man whom he knew, became afflicted with that loathsome disease,
the leprosy. The man continued to live with her, notwithstanding the
disease was universally considered contagious and was peculiarly dreaded
by the negroes. The man on being asked why he lived with his wife under
such circumstances, said, that he had lived with her when she was well,
and he could not bear to forsake her when she was in distress.

Colonel A. made numerous inquiries respecting slavery in America. He
said there certainly be insurrections in the slaveholding states, unless
slavery was abolished. Nothing but abolition could put an end to
insurrections.

Mr. Thomas, a neighboring planter, dined with us. He had not carried a
complaint to the special magistrate against his apprentices for six
months. He remarked particularly that emancipation had been a great
blessing to the master; it brought freedom to him as well as to
the slave.

A few days subsequent to our visit to Colonel A.'s, the Reverend Mr.
Packer, of the Established Church, called at our lodgings, and
introduced a planter from the parish of St. Thomas. The planter is
proprietor of an estate, and has eighty apprentices. His apprentices
conduct themselves very satisfactorily, and he had not carried a half
dozen complaints to the special magistrate since 1831. He said that
cases of crime were very rare, as he had opportunity of knowing, being
local magistrate. There were almost no penal offences brought before
him. Many of the apprentices of St. Thomas parish were buying their
freedom, and there were several cases of appraisement[A] every week. The
Monday previous, six cases came before him, in four of which the
apprentices paid the money on the spot.

[Footnote A: When an apprentice signifies his wish to purchase his
freedom, he applies to the magistrate for an appraisement. The
appraisement is made by one special and two local magistrates.]

Before this gentleman left, the Rev. Mr. C. called in with Mr. Pigeot,
another planter, with whom we had a long conversation. Mr. P. has been a
manager for many years. We had heard of him previously as the only
planter in the island who had made an experiment in task work prior to
abolition. He tried it for twenty months before that period on an estate
of four hundred acres and two hundred people. His plan was simply to
give each slave an ordinary day's work for a task; and after that was
performed, the remainder of the time, if any, belonged to the slave. _No
wages were allowed_. The gang were expected to accomplish just as much
as they did before, and to do it as well, however long a time it might
require; and if they could finish in half a day, the other half was
their own, and they might employ it as they saw fit. Mr. P. said, he was
very soon convinced of the good policy of the system; though he had one
of the most unruly gangs of negroes to manage in the whole island. The
results of the experiment he stated to be these:

1. The usual day's work was done generally before the middle of the
afternoon. Sometimes it was completed in five hours.

2. The work was done as well as it was ever done under the old system.
Indeed, the estate continued to improve in cultivation, and presented a
far better appearance at the close of the twenty months than when he
took the charge of it.

3. The trouble of management was greatly diminished. Mr. P. was almost
entirely released from the care of overseeing the work: he could trust
it to the slaves.

4. The whip was entirely laid aside. The idea of having a part of the
day which they could call their own and employ for their own interests,
was stimulus enough for the slaves without resorting to the whip.

5. The time gained was not spent (as many feared and prophecied it would
be) either in mischief or indolence. It was diligently improved in
cultivating their provision grounds, or working for wages on neighboring
estates. Frequently a man and his wife would commence early and work
together until they got the work of both so far advanced that the man
could finish it alone before night; and then the woman would gather on a
load of yams and start for the market.

6. The condition of the people improved astonishingly. They became one
of the most industrious and orderly gangs in the parish. Under the
former system they were considered inadequate to do the work of the
estate, and the manager was obliged to hire additional hands every year,
to take off the crop; but Mr. P. never hired any, though he made as
large crops as were made formerly.

7. After the abolition of slavery, his people chose to continue on the
same system of task work.

Mr. P. stated that the planters were universally opposed to his
experiment. They laughed at the idea of making negroes work without
using the whip; and they all prophesied that it would prove an utter
failure. After some months' successful trial, he asked some of his
neighbor planters what they thought of it then, and he appealed to than
to say whether he did not get his work done as thoroughly and seasonably
as they did theirs. They were compelled to admit it; but still they were
opposed to his system, even more than ever. They called it an
_innovation_--it was setting a bad example; and they honestly declared
that they did not wish the slaves to _have any time of their own_. Mr.
P. said, he was first induced to try the system of task work from a
consideration that the negroes were men as well as himself, and deserved
to he dealt with as liberally as their relation would allow. He soon
found that what was intended as a favor to the slaves was really a
benefit to the master. Mr. P. was persuaded that entire freedom would be
better for all parties than apprenticeship. He had heard some fears
expressed concerning the fate of the island after 1840; but he
considered them very absurd.

Although this planter looked forward with sanguine hopes to 1840, yet he
would freely say that he did not think the apprenticeship would be any
preparation for entire freedom. The single object with the great
majority of the planters seemed to be to _get as much out_ of the
apprentices as they possibly could during the term. No attention had
been paid to preparing the apprentices for freedom.

We were introduced to a planter who was notorious during the reign of
slavery for the _strictness of his discipline_, to use the Barbadian
phrase, or, in plain English, for his rigorous treatment and
his cruelty.

He is the proprietor of three sugar estates and one cotton plantation in
Barbadoes, on all of which there are seven hundred apprentices. He was a
luxurious looking personage, bottle-cheeked and huge i' the midst, and
had grown fat on slaveholding indulgences. He mingled with every
sentence he uttered some profane expression, or solemn appeal to his
"honor," and seemed to be greatly delighted with hearing himself talk.
He displayed all those prejudices which might naturally be looked for in
a mind educated and trained as his had been. As to the conduct of the
apprentices, he said they were peaceable and industrious, and mostly
well disposed. But after all, the negroes were a perverse race of
people. It was a singular fact, he said, that the severer the master,
the better the apprentices. When the master was mild and indulgent, they
were sure to be lazy, insolent, and unfaithful. _He knew this by
experience; this was the case with_ his _apprentices_. His house-servants
especially were very bad. But there was one complaint he had against
them all, domestics and praedials--they always hold him to the letter of
the law, and are ready to arraign him before the special magistrate for
every infraction of it on his part, however trifling. How ungrateful,
truly! After being provided for with parental care from earliest
infancy, and supplied yearly with two suits of clothes, and as many yams
is they could eat and only having to work thirteen or fifteen hours per
day in return; and now when they are no longer slaves, and new
privileges are conferred to exact them to the full extent of the law
which secures them--what ingratitude! How soon are the kindnesses of the
past, and the hand that bestowed them, forgotten! Had these people
possessed the sentiments of human beings, they would have been willing
to take the boon of freedom and lay it at their master's feet,
dedicating the remainder of their days to his discretionary service!

But with all his violent prejudices, this planter stated some facts
which are highly favorable to the apprentices.

1. He frankly acknowledged that his estates were never under better
cultivation than at the present time: and he could say the same of the
estates throughout the island. The largest crops that have ever been
made, will he realized this year.

2. The apprentices are generally willing to work on the estates on
Saturday whenever their labor is needed.

3. The females are very much disposed to abandon field labor. He has
great difficulty sometimes in inducing them to take their hoes and go
out to the field along with the men; it was the case particularly _with
the mothers!_ This he regarded as a sore evil!

4. The free children he represented as being in a wretched condition.
Their parents have the entire management of them, an they are utterly
opposed to having them employed on the estates. He condemned severely
the course taken in a particular instance by the late Governor, Sir
Lionel Smith. He took it upon himself to go around the island and advise
the parents never to bind their children in any kind of apprenticeship
to the planters. He told them that sooner than involve their free
children in any way, they ought to "work their own fingers to the
stubs." The consequence of this imprudent measure, said our informant,
is that the planters have no control over the children born on their
estates; and in many instances their parents have sent them away lest
their _residence_ on the property should, by some chance, give the
planter a claim upon their services. Under the good old system the young
children were placed together under the charge of some superannuated
women, who were fit for nothing else, and the mothers went into the
field to work; now the nursery is broken up, and the mothers spend half
of their time "_in taking care of their brats_."

5. As to the management of the working people, there need not he any
more difficulty now then during slavery. If the magistrates, instead of
encouraging the apprentices to complain and be insolent, would join
their influence to support the authority of the planters, things might
go on nearly as smoothly as before.

In company with Rev. Mr. Packer, late Rector of St. Thomas, we rode out
to the Belle estate, which is considered one of the finest in the
island. Mr. Marshall, the manager, received us cordially. He was
selected, with two others, by Sir Lionel Smith, to draw up a scale of
labor for general use in the island. There are five hundred acres in the
estate, and two hundred and thirty-five apprenticed laborers. The
manager stated that every thing was working well on his property. He
corroborated the statements made by other planters with retard to the
conduct of the apprentices. On one point he said the planters had found
themselves greatly disappointed. It was feared that after emancipation
the negroes would be very much verse to cultivating cane, as it was
supposed that nothing but the whip could induce them to perform that
species of labor. But the truth is, they now not only cultivate the
estate lands better than they did when under the lash, but also
cultivate a third of their half-acre allotments in cane on their own
accounts. They would plant the whole in cane if they were not
discouraged by the planter, whose principal objection to their doing so
is that it would lead to the entire neglect of _provision cultivation_.
The apprentices on Belle estate will make little short of one thousand
dollars the present season by their sugar.

Mr. M. stated that he was extensively acquainted with the cultivation of
the island, and he knew that it was in a better condition than it had
been for many years. There were twenty-four estates under the same
attorneyship with the Belle, and they were all in the same prosperous
condition.

A short time before we left Barbadoes we received an invitation from
Col. Barrow, to breakfast with him at his residence on Edgecome
estate--about eight miles from town. Mr. Cummins, a colored gentleman, a
merchant of Bridgetown, and agent of Col. B., accompanied us.

The proprietor of Edgecome is a native of Barbadoes, of polished manners
and very liberal views. He has travelled extensively, has held many
important offices, and is generally considered the _cleverest_ man in
the island. He is now a member of the council, and acting attorney for
about twenty estates. He remarked that he had always desired
emancipation, and had prepared himself for it; but that it had proved a
greater blessing than he had expected. His apprentices did as much work
as before, and it was done without the application of the whip. He had
not had any cases of insubordination, and it was very seldom that he
had any complaints to make to the special magistrate. "The apprentices."
said he, "understand the meaning of law, and they regard its authority."
He thought there was no such thing in the island as a _sense of
insecurity_, either as respected person or property. Real estate had
risen in value.

Col. B. alluded to the expensiveness of slavery, remarking that after
all that was expended in purchasing the slaves, it cost the proprietor
as much to maintain them, as it would to hire free men. He spoke of the
habit of exercising arbitrary power, which being in continual play up to
the time of abolition, had become so strong that managers even yet gave
way to it, and frequently punished their apprentices, in spite of all
penalties. The fines inflicted throughout the island in 1836, upon
planters, overseers, and others, for punishing apprentices, amounted to
one thousand two hundred dollars. Col. B. said that he found the legal
penalty so inadequate, that in his own practice he was obliged to resort
to other means to deter his book-keepers and overseers from violence;
hence he discharged every man under his control who was known to strike
an apprentice. He does not think that the apprenticeship will be a means
of preparing the negroes for freedom, nor does he believe that they
_need_ any preparation. He should have apprehended no danger, had
emancipation taken place in 1834.

At nine o'clock we sat down to breakfast. Our places were assigned at
opposite sides of the table, between Col. B. and Mr. C. To an American
eye, we presented a singular spectacle. A wealthy planter, a member of
the legislative council, sitting at the breakfast table with a colored
man, whose mother was a negress of the most unmitigated hue, and who
himself showed a head of hair as curly as his mother's! But this colored
guest was treated with all that courtesy and attention to which his
intelligence, worth and accomplished manners so justly entitle him.

About noon, we left Edgecome, and drove two miles farther, to Horton--an
estate owned by Foster Clarke, Esq., an attorney for twenty-two estates,
who is now temporarily residing in England. The intelligent manager of
Horton received us and our colored companion, with characteristic
hospitality. Like every one else, he told us that the apprenticeship was
far better than slavery, though he was looking forward to the still
better system, entire freedom.

After we had taken a lunch, Mr. Cummins invited our host to take a seat,
with us in his carriage, and we drove across the country to Drax Hall.
Drax Hall is the largest estate in the island--consisting of eight
hundred acres. The manager of this estate confirmed the testimony of the
Barbadian planters in every important particular.

From Drax Hall we returned to Bridgetown, accompanied by our friend
Cummins.



CHAPTER II.

TESTIMONY OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATES, POLICE OFFICERS, CLERGYMEN, AND
MISSIONARIES.

Next in weight to the testimony of the planters is that of the special
magistrates. Being officially connected with the administration of the
apprenticeship system, and tire adjudicators in all difficulties between
master and servant, their views of the system and of the conduct of the
different parties are entitled to special consideration. Our interviews
with this class of men were frequent during our stay in the island. We
found them uniformly ready to communicate information, and free to
express their sentiments.

In Barbadoes there are seven special magistrates, presiding over as many
districts, marked A, B, C, &c., which include the whole of the
apprentice population, praedial and non-praedial. These districts
embrace an average of twelve thousand apprentices--some more and some
less. All the complaints and difficulties which arise among that number
of apprentices and their masters, overseers and book-keepers, are
brought before the single magistrate presiding in the district in which
they occur. From the statement of this fact it will appear in the outset
either that the special magistrates have an incalculable amount of
business to transact, or that the conduct of the apprentices is
wonderfully peaceable. But more of this again.

About a week following our first interview with his excellency, Sir Evan
McCregor, we received an invitation to dine at Government House with a
company of gentlemen. On our arrival at six o'clock, we were conducted
into a large antechamber above the dining hall, where we were soon
joined by the Solicitor-General, Hon. R.B. Clarke. Dr. Clarke, a
physician, Maj. Colthurst, Capt. Hamilton, and Mr. Galloway, special
magistrates. The appearance of the Governor about an hour afterwards,
was the signal for an adjournment to dinner.

Slavery and emancipation were the engrossing topics during the evening.
As our conversation was for the most part general, we were enabled to
gather at the same time the opinions of all the persons present. There
was, for aught we heard or could see to the contrary, an entire
unanimity of sentiment. In the course of the evening we gathered the
following facts and testimony:

1. All the company testified to the benefits of abolition. It was
affirmed that the island was never in so prosperous a condition as
at present.

2. The estates generally are better cultivated than they were during
slavery. Said one of the magistrates:

"If, gentlemen, you would see for yourselves the evidences of our
successful cultivation, you need but to travel in any part of the
country, and view the superabundant crops which are now being taken off;
and if you would satisfy yourselves that emancipation has not been
ruinous to Barbadoes, only cast your eyes over the land in any
direction, and see the flourishing condition both of houses and fields:
every thing is starting into new life."

It as also stated that more work was done during the nine hours required
by law, than was done during slavery in twelve or fifteen hours, with
all the driving and goading which were then practised.

3. Offences have not increased, but rather lessened. The
Solicitor-General remarked, that the comparative state of crime could
not be ascertained by a mere reference to statistical records, since
previous to emancipation all offences were summarily punished by the
planter. Each estate was a little despotism, and the manager took
cognizance of all the misdemeanors committed among his slaves
--inflicting such punishment as he thought proper. The public knew
nothing about the offences of the slaves, unless something very
atrocious was committed. But since emancipation has taken place, all
offences, however trivial, come to the light and are recorded. He could
only give a judgment founded on observation. It was his opinion, that
there were fewer petty offences, such as thefts, larcenies, &c., than
during slavery. As for serious crime, it was hardly known in the island.
The whites enjoy far greater safety of person and property than they
did formerly.

Maj. Colthurst, who is an Irishman, remarked, that he had long been a
magistrate or justice of the peace in Ireland, and he was certain that
at the present ratio of crime in Barbadoes, there would not be as much
perpetrated in six years to come, as there is in Ireland among an equal
population in six months. For his part, he had never found in any part
of the world so peaceable and inoffensive a community.

4. It was the unanimous testimony that there was no disposition among
the apprentices to revenge injuries committed against them. _They are
not a revengeful people_, but on the contrary are remarkable for
forgetting wrongs, particularly when the are succeeded by kindness.

5. The apprentices were described as being generally civil and
respectful toward their employers. They were said to manifest more
independence of feeling and action than they did when slaves; but were
seldom known to be insolent unless grossly insulted or very
harshly used.

6. Ample testimony was given to the law-abiding character of the
negroes. When the apprenticeship system was first introduced, they did
not fully comprehend its provisions, and as they had anticipated entire
freedom, they were disappointed and dissatisfied. But in a little while
they became reconciled to the operations of the new system, and have
since manifested a due subordination to the laws and authorities.

7. There is great desire manifested among them to purchase their
freedom. Not a week passes without a number of appraisements. Those who
have purchased their freedom have generally conducted well, and in many
instances are laboring on the same estates on which they were slaves.

8. There is no difficulty in inducing the apprentices to work on
Saturday. They are usually willing to work if proper wages are given
them. If they are not needed on the estates, they either work on their
own grounds, or on some neighboring estate.

9. The special magistrates were all of the opinion that it would have
been entirely safe to have emancipated the slaves of Barbadoes in 1834.
They did not believe that any preparation was needed; but that entire
emancipation would have been decidedly better than the apprenticeship.

10. The magistrates also stated that the number of complaints brought
before them was comparatively small, and it was gradually diminishing.
The offences were of a very trivial nature, mostly cases of slight
insubordination, such as impertinent replies and disobedience of orders.

11. They stated that they had more trouble with petty overseers and
managers and small proprietors than with the entire black population.

12. The special magistrates further testified that wherever the planters
have exercised common kindness and humanity, the apprentices have
generally conducted peaceably. Whenever there are many complaints from
one estate, it is presumable that the manager is a bad man.

13. Real estate is much higher throughout the island than it has been
for many years. A magistrate said that he had heard of an estate which
had been in market for ten years before abolition and could not find a
purchaser. In 1835, the year following abolition, it was sold for one
third more than was asked for it two years before.

14. It was stated that there was not a proprietor in the island, whose
opinion was of any worth, who would wish to have slavery restored. Those
who were mostly bitterly opposed to abolition, have become reconciled,
and are satisfied that the change has been beneficial. The
Solicitor-General was candid enough to own that he himself was openly
opposed to emancipation. He had declared publicly and repeatedly while
the measure was pending in Parliament, that abolition would ruin the
colonies. But the results had proved so different that he was ashamed of
his former forebodings. He had no desire ever to see slavery
re-established.

15. The first of August, 1834, was described as a day of remarkable
quiet and tranquillity. The Solicitor-General remarked, that there were
many fears for the results of that first day of abolition. He said he
arose early that morning, and before eight o'clock rode through the most
populous part of the island, over an extent of twelve miles. The negroes
were all engaged in their work as on other days. A stranger riding
through the island, and ignorant of the event which had taken place that
morning, would have observed no indications of so extraordinary a
change. He returned home satisfied that all would work well.

16. The change in 1840 was spoken of as being associated with the most
sanguine expectations. It was thought that there was more danger to be
apprehended from the change in 1834. It was stated that there were about
fifteen thousand non-praedials, who would then be emancipated in
Barbadoes. This will most likely prove the occasion of much excitement
and uneasiness, though it is not supposed that any thing serious will
arise. The hope was expressed that the legislature would effect the
emancipation of the whole population at that time. One of the
magistrates informed us that he knew quite a number of planters in his
district who were willing to liberate their apprentices immediately, but
they were waiting for a general movement. It was thought that this state
of feeling was somewhat extensive.

17. The magistrates represented the negroes as naturally confiding and
docile, yielding readily to the authority of those who are placed over
them. Maj. Colthurst presides over a district of 9,000 apprentices;
Capt. Hamilton over a district of 13,000, and Mr. Galloway over the same
number. There are but three days in the week devoted to hearing and
settling complaints. It is very evident that in so short a time it would
be utterly impossible for one man to control and keep in order such a
number, unless the subjects were of themselves disposed to be peaceable
and submissive. The magistrates informed us that, notwithstanding the
extent of their districts, they often did not have more than from a
dozen to fifteen complaints in a week.

We were highly gratified with the liberal spirit and the intelligence of
the special magistrates. Major Colthurst is a gentleman of far more than
ordinary pretensions to refinement and general information. He was in
early life a justice of the peace in Ireland, he was afterwards a juror
in his Majesty's service, and withal, has been an extensive traveller.
Fifteen years ago he travelled in the United States, and passed through
several of the slaveholding states, where he was shocked with the
abominations of slavery. He was persuaded that slavery was worse in our
country, than it has been for many years in the West Indies. Captain
Hamilton was formerly an officer in the British navy. He seems quite
devoted to his business, and attached to the interests of the
apprentices. Mr. Galloway is a _colored_ gentleman, highly respected for
his talents. Mr. G. informed us that _prejudice_ against color was
rapidly diminishing--and that the present Governor was doing all in his
power to discountenance it.

The company spoke repeatedly of the _noble act of abolition, by which
Great Britain had immortalized her name more than by all the
achievements of her armies and navies._

The warmest wishes were expressed for the abolition of slavery in the
United States. All said they should rejoice when the descendants of
Great Britain should adopt the noble example of their mother country.
They hailed the present anti-slavery movements. Said the
Solicitor-General, "We were once strangely opposed to the English
anti-slavery party, but now we sympathize with you. Since slavery is
abolished to our own colonies, and we see the good which results from
the measure, we go for abolition throughout the world. Go on, gentlemen,
we are with you; _we are all sailing in the same vessel._"

Being kindly invited by Captain Hamilton, during our interview with him
at the government house, to call on him and attend his court, we availed
ourselves of his invitation a few days afterwards. We left Bridgetown
after breakfast, and as it chanced to be Saturday, we had a fine
opportunity of seeing the people coming into market. They were strung
all along the road for six miles, so closely, that there was scarcely a
minute at any time in which we did not pass them. As far as the eye
could reach there were files of men and women, moving peaceably forward.
From the cross paths leading through the estates, the busy marketers
were pouring into the highway. To their heads as usual was committed the
safe conveyance of the various commodities. It was amusing to observe
the almost infinite diversity of products which loaded them. There were
sweet potatoes, yams, eddoes, Guinea and Indian corn, various fruits and
berries, vegetables, nuts, cakes, bottled beer and empty bottles,
bundles of sugar cane, bundles of fire wood, &c. &c. Here was one woman
(the majority were females, as usual with the marketers in these
islands) with a small black pig doubled up under her arm. Another girl
had a brood of young chickens, with nest, coop, and all, on her head.
Further along the road we were specially attracted by a woman who was
trudging with an immense turkey elevated on her head. He quite filled
the tray; head and tail projecting beyond its bounds. He advanced, as
was very proper, head foremost, and it was irresistibly laughable to see
him ever and anon stretch out his neck and peep under the tray, as
though he would discover by what manner of locomotive it was that he got
along so fast while his own legs were tied together.

Of the hundreds whom we past, there were very few who were not well
dressed, healthy, and apparently in good spirits. We saw nothing
indecorous, heard no vile language, and witnessed no violence.

About four miles from town, we observed on the side of the road a small
grove of shade trees. Numbers of the marketers were seated there, or
lying in the cool shade with their trays beside them. It seemed to be a
sort of rendezvous place, where those going to, and those returning from
town, occasionally halt for a time for the purpose of resting, and to
tell and hear news concerning the state of the market. And why should
not these travelling merchants have an exchange as well as the
stationary ones of Bridgetown?

On reaching the station-house, which is about six miles from town, we
learned that Saturday was not one of the court days. We accordingly
drove to Captain Hamilton's residence. _He stated that during the week
he had only six cases of complaint among the thirteen thousand
apprentices embraced in his district._ Saturday is the day set apart for
the apprentices to visit him at his house for advice on any points
connected with their duties. He had several calls while we were with
him. One was from the mother of an apprentice girl who had been
committed for injuring the master's son. She came to inform Captain H.
that the girl had been whipped twice contrary to law, before her
commitment. Captain H. stated that the girl had said nothing about this
at the time of her trial; if she had, she would in all probability have
been _set free_, instead of being _committed to prison_. He remarked
that he had no question but there were numerous cases of flogging on the
estates which never came to light. The sufferers were afraid to inform
against their masters, lest they should be treated still worse. The
opportunity which he gave them of coming, to him one day in the week for
private advice, was the means of exposing many outrages which would
otherwise he unheard of: He observed that there were not a few whom he
had liberated on account of the cruelty of their masters.

Captain H. stated that the apprentices were much disposed to purchase
their freedom. To obtain money to pay for themselves they practice the
most severe economy and self-denial in the very few indulgences which
the law grants them. They sometimes resort to deception to depreciate
their value with the appraisers. He mentioned an instance of a man who
lead for many years been an overseer on a large estate. Wishing to
purchase himself, and knowing that his master valued him very highly, he
permitted his beard to grow; gave his face a wrinkled and haggard
appearance, and bound a handkerchief about his head. His clothes were
suffered to become ragged and dirty, and he began to feign great
weakness in his limbs, and to complain of a "misery all down his back."
He soon appeared marked with all the signs of old age and decrepitude.
In this plight, and leaning on a stick, he hobbled up to the
station-house one day, and requested to be appraised. He was appraised
at £10, which he immediately paid. A short time afterwards, he engaged
himself to a proprietor to manage a small estate for £30 per year in
cash and his own maintenance, all at once grew vigorous again; and is
prospering finely. Many of the masters in turn practice deception to
prevent the apprentices from buying themselves, or to make them pay the
very highest sum for their freedom. They extol their virtues--they are
every thing that is excellent and valuable--their services on the estate
are indispensable no one can fill their places. By such
misrepresentations they often get an exorbitant price for the remainder
of the term--more, sometimes, than they could have obtained for them for
life while they were slaves.

From Captain H.'s we returned to the station-house, the keeper of which
conducted us over the buildings, and showed us the cells of the prison.
The house contains the office and private room of the magistrate, and
the guard-room, below, and chambers for the police men above. There are
sixteen solitary cells, and two large rooms for those condemned to hard
labour--one for females and the other for males. There were at that time
seven in the solitary cells, and twenty-four employed in labor on the
roads. This is more than usual. The average number is twenty in all.
When it is considered that most of the commitments are for trivial
offences, and that the district contains thirteen thousand apprentices,
certainly we have grounds to conclude that the state of morals in
Barbadoes is decidedly superior to that in our own country.

The whole police force for this district is composed of seventeen
horsemen, four footmen, a sergeant, and the keeper. It was formerly
greater but has been reduced within the past year.

The keeper informed us that he found the apprentices, placed under his
care, very easily controlled. They sometimes attempt to escape; but
there has been no instance of revolt or insubordination. The island, he
said, was peaceable, and were it not for the petty complaints of the
overseers, nearly the whole police force might be disbanded. As for
insurrection, he laughed at the idea of it. It was feared before
abolition, but now no one thought of it. All but two or three of the
policemen at this station are black and colored men.



STATION-HOUSE AT DISTRICT A.

Being disappointed in our expectations of witnessing some trials at the
station-house in Captain Hamilton's district (B,) we visited the court
in district A, where Major Colthurst presides. Major C. was in the midst
of a trial when we entered, and we did not learn fully the nature of the
case then pending. We were immediately invited within the bar, whence we
had a fair view of all that passed.

There were several complaints made and tried, during our stay. We give a
brief account of them, as they will serve as specimens of the cases
usually brought before the special magistrates.

I. The first was a complaint made by a colored lady, apparently not more
than twenty, against a colored girl--her domestic apprentice. The charge
was insolence, and disobedience of orders. The complainant said that the
girl was exceedingly insolent--no one could imagine how insolent she had
been--it was beyond endurance. She seemed wholly unable to find words
enough to express the superlative insolence of her servant. The justice
requested her to particularize. Upon this, she brought out several
specific charges such as, first, That the girl brought a candle to her
one evening, and wiped her greasy fingers on her (the girl's) gown:
second, That one morning she refused to bring some warm water, as
commanded, to pour on a piece of flannel, until she had finished some
other work that she was doing at the time; third, That the same morning
she delayed coming into her chamber as usual to dress her, and when she
did come, she sung, and on being told to shut her mouth, she replied
that her mouth was her own, and that she would sing when she pleased;
and fourth, That she had said in her mistress's hearing that she would
be glad when she was freed. These several charges being sworn to, the
girl was sentenced to four days' solitary confinement, but at the
request of her mistress, she was discharged on promise of amendment.

II. The second complaint was against an apprentice-man by his master,
for absence from work. He had leave to go to the funeral of his mother,
and he did not return until after the time allowed him by his master.
The man was sentence to imprisonment.

III. The third complaint was against a woman for singing and making a
disturbance in the field. Sentenced to six days' solitary confinement.

IV. An apprentice was brought up for not doing his work well. He was a
mason, and was employed in erecting an arch on one of the public roads.
This case excited considerable interest. The apprentice was represented
by his master to be a praedial--the master testified on oath that he was
registered as a praedial; but in the course of the examination it was
proved that he had always been a mason; that he had labored at that
trade from his boyhood, and that he knew 'nothing about the hoe,' having
never worked an hour in the field. This was sufficient to prove that he
was a non-praedial, and of course entitled to liberty two years sooner
than he would have been as a praedial. As this matter came up
incidentally, it enraged the master exceedingly. He fiercely reiterated
his charge against the apprentice, who, on his part, averred that he did
his work as well as he could. The master manifested the greatest
excitement and fury during the trial. At one time, because the
apprentice disputed one of his assertions, he raised his clenched fist
over him, and threatened, with an oath, to knock him down. The
magistrate was obliged to threaten him severely before he would
keep quiet.

The defendant was ordered to prison to be tried the next day, time being
given to make further inquiries about his being a praedial.

V. The next case was a complaint against an apprentice, for leaving his
place in the boiling house without asking permission. It appeared that
he had been unwell during the evening, _and at half past ten o'clock at
night_, being attacked more severely, he left for a few moments,
expecting to return. He, however, was soon taken so ill that the could
not go back, but was obliged to lie down on the ground, where he
remained until twelve o'clock, when he recovered sufficiently to creep
home. His sickness was proved by a fellow apprentice, and indeed his
appearance at the bar clearly evinced it. He was punished by several
days imprisonment. With no little astonishment in view of such a
decision, we inquired of Maj. C. whether the planters had the power to
require their people to work as late as half past ten at night. He
replied, "Certainly, _the crops must be secured at any rate, and if they
are suffering, the people must be pressed the harder_."[A]

[Footnote A: We learned subsequently from various authentic sources,
that the master has _not_ the power to compel his apprentices to labor
more than nine hours per day on any condition, except in case of a fire,
or some similar emergency. If the call for labor in crop-time was to be
set down as an emergency similar to a "fire," and if in official
decisions he took equal latitude, alas for the poor apprentices!]

VI. The last case was a complaint against a man for not keeping up good
fires under the boilers. He stoutly denied the charge; said he built as
good fires as he could. He kept stuffing in the trash, and if it would
not burn he could not help it. He was sentenced to imprisonment.

Maj. C. said that these complaints were a fair specimen of the cases
that came up daily, save that there were many more frivolous and
ridiculous. By the trials which we witnessed we were painfully impressed
with two things:

1st. That the magistrate, with all his regard for the rights and welfare
of the apprentices, showed a great and inexcusable partiality for the
masters. The patience and consideration with which he heard the
complaints of the latter, the levity with which he regarded the defence
of the former, the summary manner in which he despatched the cases, and
the character of some of his decisions, manifested no small degree of
favoritism.

2d That the whole proceedings of the special magistrates' courts are
eminently calculated to perpetuate bad feeling between the masters and
apprentices. The court-room is a constant scene of angry dispute between
these parties. The master exhausts his store of abuse and violence upon
the apprentice, and the apprentice, emboldened by the place, and
provoked by the abuse, retorts in language which he would never think of
using on the estate, and thus, whatever may be the decision of the
magistrate, the parties return home with feelings more embittered
than ever.

There were twenty-six persons imprisoned at the station-house,
twenty-four were at hard labor, and two were in solitary confinement.
The keeper of the prison said, he had no difficulty in managing the
prisoners. The keeper is a colored man, and so also is the sergeant and
most of the policemen.

We visited one other station-house, in a distant part of the island,
situated in the district over which Captain Cuppage presides. We
witnessed several trials there which were similar in frivolity and
meanness to those detailed above. We were shocked with the mockery of
justice, and the indifference to the interests of the negro apparent in
the course of the magistrate. It seemed that little more was necessary
than for the manager or overseer to make his complaint and swear to it,
and the apprentice was forthwith condemned to punishment.

We never saw a set of men in whose countenances fierce passions of every
name were so strongly marked as in the overseers and managers who were
assembled at the station-houses. Trained up to use the whip and to
tyrannize over the slaves, their grim and evil expression accorded with
their hateful occupation.

Through the kindness of a friend in Bridgetown we were favored with an
interview with Mr. Jones, the superintendent of the rural police--the
whole body of police excepting those stationed in the town. Mr. J. has
been connected with the police since its first establishment in 1834. He
assured us that there was nothing in the local peculiarities of the
island, nor in the character of its population, which forbade immediate
emancipation in August, 1834. He had no doubt it would be perfectly safe
and decidedly profitable to the colony.

2. The good or bad working of the apprenticeship depends mainly on the
conduct of the masters. He was well acquainted with the character and
disposition of the negroes throughout the island, and he was ready to
say, that if disturbances should arise either before or after 1840, it
would be because the people were goaded on to desperation by the
planters, and not because they sought disturbance themselves.

3. Mr. J. declared unhesitatingly that crime had not increased since
abolition, but rather the contrary.

4. He represented the special magistrates as the friends of the
planters. They loved the _dinners_ which they got at the planters'
houses. The apprentices had no sumptuous dinners to give them. The
magistrates felt under very little obligation of any kind to assert the
cause of the apprentice and secure him justice, while they were under
very strong temptations to favor the master.

5. Real estate had increased in value nearly fifty per cent since
abolition. There is such entire security of property, and the crops
since 1834 have been so flattering, that capitalists from abroad are
desirous of investing their funds in estates or merchandise. All are
making high calculations for the future.

6. Mr. J. testified that marriages had greatly increased since
abolition. He had seen a dozen couples standing at one time on the
church floor. There had, he believed, been more marriages within the
last three years among the negro population, than have occurred before
since the settlement of the island.

We conclude this chapter by subjoining two highly interesting documents
from special magistrates. They were kindly furnished us by the authors
in pursuance of an order from his excellency the Governor, authorizing
the special magistrates to give us any official statements which we
might desire. Being made acquainted with these instructions from the
Governor, we addressed written queries to Major Colthurst and Captain
Hamilton. We insert their replies at length.

COMMUNICATION FROM MAJOR COLTHURST, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

The following fourteen questions on the working of the apprenticeship
system in this colony were submitted to me on the 30th of March, 1837,
requesting answers thereto.

1. What is the number of apprenticed laborers in your district, and what
is their character compared with other districts?

The number of apprenticed laborers, of all ages, in my district, in nine
thousand four hundred and eighty, spread over two hundred and
ninety-seven estates of various descriptions--some very large, and
others again very small--much the greater number consisting of small
lots in the near neighborhood of Bridgetown. Perhaps my district, in
consequence of this minute subdivision of property, and its contact with
the town, is the most troublesome district in the island; and the
character of the apprentices differs consequently from that in the more
rural districts, where not above half the complaints are made. I
attribute this to their almost daily intercourse with Bridgetown.

2. What is the state of agriculture in the island?

When the _planters themselves_ admit that general cultivation was
_never_ in a better state, and the plantations extremely clean, _it is
more than presumptive_ proof that agriculture generally is in a most
prosperous condition. The vast crop of canes grown this year proves this
fact. Other crops are also luxuriant.

3. Is there any difficulty occasioned by the apprentices refusing to
work?

No difficulty whatever has been experienced by the refusal of the
apprentices to work. This is done manfully and cheerfully, when they are
treated with humanity and consideration by the masters or managers. I
have never known an instance to the contrary.

4. Are the apprentices willing to work in their own time?

The apprentices are most willing to work in their own time.

5. What is the number and character of the complaints brought before
you--are they increasing or otherwise?

The number of complaints brought before me, during the last quarter, are
much fewer than during the corresponding quarter of the last year. Their
character is also greatly improved. Nine complaints out of ten made
lately to me are for small impertinences or saucy answers, which,
considering the former and present position of the parties, is naturally
to be expected. The number of such complaints is much diminished.

6. What is the state of crime among the apprentices?

What is usually denominated crime in the old countries, is by no means
frequent among the blacks or colored persons. It is amazing how few
material breaches of the law occur in so extraordinary a community. Some
few cases of crime do occasionally arise;--but when it is considered
that the population of this island is nearly as dense as that of any
part of China, and wholly uneducated, either by precept or example, this
absence of frequent crime excites our wonder, and is highly creditable
to the negroes. I sincerely believe there is no such person, of that
class called at home an accomplished villain, to be found in the whole
island.--Having discharged the duties of a general justice of the peace
in Ireland, for above twenty-four years, where crimes of a very
aggravated nature were perpetrated almost daily. I cannot help
contrasting the situation of that country with this colony, where I do
not hesitate to say perfect tranquillity exists.

7. Have the apprentices much respect for law?

It is perhaps, difficult to answer this question satisfactorily, as it
has been so short a time since they enjoyed the blessing of equal laws.
To appreciate just laws, time, and the experience of the benefit arising
from them must be felt. That the apprentices do not, to any material
extent, _outrage_ the law, is certain; and hence it may be inferred that
they respect it.

8. Do you find a spirit of revenge among the negroes?

From my general knowledge of the negro character in other countries, as
well as the study of it here, I do not consider them by any means a
revengeful people. Petty dislikes are frequent, but any thing like a
deep spirit of revenge for former injuries does not exist, nor is it for
one moment to be dreaded.

9. Is there any sense of insecurity arising from emancipation?

Not the most remote feeling of insecurity exists arising from
emancipation; far the contrary. All sensible and reasonable men think
the prospects before them most cheering, and would not go back to the
old system on any account whatever. There are some, however, who croak
and forebode evil; but they are few in number, and of no
intelligence,--such as are to be found in every community.

10. What is the prospect for 1840?--for 1838?

This question is answered I hope satisfactorily above. On the
termination of the two periods no evil is to be reasonably anticipated,
with the exception of a few days' idleness.

11. Are the planters generally satisfied with the apprenticeship, or
would they return back to the old system?

The whole body of respectable planters are fully satisfied with the
apprenticeship, and would not go back to the old system on any account
whatever. A few young managers, whose opinions are utterly worthless,
would perhaps have no objection to be put again into their puny
authority.

12. Do you think it would have been dangerous for the slaves in this
island to have been entirely emancipated in 1834?

I do not think it would have been productive of danger, had the slaves
of this island been fully emancipated in 1834; which is proved by what
has taken place in another colony.

13. Has emancipation been a decided blessing to this island, or has it
been otherwise?

Emancipation has been, under God, the greatest blessing ever conferred
upon this island. All good and respectable men fully admit it. This is
manifest throughout the whole progress of this mighty change. Whatever
may be said of the vast benefit conferred upon the slaves, in right
judgment the slave owner was the greatest gainer after all.

14. Are the apprentices disposed to purchase their freedom? How have
those conducted themselves who have purchased it?

The apprentices are inclined to purchase their discharge, particularly
when misunderstandings occur with their masters. When they obtain their
discharge they generally labor in the trades and occupations they were
previously accustomed to, and conduct themselves well. The discharged
apprentices seldom take to drinking. Indeed the negro and colored
population are the most temperate persons I ever knew of their class.
The experience of nearly forty years in various public situations,
confirms me in this very important fact.

The answers I have had the honor to give to the questions submitted to
me, have been given most conscientiously, and to the best of my judgment
are a faithful picture of the working of the apprenticeship in this
island, as far as relates to the inquiries made.--_John B. Colthurst,
Special Justice of the Peace, District A. Rural Division_.

COMMUNICATION FROM CAPT. HAMILTON.

Barbadoes, April 4th, 1837.

Gentlemen,

Presuming that you have kept a copy of the questions[A] you sent me, I
shall therefore only send the answers.

[Footnote A: The same interrogatories were propounded to Capt. Hamilton
which have been already inserted in Major Colthurst's communication.]

1. There are at present five thousand nine hundred and thirty male, and
six thousand six hundred and eighty-nine female apprentices in my
district, (B,) which comprises a part of the parishes of Christ Church
and St. George. Their conduct, compared with the neighboring
districts, is good.

2. The state of agriculture is very flourishing. Experienced planters
acknowledge that it is generally far superior to what it was
during slavery.

3. Where the managers are kind and temperate, they have not any trouble
with the laborers.

4. The apprentices are generally willing to work for wages in their own
time.

5. The average number of complaints tried by me, last year, ending
December, was one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two. The average
number of apprentices in the district during that time was twelve
thousand seven hundred. Offences, generally speaking, are not of any
magnitude. They do not increase, but fluctuate according to the season
of the year.

6. The state of crime is not so bad by any means as we might have
expected among the negroes--just released from such a degrading bondage.
Considering the state of ignorance in which they have been kept, and the
immoral examples set them by the lower class of whites, it is matter of
astonishment that they should behave so well.

7. The apprentices would have a great respect for law, were it not for
the erroneous proceedings of the managers, overseers, &c., in taking
them before the magistrates for every petty offence, and often abusing
the magistrate in the presence of the apprentices, when his decision
does not please them. The consequence is, that the apprentices too often
get indifferent to law, and have been known to say that they cared not
about going to prison, and that they would do just as they did before as
soon as they were released.

8. The apprentices in this colony are generally considered a peaceable
race. All acts of revenge committed by them originate in jealousy, as,
for instance, between husband and wife.

9. Not the slightest sense of insecurity. As a proof of this, property
has, since the commencement of the apprenticeship, increased in value
considerably--at least one third.

10. The change which will take place in 1838, in my opinion, will
occasion a great deal of discontent among those called praedials--which
will not subside for some months. They ought to have been all
emancipated at the same period. I cannot foresee any bad effects that
will ensue from the change in 1840, except those mentioned hereafter.

11. The most prejudiced planters would not return to the old system if
they possibly could. They admit that they get more work from the
laborers than they formerly did, and they are relieved from a great
responsibility.

12. It is my opinion that if entire emancipation had taken place in
1834, no more difficulty would have followed beyond what we may
naturally expect in 1810. It will then take two or three months before
the emancipated people finally settle themselves. I do not consider the
apprentice more fit or better prepared for entire freedom now than he
was in 1834.

13. I consider, most undoubtedly, that emancipation has been a decided
blessing to the colony.

14. They are much disposed to purchase the remainder of the
apprenticeship term. Their conduct after they become free is good.

I hope the foregoing answers and information may be of service to you in
your laudable pursuits, for which I wish you every success.

I am, gentlemen, your ob't serv't,

_Jos. Hamilton, Special Justice_.

TESTIMONY OF CLERGYMEN AND MISSIONARIES.

There are three religious denominations at the present time in
Barbadoes--Episcopalians, Wesleyans, and Moravians. The former have
about twenty clergymen, including the bishop and archdeacon. The bishop
was absent during our visit, and we did not see him; but as far as we
could learn, while in some of his political measures, as a member of the
council, he has benefited the colored population, his general influence
has been unfavorable to their moral and spiritual welfare. He has
discountenanced and defeated several attempts made by his rectors and
curates to abolish the odious distinctions of color in their churches.

We were led to form an unfavorable opinion of the Bishop's course, from
observing among the intelligent and well-disposed classes of colored
people, the current use of the phrase, "bishop's man," and "no bishop's
man," applied to different rectors and curates. Those that they were
averse to, either as pro-slavery or pro-prejudice characters, they
usually branded as "bishop's men," while those whom they esteemed their
friends, they designated as "no bishop's men."

The archdeacon has already been introduced to the reader. We enjoyed
several interviews with him, and were constrained to admire him for his
integrity, independence and piety. He spoke in terms of strong
condemnation of slavery, and of the apprenticeship system. He was a
determined advocate of entire and immediate emancipation, both from
principle and policy. He also discountenanced prejudice, both in the
church and in the social circle. The first time we had the pleasure of
meeting him was at the house of a colored gentleman in Bridgetown where
we were breakfasting. He called in incidentally, while we were sitting
at table, and exhibited all the familiarity of a frequent visitant.

One of the most worthy and devoted men whom we met in Barbadoes was the
Rev. Mr. Cummins, curate of St. Paul's church, in Bridgetown. The first
Sabbath after our arrival at the island we attended his church. It is
emphatically a free church. Distinctions of color are nowhere
recognized. There is the most complete intermingling of colors
throughout the house. In one pew were seen a family of whites, in the
next a family of colored people, and in the next perhaps a family of
blacks. In the same pews white and colored persons sat side by side. The
floor and gallery presented the same promiscuous blending of hues and
shades. We sat in a pew with white and colored people. In the pew before
and in that behind us the sitting was equally indiscriminate. The
audience was kneeling in their morning devotions when we entered, and we
were struck with the different colors bowing side by side as we passed
down the aisles. There is probably no clergyman in the island who has
secured so perfectly the affections of his people as Mr. C. He is of
course "no bishop's man." He is constantly employed in promoting the
spiritual and moral good of his people, of whatever complexion. The
annual examination of the Sabbath school connected with St. Paul's
occurred while we were in the island, and we were favored with the
privilege of attending it. There were about three hundred pupils
present, of all ages, from fifty down to three years. There were all
colors--white, tawny, and ebon black. The white children were classed
with the colored and black, in utter violation of those principles of
classification in vogue throughout the Sabbath schools of our own
country. The examination was chiefly conducted by Mr. Cummins. At the
close of the examination about fifty of the girls, and among them the
daughter of Mr. Cummins, were arranged in front of the altar, with the
female teachers in the rear of them, and all united in singing a hymn
written for the occasion. Part of the teachers were colored and part
white, as were also the scholars, and they stood side by side, mingled
promiscuously together. This is altogether the best Sabbath school in
the island.

After the exercises were closed, we were introduced, by a colored
gentleman who accompanied us to the examination, to Mr. Cummins, the
Rev. Mr. Packer, and the Rev. Mr. Rowe, master of the public school in
Bridgetown. By request of Mr. C., we accompanied him to his house, where
we enjoyed an interview with him and the other gentlemen, just
mentioned. Mr. C. informed us that his Sabbath school was commenced in
1833; but was quite small and inefficient until after 1834. It now
numbers more than four hundred scholars. Mr. C. spoke of prejudice. It
had wonderfully decreased within the last three years. He said he could
scarcely credit the testimony of his own senses, when he looked around
on the change which had taken place. Many now associate with colored
persons, and sit with them in the church, who once would have scorned to
be found near them. Mr. C. and the other clergymen stated, that there
had been an increase of places of worship and of clergymen since
abolition. All the churches are now crowded, and there is a growing
demand for more. The negroes manifest an increasing desire for religious
instruction. In respect to morals, they represent the people as being
greatly improved. They spoke of the general respect which was now paid
to the institution of marriage among the negroes, Mr. C. said, he was
convinced that the blacks had as much natural talent and capacity for
learning as the whites. He does not know any difference. Mr. Pocker, who
was formerly rector of St. Thomas' parish, and has been a public teacher
of children of all colors, expressed the same opinion. Mr. Rowe said,
that before he took charge of the white school, he was the teacher of
one of the free schools for blacks, and he testified that the latter has
just as much capacity for acquiring any kind of knowledge, as much
inquisitiveness, and ingenuity, as the former.

Accompanied by an intelligent gentleman of Bridgetown, we visited two
flourishing schools for colored children, connected with the Episcopal
church, and under the care of the Bishop. In the male school, there were
one hundred and ninety-five scholars, under the superintendence of one
master, who is himself a black man, and was educated and trained up in
the same school. He is assisted by several of his scholars, as monitors
and teachers. It was, altogether, the best specimen of a well-regulated
school which we saw in the West Indies.

The present instructor has had charge of the school two years. It has
increased considerably since abolition. Before the first of August,
1834, the whole number of names on the catalogue was a little above one
hundred, and the average attendance was seventy-five. The number
immediately increased, and new the average attendance is above two
hundred. Of this number at least sixty are the children of apprentices.

We visited also the infant school, established but two weeks previous.
Mr. S. the teacher, who has been for many years an instructor, says he
finds them as apt to learn as any children he ever taught. He said he
was surprised to see how soon the instructions of the school-room were
carried to the homes of the children, and caught up by their parents.

The very first night after the school closed, in passing through the
streets, he heard the children repeating what they had been taught, and
the parents learning the songs from their children's lips Mr. S. has a
hundred children already in his school, and additions were making daily.
He found among the negro parents much interest in the school.

WESLEYAN MISSIONARIES.

We called on the Rev. Mr. Fidler, the superintendent of the Wesleyan
missions in Barbadoes. Mr. F. resides in Bridgetown, and preaches mostly
in the chapel in town. He has been in the West Indies twelve years, and
in Barbadoes about two years. Mr. F. informed us that there were three
Wesleyan missionaries in the island, besides four or five local
preachers, one of whom is a black man. There are about one thousand
members belonging to their body, the greater part of whom live in town.
Two hundred and thirty-five were added during the year 1836, being by
far the largest number added in any one year since they began their
operations in the island.

A brief review of the history of the Wesleyan Methodists in Barbadoes,
will serve to show the great change which has been taking place in
public sentiment respecting the labors of missionaries. In the year
1823, not long after the establishment of the Wesleyan church in the
island, the chapel in Bridgetown was destroyed by a mob. Not one stone
was left upon another. They carried the fragments for miles away from
the site, and scattered them about in every direction, so that the
chapel might never be rebuilt. Some of the instigators and chief actors
in this outrage, were "gentlemen of property and standing," residents of
Bridgetown. The first morning after the outrage began, the mob sought
for the Rev. Mr. Shrewsbury, the missionary, threatening his life, and
he was obliged to flee precipitately from the island, with his wife. He
was hunted like a wild beast, and it is thought that he would have been
torn in pieces if he had been found. Not an effort or a movement was
made to quell the mob, during their assault upon the chapel. The first
men of the island connived at the violence--secretly rejoicing in what
they supposed would be the extermination of Methodism from the country.
The governor, Sir Henry Ward, utterly refused to interfere, and would
not suffer the militia to repair to the spot, though a mere handful of
soldiers could have instantaneously routed the whole assemblage.

The occasion of this riot was partly the efforts made by the Wesleyans
to instruct the negroes, and still more the circumstance of a letter
being written by Mr. Shrewsbury, and published in an English paper,
which contained some severe strictures on the morals of the Barbadians.
A planter informed us that the riot grew out of a suspicion that Mr. S.
was "leagued with the Wilberforce party in England."

Since the re-establishment of Wesleyanism in this island, it has
continued to struggle against the opposition of the Bishop, and most of
the clergy, and against the inveterate prejudices of nearly the whole of
the white community. The missionaries have been discouraged, and in many
instances absolutely prohibited from preaching on the estates. These
circumstances have greatly retarded the progress of religious
instruction through their means. But this state of things had been very
much altered since the abolition of slavery. There are several estates
now open to the missionaries. Mr. F. mentioned several places in the
country, where he was then purchasing land, and erecting chapels. He
also stated, that one man, who aided in pulling down the chapel in 1823,
had offered ground for a new chapel, and proffered the free use of a
building near by, for religious meetings and a school, till it could
be erected.

The Wesleyan chapel in Bridgetown is a spacious building, well filled
with worshippers every Sabbath. We attended service there frequently,
and observed the same indiscriminate sitting of the various colors,
which is described in the account of St. Paul's church.

The Wesleyan missionaries have stimulated the clergy to greater
diligence and faithfulness, and have especially induced them to turn
their attention to the negro population more than they did formerly.

There are several local preachers connected with the Wesleyan mission in
Barbadoes, who have been actively laboring to promote religion among the
apprentices. Two of these are converted soldiers in his Majesty's
service--acting sergeants of the troops stationed in the island. While
we were in Barbadoes, these pious men applied for a discharge from the
army, intending to devote themselves exclusively to the work of teaching
and preaching. Another of the local preachers is a negro man, of
considerable talent and exalted piety, highly esteemed among his
missionary brethren for his labors of love.

THE MORAVIAN MISSION.

Of the Moravians, we learned but little. Circumstances unavoidably
prevented us from visiting any of the stations, and also from calling on
any of the missionaries. We were informed that there were three stations
in the island, one in Bridgetown, and two in the country, and we learned
in general terms, that the few missionaries there were laboring with
their characteristic devotedness, assiduity, and self-denial, for the
spiritual welfare of the negro population.



CHAPTER III.

COLORED POPULATION.

The colored, or as they were termed previous to abolition, by way of
distinction, the free colored population, amount in Barbadoes to nearly
thirty thousand. They are composed chiefly of the mixed race, whose
paternal connection, though illegitimate, secured to them freedom at
their birth, and subsequently the advantages of an education more or
less extensive. There are some blacks among them, however, who were free
born, or obtained their freedom at an early period, and have since, by
great assiduity, attained an honorable standing.

During our stay in Barbadoes, we had many invitations to the houses of
colored gentlemen, of which we were glad to avail ourselves whenever it
was possible. At an early period after our arrival, we were invited to
dine with Thomas Harris, Esq. He politely sent his chaise for us, as he
resided about a mile from our residence. At his table, we met two other
colored gentlemen, Mr. Thorne of Bridgetown, and Mr. Prescod, a young
gentleman of much intelligence and ability. There was also at the table
a niece of Mr. Harris, a modest and highly interesting young lady. All
the luxuries and delicacies of a tropical clime loaded the board--an
epicurean variety of meats, flesh, fowl, and fish--of vegetables,
pastries, fruits, and nuts, and that invariable accompaniment of a West
India dinner, wine.

The dinner was enlivened by an interesting and well sustained
conversation respecting the abolition of slavery, the present state of
the colony, and its prospects for the future. Lively discussions were
maintained on points where there chanced to be a difference of opinion,
and we admired the liberality of the views which were thus elicited. We
are certainly prepared to say, and that too without feeling that we draw
any invidious distinctions, that in style of conversation, in ingenuity
and ability of argument, this company would compare with any company of
white gentlemen that we met in the island. In that circle of colored
gentlemen, were the keen sallies of wit, the admirable repartee, the
satire now severe, now playful, upon the measures of the colonial
government, the able exposure of aristocratic intolerance, of
plantership chicanery, of plottings and counterplottings in high
places--the strictures on the intrigues of the special magistrates and
managers, and withal, the just and indignant reprobation of the uniform
oppressions which have disabled and crushed the colored people.

The views of these gentlemen with regard to the present state of the
island, we found to differ in some respects from those of the planters
and special magistrates. They seemed to regard both those classes of men
with suspicion. The planters they represented as being still, at least
the mass of them, under the influence of the strong habits of
tyrannizing and cruelty which they formed during slavery. The
prohibitions and penalties of the law are not sufficient to prevent
occasional and even frequent outbreakings of violence, so that the
negroes even yet suffer much of the rigor of slavery. In regard to the
special magistrates, they allege that they are greatly controlled by the
planters. They associate with the planters, dine with the planters,
lounge on the planters' sofas, and marry the planters daughters. Such
intimacies as these, the gentlemen very plausibly argued, could not
exist without strongly biasing the magistrate towards the planters, and
rendering it almost impossible for them to administer equal justice to
the poor apprentice, who, unfortunately, had no sumptuous dinners to
give them, no luxurious sofas to offer them, nor dowered daughters to
present in marriage.

The gentlemen testified to the industry and subordination of the
apprentices. They had improved the general cultivation of the island,
and they were reaping for their masters greater crops than they did
while slaves. The whole company united in saying that many blessings had
already resulted from the abolition of slavery--imperfect as that
abolition was. Real estate had advanced in value at least one third. The
fear of insurrection had been removed; invasions of property, such as
occurred during slavery, the firing of cane-fields, the demolition of
houses, &c., were no longer apprehended. Marriage was spreading among
the apprentices, and the general morals of the whole community, high and
low, white, colored, and black, were rapidly improving.

At ten o'clock we took leave of Mr. Harris and his interesting friends.
We retired with feelings of pride and gratification that we had been
privileged to join a company which, though wearing the badge of a
proscribed race, displayed in happy combination, the treasures of
genuine intelligence, and the graces of accomplished manners. We were
happy to meet in that social circle a son of New England, and a graduate
of one of her universities. Mr. H. went to the West Indies a few months
after the abolition of slavery. He took with him all the prejudices
common to our country, as well as a determined hostility to abolition
principles and measures. A brief observation of the astonishing results
of abolition in those islands, effectually disarmed him of the latter,
and made him the decided and zealous advocate of immediate emancipation.
He established himself in business in Barbados, where he has been living
the greater part of the time since he left his native country. His
_prejudices_ did not long survive his abandonment of anti-abolition
sentiments. We rejoiced to find him on the occasion above referred to,
moving in the circle of colored society, with all the freedom of a
familiar guest, and prepared most cordially to unite with us in the wish
that all our prejudiced countrymen could witness similar exhibitions.
The gentleman at whose table we had the pleasure to dine, was _born a
slave_, and remained such until he was seventeen years of age. After
obtaining his freedom, he engaged as a clerk in a mercantile
establishment, and soon attracted attention by his business talents.
About the same period he warmly espoused the cause of the free colored
people, who were doubly crushed under a load of civil and political
impositions, and a still heavier one of prejudice. He soon made himself
conspicuous by his manly defence of the rights of his brethren against
the encroachments of the public authorities, and incurred the marked
displeasure of several influential characters. After a protracted
struggle for the civil immunities of the colored people, during which he
repeatedly came into collision with public men, and was often arraigned
before the public tribunals; finding his labors ineffectual, he left the
island and went to England. He spent some time there and in France,
moving on a footing of honorable equality among the distinguished
abolitionists of those countries. There, amid the free influences and
the generous sympathies which welcomed and surrounded him,--his whole
character ripened in those manly graces and accomplishments which now so
eminently distinguish him.

Since his return to Barbadoes, Mr. H. has not taken so public a part in
political controversies as he did formerly, but is by no means
indifferent to passing events. There is not, we venture to say, within
the colony, a keener or more sagacious observer of its institutions, its
public men and their measures.

When witnessing the exhibitions of his manly spirit, and listening to
his eloquent and glowing narratives of his struggles against the
political oppressions which ground to the dust himself and his brethren,
we could scarcely credit the fact that he was himself born and reared to
manhood--A SLAVE.

BREAKFAST AT MR. THORNE'S.

By invitation we took breakfast with Mr. Joseph Thorne, whom we met at
Mr. Harris's. Mr. T. resides in Bridgetown. In the parlor, we met two
colored gentlemen--the Rev. Mr. Hamilton, a local Wesleyan preacher, and
Mr. Cummins, a merchant of Bridgetown, mentioned in a previous chapter.
We were struck with the scientific appearance of Mr. Thorne's parlor. On
one side was a large library of religious, historical and literary
works, the selection of which displayed no small taste and judgment. On
the opposite side of the room was a fine cabinet of minerals and shells.
In one corner stood a number of curious relics of the aboriginal Caribs,
such as bows and arrows, etc., together with interesting fossil remains.
On the tops of the book-cases and mineral stand, were birds of rare
species, procured from the South American Continent. The centre table
was ornamented with shells, specimens of petrifactions, and elegantly
bound books. The remainder of the furniture of the room was costly and
elegant. Before breakfast two of Mr. Thorne's children, little boys of
six and four, stepped in to salute the company. They were of a bright
yellow, with slightly curled hair. When they had shaken hands with each
of the company, they withdrew from the parlor and were seen no more.
Their manners and demeanor indicated the teachings of an admirable
mother, and we were not a little curious to see the lady of whose taste
and delicate sense of propriety we had witnessed so attractive a
specimen in her children. At the breakfast table we were introduced to
Mrs. Thorne, and we soon discovered from her dignified air, from the
chaste and elevated style of her conversation, from her intelligence,
modesty and refinement, that we were in the presence of a highly
accomplished lady. The conversation was chiefly on subjects connected
with our mission. All spoke with great gratitude of the downfall of
slavery. It was not the slaves alone that were interested in that event.
Political oppression, prejudice, and licentiousness had combined greatly
to degrade the colored community, but these evils were now gradually
lessening, and would soon wholly disappear after the final extinction of
slavery--the parent of them all.

Several facts were stated to show the great rise in the value of real
estate since 1834. In one instance a gentleman bought a sugar estate for
nineteen thousand pounds sterling, and the very next year, after taking
off a crop from which he realized a profit of three thousand pounds
sterling, he sold the estate for thirty thousand pounds sterling. It has
frequently happened within two years that persons wishing to purchase
estates would inquire the price of particular properties, and would
hesitate to give what was demanded. Probably soon after they would
return to close the bargain, and find that the price was increased by
several hundreds of pounds; they would go away again, reluctant to
purchase, and return a third time, when they would find the price again
raised, and would finally be glad to buy at almost any price. It was
very difficult to purchase sugar estates now, whereas previous to the
abolition of slavery, they were, like the slaves, a drug in the market.

Mr. Joseph Thorne is a gentleman of forty-five, of a dark mulatto
complexion, with the negro features and hair. _He was born a slave_, and
remained so until about twenty years of age. This fact we learned from
the manager of the Belle estate, on which Mr. T. was born and raised a
slave. It was an interesting coincidence, that on the occasion of our
visit to the Belle estate we were indebted to Mr. Thorne, the former
_property_ of that estate, for his horse and chaise, which he politely
proffered to us. Mr. T. employs much of his time in laboring among the
colored people in town, and among the apprentices on the estates, in the
capacity of _lay-preacher_. In this way he renders himself very useful.
Being very competent, both by piety and talents, for the work, and
possessing more perhaps than any missionary, the confidence of the
planters, he is admitted to many estates, to lecture the apprentices on
religious and moral duties. Mr. T. is a member of the Episcopal church.

BREAKFAST AT MR. PRESCOD'S

We next had the pleasure of breakfasting with Mr. Prescod. Our esteemed
friend, Mr. Harris, was of the company. Mr. P. is a young man, but
lately married. His wife and himself were both liberally educated in
England. He was the late editor of the New Times, a weekly paper
established since the abolition of slavery and devoted chiefly to the
interests of the colored community. It was the first periodical and the
only one which advocated the rights of the colored people, and this it
did with the utmost fearlessness and independence. It boldly exposed
oppression, whether emanating from the government house or originating
in the colonial assembly. The measures of all parties, and the conduct
of every public man, were subject to its scrutiny, and when occasion
required, to its stern rebuke. Mr. P. exhibits a thorough acquaintance
with the politics of the country, and with the position of the various
parties. He is familiar with the spirit and operations of the white
gentry--far more so, it would seem; than many of his brethren who have
been repeatedly deceived by their professions of increasing liberality,
and their show of extending civil immunities, which after all proved to
be practical nullities, and as such were denounced by Mr. P. at the
outset. A few years ago the colored people mildly petitioned the
legislature for a removal of their disabilities. Their remonstrance was
too reasonable to be wholly disregarded. Something must he done which
would at least bear the semblance of favoring the object of the
petitioners. Accordingly the obnoxious clauses were repealed, and the
colored people were admitted to the polls. But the qualification was
made three times greater than that required of white citizens. This
virtually nullified the extension of privilege, and actually confirmed
the disabilities of which it was a pretended abrogation. The colored
people, in their credulity, hailed the apparent enfranchisement, and had
a public rejoicing in the occasion. But the delusion could not escape
the discrimination of Mr. P. He detected it at once, and exposed it, and
incurred the displeasure of the credulous people of color by refusing to
participate in their premature rejoicings. He soon succeeded however in
convincing his brethren that the new provision was a mockery of their
wrongs, and that the assembly had only added insult to past injuries.
Mr. P. now urged the colored people to be patient, as the great changes
which were working in the colony must bring to them all the rights of
which they had been so cruelly deprived. On the subject of prejudice he
spoke just as a man of keen sensibilities and manly spirit might be
expected to speak, who had himself been its victim. He was accustomed to
being flouted, scorned and condemned by those whom he could not but
regard as his interiors both in native talents and education. He had
submitted to be forever debarred from offices which were filled by men
far less worthy except in the single qualification of a _white skin_,
which however was paramount to all other virtues and acquirements! He
had seen himself and his accomplished wife excluded from the society of
whites, though keenly conscious of their capacity to move and shine in
the most elevated social circles. After all this, it may readily be
conceived how Mr. P. would speak of prejudice. But while he spoke
bitterly of the past, he was inspired with buoyancy of hope as he cast
his eye to the future. He was confident that prejudice would disappear.
It had already diminished very much, and it would ere long be wholly
exterminated.

Mr. P. gave a sprightly picture of the industry of the negroes. It was
common, he said, to hear them called lazy, but this was not true. That
they often appeared to be indolent, especially those about the town, was
true; but it was either because they had no work to do, or were asked to
work without reasonable wages. He had often been amused at their
conduct, when solicited to do small jobs--such as carrying baggage,
loading of unloading a vessel, or the like. If offered a very small
compensation, as was generally the case at first, they would stretch
themselves on the ground, and with a sleepy look, and lazy tone, would
say, "O, I can't do it, sir." Sometimes the applicants would turn away
at once, thinking that they were unwilling to work, and cursing "the
lazy devils;" but occasionally they would try the efficacy of offering a
larger compensation, when instantly the negroes would spring to their
feet, and the lounging inert mass would appear all activity.

We are very willing to hold up Mr. P as a specimen of what colored
people generally may become with proper cultivation, or to use the
language of one of their own number,[A] "with free minds and space
to rise."

[Footnote A: Thomas C. Brown, who renounced colonization, returned from
a disastrous and almost fatal expedition to Liberia, and afterwards went
to the West Indies, in quest of a free country.]

We have purposely refrained from speaking of Mrs. P., lest any thing we
should be willing to say respecting her, might seem to be adulation.
However, having alluded to her, we will say that it has seldom fallen to
our lot to meet with her superior.

BREAKFAST AT MR. LONDON BOURNE'S.

After what has been said in this chapter to try the patience and
irritate the nerves of the prejudiced, if there should be such among our
readers, they will doubtless deem it quite intolerable to be introduced,
not as hitherto to a family in whose faces the lineaments and the
complexion of the white man are discernible, relieving the ebon hue, but
to a household of genuine unadulterated negroes. We cordially accepted
an invitation to breakfast with Mr. London Bourne. If the reader's
horror of amalgamation does not allow him to join us at the table,
perhaps he will consent to retire to the parlor, whence, without fear of
contamination, he may safely view us through the folding doors, and note
down our several positions around the board. At the head of the table
presides, with much dignity, Mrs. Bourne; at the end opposite, sits Mr.
Bourne--both of the glossiest jet; the thick matted hair of Mr. B.
slightly frosted with age. He has an affable, open countenance, in which
the radiance of an amiable spirit, and the lustre of a sprightly
intellect, happily commingle, and illuminate the sable covering. On
either hand of Mr. B. _we_ sit, occupying the posts of honor. On the
right and left of Mrs. B., and at the opposite corners from us, sit two
other guests, one a colored merchant, and the other a young son-in-law
of Mr. B., whose face is the very double extract of blackness; for which
his intelligence, the splendor of his dress, and the elegance of his
manners, can make to be sure but slight atonement! The middle seats are
filled on the one side by an unmarried daughter of Mr. B., and on the
other side by a promising son of eleven, who is to start on the morrow
for Edinburgh, where he is to remain until he has received the honors of
Scotland's far famed university.

We shall doubtless be thought by some of our readers to glory in our
shame. Be it so. We _did_ glory in joining the company which we have
just described. On the present occasion we had a fair opportunity of
testing the merits of an unmixed negro party, and of determining how far
the various excellences of the gentlemen and ladies previously noticed
were attributable to the admixture of English blood. We are compelled in
candor to say; that the company of blacks did not fall a whit below
those of the colored race in any respect. We conversed on the same
general topics, which, of course, were introduced where-ever we went. The
gentlemen showed an intimate acquaintance with the state of the colony,
with the merits of the apprenticeship system, and with the movements of
the colonial government. As for Mrs. B., she presided at the table with
great ease, dignity, self-possession, and grace. Her occasional remarks,
made with genuine modesty, indicated good sense and discrimination.
Among other topics of conversation, prejudice was not forgotten. The
company were inquisitive as to the extent of it in the United States. We
informed them that it appeared to be strongest in those states which
held no slaves, that it prevailed among professing Christians, and that
it was most manifestly seen in the house of God. We also intimated, in
as delicate a manner as possible, that in almost any part of the United
States such a table-scene as we then presented would be reprobated and
denounced, if indeed it escaped the summary vengeance of the mob. We
were highly gratified with their views of the proper way for the colored
people to act in respect to prejudice. They said they were persuaded
that their policy was to wait patiently for the operation of those
influences which were now at work for the removal of prejudice. "_Social
intercourse_," they said, "was not a thing to be gained by _pushing_."
"They could not go to it, but it would come to them." It was for them
however, to maintain an upright, dignified course, to be uniformly
courteous, to seek the cultivation of their minds, and strive zealously
for substantial worth, and by such means, and such alone, they could aid
in overcoming prejudice.

Mr. Bourne was a slave until he was twenty-three years old. He was
purchased by his father, a free negro, who gave five hundred dollars for
him. His mother and four brothers were bought at the same time for the
sum of two thousand five hundred dollars. He spoke very kindly of his
former master. By industry, honesty, and close attention to business,
Mr. B. has now become a wealthy merchant. He owns three stores in
Bridgetown, lives in very genteel style in his own house, and is worth
from twenty to thirty thousand dollars. He is highly respected by the
merchants of Bridgetown for his integrity and business talents. By what
means Mr. B. has acquired so much general information, we are at a loss
to conjecture. Although we did not ourselves need the evidence of his
possessing extraordinary talents, industry, and perseverance, yet we are
happy to present our readers with such tangible proofs--proofs which are
read in every language, and which pass current in every nation.

The foregoing sketches are sufficient to give a general idea of the
colored people of Barbadoes. Perchance we may have taken too great
liberties with those whose hospitalities we enjoyed; should this ever
fall under their notice, we doubt not they will fully appreciate the
motives which have actuated us in making them public. We are only sorry,
for their sakes, and especially for that of our cause, that the
delineations are so imperfect. That the above specimens are an exact
likeness of the mass of colored people we do not pretend; but we do
affirm, that they are as true an index to the whole community, as the
merchants, physicians, and mechanics of any of our villages are to the
entire population. We must say, also, that families of equal merit are
by no means rare among the same people. We might mention many names
which deservedly rank as high as those we have specified. One of the
wealthiest merchants in Bridgetown is a colored gentleman. He has his
mercantile agents in England, English clerks in his employ, a branch
establishment in the city, and superintends the concerns of an extensive
and complicated business with distinguished ability and success. A large
portion, of not a majority of the merchants of Bridgetown are colored.
Some of the most popular instructors are colored men and ladies, and one
of these ranks high as a teacher of the ancient and modern languages.
The most efficient and enterprising mechanics of the city, are colored
and black men. There is scarcely any line of business which is not
either shared or engrossed by colored persons, if we except that of
_barber_. _The only barber in Bridgetown is a white man._

That so many of the colored people should have obtained wealth and
education is matter of astonishment, when we consider the numerous
discouragements with which they have ever been doomed to struggle. The
paths of political distinction have been barred against them by an
arbitrary denial of the right of suffrage, and consequent ineligibility
to office. Thus a large and powerful class of incitements to mental
effort, which have been operating continually upon the whites, have
never once stirred the sensibilities nor waked the ambition of the
colored community. Parents, however wealthy, had no inducement to
educate their sons for the learned professions, since no force of talent
nor extent of acquirement could hope to break down the granite walls and
iron bars which prejudice had erected round the pulpit, the bar, and the
bench. From the same cause there was very little encouragement to
acquire property, to seek education, to labor for the graces of
cultivated manners, or even to aspire to ordinary respectability, since
not even the poor favor of social intercourse with the whites, of
participating in the civilities and courtesies of every day life, was
granted them.

The crushing power of a prevailing licentiousness, has also been added
to the other discouragements of the colored people. Why should parents
labor to amass wealth enough, and much of course it required, to send
their daughters to Europe to receive their educations, if they were to
return only to become the victims of an all-whelming concubinism! It is
a fact, that in many cases young ladies, who have been sent to England
to receive education, have, after accomplishing themselves in all the
graces of womanhood, returned to the island to become the concubines of
white men. Hitherto this vice has swept over the colored community,
gathering its repeated conscriptions of beauty and innocence from the
highest as well as the lowest families. Colored ladies have been taught
to believe that it was more honorable, and quite as virtuous, to be the
kept mistresses of _white gentlemen_, than the lawfully wedded wives of
_colored men_. We repeat the remark, that the actual progress which the
colored people of Barbadoes have made, while laboring under so many
depressing influences, should excite our astonishment, and, we add, our
admiration too. Our acquaintance with this people was at a very
interesting period--just when they were beginning to be relieved from
these discouragements, and to feel the regenerating spirit of a new era.
It was to us like walking through a garden in the early spring. We could
see the young buds of hope, the first bursts of ambition, the early
up-shoots of confident aspiration, and occasionally the opening bloom of
assurance. The star of hope had risen upon the colored people, and they
were beginning to realize that _their_ day had come. The long winter of
their woes was melting into "glorious summer." Civil immunities and
political privileges were just before them, the learned professions were
opening to them, social equality and honorable domestic connections
would soon be theirs. Parents were making fresh efforts to establish
schools for the children, and to send the choicest of their sons and
daughters to England. They rejoiced in the privileges they were
securing, and they anticipated with virtuous pride the free access of
their children to all the fields of enterprise, all the paths of honest
emulation, and all the eminences of distinction.

We remark in conclusion, that the forbearance of the colored people of
Barbadoes under their complicated wrongs is worthy of all admiration.
Allied, as many of them are, to the first families of the island, and
gifted as they are with every susceptibility to feel disgrace, it is a
marvel that they have not indignantly cast off the yoke and demanded
their political rights. Their wrongs have been unprovoked on their part,
and unnatural on the part of those who have inflicted them--in many
cases the guilty authors of their being. The patience and endurance of
the sufferers under such circumstances are unexampled, except by the
conduct of the slaves, who, though still more wronged, were, if
possible, still more patient.

We regret to add, that until lately, the colored people of Barbadoes
hate been far in the background in the cause of abolition, and even now,
the majority of them are either indifferent, or actually hostile to
emancipation. They have no fellow feeling with the slave. In fact; they
have had prejudices against the negroes no less bitter than those which
the whites have exercised toward them. There are many honorable
exceptions to this, as has already been shown; but such, we are assured,
is the general fact.[A]

[Footnote A: We are here reminded, by the force of contrast, of the
noble spirit manifested by the free colored people of our own country.
As early as 1817, a numerous body of them in Philadelphia, with the
venerable James Forten at their head, pledged themselves to the cause of
the slave in the following sublime sentiment, which deserves to be
engraver to their glory on the granite of our "everlasting
hills"--"Resolved, That we never will separate ourselves voluntarily
from the slave population in this country; they are our brethren by the
ties of consanguinity, of suffering, and of wrong; and we feel that
there is more virtue in suffering privations with them, than enjoying
_fancied_ advantages for a season."

We believe that this resolution embodies the feelings and determinations
of the free colored people generally in the free states.]



CHAPTER IV.

BARBADOES AS IT WAS, AND IS.

According to the declaration of one of the special magistrates,
"Barbadoes has long been distinguished for its devotion to slavery."
There is probably no portion of the globe where slave-holding, slave
driving, and slave labor, have been reduced to a more perfect system.

The records of slavery in Barbadoes are stained with bloody atrocities.
The planters uniformly spoke of slavery as a system of cruelties; but
they expressed themselves in general terms. From colored gentlemen we
learned some particulars, a few of which we give. To most of the
following facts the narrators were themselves eye witnesses, and all of
them happened in their day and were fresh in their memories.

The slaves were not unfrequently worked in the streets of Bridgetown
with chains on their wrists and ankles. Flogging on the estates and in
the town, were no less public than frequent, and there was an utter
shamelessness often in the manner of its infliction. Even women were
stripped naked on the sides of the streets, and their backs lacerated
with the whip. It was a common practice, when a slave offended a white
man, for the master to send for a public whipper, and order him to take
the slave before the door of the person offended, and flog him till the
latter was satisfied. White females would order their male slaves to be
stripped naked in their presence and flogged, while they would look on
to see that their orders were faithfully executed. Mr. Prescod mentioned
an instance which he himself witnessed near Bridgetown. He had seen an
aged female slave, stripped and whipped by her own son, a child of
twelve, at the command of the mistress. As the boy was small, the mother
was obliged to get down upon her hands and knees, so that the child
could inflict the blows on her naked person with a rod. This was done on
the public highway, before the mistress's door. Mr. T. well remembered
when it was lawful for any man to shoot down his slave, under no greater
penalty than twenty-five pounds currency; and he knew of cases in which
this had been done. Just after the insurrection in 1816, white men made
a regular sport of shooting negroes. Mr. T. mentioned one case. A young
man had sworn that he would kill ten negroes before a certain time. When
he had shot nine he went to take breakfast with a neighbor, and carried
his gun along. The first slave he met on the estate, he accused of being
concerned in the rebellion. The negro protested that he was innocent,
and begged for mercy. The man told him to be gone, and as he turned to
go away, he shot him dead. Having fulfilled his bloody pledge, the young
knight ate his breakfast with a relish. Mr. H. said that a planter once,
in a time of perfect peace, went to his door and called one of his
slaves. The negro made some reply which the master construed into
insolence, and in a great rage he swore if he did not come to him
immediately he would shoot him. The man replied he hoped massa wan't in
earnest. 'I'll show you whether I am in earnest,' said the master, and
with that he levelled his rifle, took deliberate aim, and shot the negro
on the spot. He died immediately. Though great efforts were made by a
few colored men to bring the murderer to punishment, they were all
ineffectual. The evidence against him was clear enough, but the
influence in his favor was so strong that he finally escaped.

Dungeons were built on all the estates, and they were often abominably
filthy, and infested with loathsome and venomous vermin. For slight
offences the slaves were thrust into these prisons for several
successive nights--being dragged out every morning to work during the
day. Various modes of torture were employed upon those who were
consigned to the dungeon. There were stocks for their feet, and there
were staples in the floor for the ankles and wrists, placed in such a
position as to keep the victim stretched out and lying on his face. Mr.
H. described one mode which was called the _cabin_. A narrow board, only
wide enough for a man to lie upon, was fixed in an inclined position,
and elevated considerably above the ground. The offending slave was made
to lay upon this board, and a strong rope or chain, was tied about his
neck and fastened to the ceiling. It was so arranged, that if he should
fall from the plank, he would inevitably hang by his neck. Lying in this
position all night, he was more likely than not to fall asleep, and then
there were ninety-nine chances to one that he would roll off his narrow
bed and be killed before he could awake, or have time to extricate
himself. Peradventure this is the explanation of the anxiety Mr. ---- of
----, used to feel, when he had confined one of his slaves in the
dungeon. He stated that he would frequently wake up in the night, was
restless, and couldn't sleep, from fear that the prisoner would _kill
himself_ before morning.

It was common for the planters of Barbadoes, like those of Antigua, to
declare that the greatest blessing of abolition to them, was that it
relieved them from the disagreeable work of flogging the negroes. We had
the unsolicited testimony of a planter, that slave mothers frequently
poisoned, and otherwise murdered, their young infants, to rid them of a
life of slavery. What a horrible comment this upon the cruelties of
slavery! Scarce has the mother given birth to her child, when she
becomes its murderer. The slave-mother's joy begins, not like that of
other mothers, when "a man is born into the world," but when her infant
is hurried out of existence, and its first faint cry is hushed in the
silence of death! Why this perversion of nature? Ah, that mother knows
the agonies, the torments, the wasting woes, of a life of slavery, and
by the bowels of a mother's love, and the yearnings of a mother's pity,
she resolves that her babe shall never know the same. O, estimate who
can, how many groans have gone up from the cane field, from the
boiling-house, from around the wind mill, from the bye paths, from the
shade of every tree, from the recesses of every dungeon!

Colonel Barrow, of Edgecome estate, declared, that the habit of flogging
was so strong among the overseers and book-keepers, that even now they
frequently indulge it in the face of penalties and at the risk of
forfeiting their place.

The descriptions which the special magistrates give of the lower class
of overseers and the managers of the petty estates, furnish data enough
for judging of the manner in which they would be likely to act when
clothed with arbitrary power. They are "a low order of men," "without
education," "trained up to use the whip," "knowing nothing else save the
art of flogging," "ready at any time to perjure themselves in any matter
where a negro is concerned," &c. Now, may we not ask what but cruelty,
the most monstrous, could be expected under a system where _such men_
were constituted law makers, judges, and executioners?

From the foregoing facts, and the still stronger circumstantial
evidence, we leave the reader to judge for himself as to the amount of
cruelty attendant upon "the reign of terror," in Barbadoes. We must,
however, mention one qualification, without which a wrong impression may
be made. It has already been remarked that Barbadoes has, more than any
other island, reduced slave labor and sugar cultivation to a regular
system. This the planters have been compelled to do from the denseness
of their population, the smallness of their territory, the fact that the
land was all occupied, and still more, because the island, from long
continued cultivation, was partly worn out. A prominent feature in their
system was, theoretically at least, good bodily treatment of the slaves,
good feeding, attention to mothers, to pregnant women, and to children,
in order that the estates might always be kept _well stocked with
good-conditioned negroes_. They were considered the best managers, who
increased the population of the estates most rapidly, and often premiums
were given by the attorneys to such managers. Another feature in the
Barbadoes system was to raise sufficient provisions in the island to
maintain the slaves, or, in planter's phrase, to _feed the stock_,
without being dependent upon foreign countries. This made the supplies
of the slaves more certain and more abundant. From several circumstances
in the condition of Barbadoes, it is manifest, that there were fewer
motives to cruelty there than existed in other islands. First, the slave
population was abundant, then the whole of the island was under
cultivation, and again the lands were old and becoming exhausted. Now,
if either one of these things had not been true, if the number of slaves
had been inadequate to the cultivation, or if vast tracts of land, as in
Jamaica, Trinidad, and Demerara, had been uncultivated, or were being
brought into cultivation; or, again, if the lands under cultivation had
been fresh and fertile, so as to bear _pushing_, then it is plain that
there would have been inducements to hard driving, which, as the case
was, did not exist.

Such is a partial view of Barbadoes as it _was_, touching the matter of
cruelty. We say partial, for we have omitted to mention the selling of
slaves from one estate to another, whereby families were separated,
almost as effectually as though an ocean intervened. We have omitted to
notice the transportation of slaves to Trinidad, Berbice, and Demerara,
which was made an open traffic until prohibited in 1827, and was
afterwards continued with but little abatement by evasions of the law.

From the painful contemplation of all this outrage and wrong, the mind
is relieved by turning to the present state of the colony. It cannot be
denied that much oppression grows out of the apprenticeship system, both
from its essential nature, and from the want of virtuous principle and
independence in the men who administer it. Yet it is certainly true that
there has been a very great diminution in the amount of actual cruelty.
The total abolition of flogging on the estates, the prohibition to use
the dungeons, and depriving the masters, managers, overseers and
drivers, of the right to punish in any case, or in any way whatever,
leave no room for doubt on this subject. It is true, that the laws are
often violated, but this can only take place in cases of excessive
passion, and it is not likely to be a very frequent occurrence. The
penalty of the law is so heavy,[A] and the chances of detection[B] are
so great, that in all ordinary circumstances they will be a sufficient
security against the violence of the master. On the other hand, the
special magistrates themselves seldom use the whip, but resort to other
modes of punishment less cruel and degrading. Besides, it is manifest
that if they did use the whip and were ever so cruelly disposed, it
would be physically impossible for them to inflict as much suffering as
the drivers could during slavery; on account of the vast numbers over
whom they preside. We learned from the apprentices themselves, by
conversing with them, that their condition, in respect to treatment, is
incomparably better than it was during slavery. We were satisfied from
our observations and inquiries, that the planters, at least the more
extensive and enlightened ones, conduct their estates on different
principles from those formerly followed. Before the abolition of
slavery, they regarded the _whip_ as absolutely necessary to the
cultivation of sugar, and hence they uniformly used it, and loudly
deprecated its abolition as being _their_ certain ruin. But since the
whip has been abolished, and the planters have found that the negroes
continue, nevertheless, industrious and subordinate, they have changed
their measures, partly from necessity, and partly from policy, have
adopted a conciliatory course.

[Footnote A: A fine of sixteen dollars for the first assault, and the
liberation of the apprentice after a second.]

[Footnote B: Through the complaint of the apprentice to the special
magistrate]

Barbadoes was not without its insurrections during slavery. Although not
very frequent, they left upon the minds of the white colonists this
conviction, (repeatedly expressed to us by planters and others,) that
_slavery and rebellions are inseparable_. The last widely extended
insurrection occurred in 1816, in the eastern part of the island. Some
of the particulars were given us by a planter who resided to that
region, and suffered by it great loss of property. The plot was so
cautiously laid, and kept so secret, that no one suspected it. The
planter observed that if any one had told him that such a thing was
brewing _ten minutes_ before it burst forth, he would not have credited
the statement. It began with firing the cane-fields. A signal was given
by a man setting fire to a pile of trash on an elevated spot, when
instantly the fires broke out in every direction, and in less than a
half hour, more than one hundred estates were in flames. The planters
and their families, in the utmost alarm, either fled into other parts of
the island, or seized their arms and hurriedly mustered in self-defence.
Meanwhile the negroes, who had banded themselves in numerous companies,
took advantage of the general consternation, proceeded to the deserted
mansions of the planters, broke down the doors, battered in the windows,
destroyed all the furniture, and carried away the provision stores to
their own houses.

These ravages continued for three days, during which, the slaves flocked
together in increasing numbers; in one place there were several
thousands assembled. Above five hundred of the insurgents were shot down
by the militia, before they could be arrested. The destruction of
property during the rebellion was loosely estimated at many hundred
thousand pounds. The canes on many estates were almost wholly burned; so
that extensive properties, which ordinarily yielded from two to three
hundred hogsheads, did not make more than fifteen or twenty.

Our informant mentioned two circumstances which he considered
remarkable. One was, that the insurgents never touched the property of
the estates to which they severally belonged; but went to the
neighboring or more distant estates. The other was, that during the
whole insurrection the negroes did not make a single attempt to destroy
life. On the other hand, the sacrifice of negroes during the rebellion,
and subsequent to it, was appalling. It was a long time before the white
man's thirst for blood could be satiated.

No general insurrection occurred after this one. However, as late as
1823, the proprietor of Mount Wilton--the noblest estate in the
island--was murdered by his slaves in a most horrid manner. A number of
men entered his bed-chamber at night. He awoke ere they reached him, and
grasped his sword, which always hung by his bed, but it was wrested from
his hand, and he was mangled and killed. His death was caused by his
_cruelties_, and especially by his _extreme licentiousness_. All the
females on this estate were made successively the victims of his lust.
This, together with his cruelties, so incensed the men, that they
determined to murder the wretch. Several of them were publicly executed.

Next to the actual occurrence of rebellions, _the fear of them_ deserves
to be enumerated among the evils which slavery entailed upon Barbadoes.
The dread of hurricanes to the people of Barbadoes is tolerable in
comparison with the irrepressible apprehensions of bloody rebellions. A
planter told us that he seldom went to bed without thinking he might be
murdered before morning.

But now the whites are satisfied that slavery was the sole instigator of
rebellions, and since its removal they have no fear on this score.

_Licentiousness_ was another of the fruits of slavery. It will be
difficult to give to the reader a proper conception of the prevalence of
this vice in Barbadoes, and of the consequent demoralization. A numerous
colored population were both the offspring and the victims of it. On a
very moderate calculation, nineteen-twentieths of the present adult
colored race are illegitimate. Concubinage was practised among the
highest classes. Young merchants and others who were unmarried, on first
going to the island, regularly engaged colored females to live with them
as housekeepers and mistresses, and it was not unusual for a man to have
more than one. The children of these connections usually sat with the
mothers at the father's table, though when the gentlemen had company,
neither mothers nor children made their appearance. To such conduct no
disgrace was attached, nor was any shame felt by either party. We were
assured that there are in Bridgetown, colored ladies of
"respectability," who, though never married, have large families of
children whose different surnames indicate their difference of
parentage, but who probably do not know their fathers by any other
token. These remarks apply to the towns. The morals of the estates were
still more deplorable. The managers and overseers, commonly unmarried,
left no female virtue unattempted. Rewards sometimes, but oftener the
whip, or the dungeon, gave them the mastery in point of fact, which the
laws allowed in theory. To the slaves marriage was scarcely known. They
followed the example of the master, and were ready to minister to his
lust. The mass of mulatto population grew paler as it multiplied, and
catching the refinement along with the tint of civilization, waged a war
upon marriage which had well nigh expelled it from the island. Such was
Barbadoes under the auspices of slavery.

Although these evils still exist, yet, since the abolition of slavery,
there is one symptom of returning purity, the _sense of shame_.
Concubinage is becoming disreputable. The colored females are growing in
self-respect, and are beginning to seek regular connections with colored
men. They begin to feel (to use the language of one of them) that the
_light is come_, and that they can no longer have the apology of
ignorance to plead for their sin. It is the prevailing impression among
whites, colored, and blacks, that open licentiousness cannot long
survive slavery.

_Prejudice_ was another of the concomitants of slavery. Barbadoes was
proverbial for it. As far as was practicable, the colored people were
excluded from all business connections; though merchants were compelled
to make clerks of them for want of better, that is, _whiter_, ones.
Colored merchants of wealth were shut out of the merchants' exchange,
though possessed of untarnished integrity, while white men were admitted
as subscribers without regard to character. It was not a little
remarkable that the rooms occupied as the merchants' exchange were
rented from a colored gentleman, or more properly, a _negro_;[A] who,
though himself a merchant of extensive business at home and abroad, and
occupying the floor below with a store, was not suffered to set his foot
within them. This merchant, it will be remembered, is educating a son
for a learned profession at the university of Edinburgh. Colored
gentlemen were not allowed to become members of literary associations,
nor subscribers to the town libraries. Social intercourse was utterly
interdicted. To visit the houses of such men as we have already
mentioned in a previous chapter, and especially to sit down at their
tables, would have been a loss of caste; although the gentry were at the
same time living with colored concubines. But most of all did this
wicked prejudice delight to display itself in the churches. Originally,
we believe, the despised color was confined to the galleries, afterwards
it was admitted to the seats under the galleries, and ultimately it was
allowed to extend to the body pews below the cross aisle. If perchance
one of the proscribed class should ignorantly stray beyond these
precincts, and take a seat above the cross aisle, he was instantly, if
not forcibly, removed. Every opportunity was maliciously seized to taunt
the colored people with their complexion. A gentleman of the highest
worth stated that several years ago he applied to the proper officer for
a license to be married. The license was accordingly made out and handed
to him. It was expressed in the following insulting style: "T---- H----,
F.M., is licensed to marry H---- L----, F.C.W." The initials F.M. stood
for _free mulatto_, and F.C.W. for _free colored woman_! The gentleman
took his knife and cut out the initials; and was then threatened with a
prosecution for forging his license.

[Footnote A: Mr. London Bourne, the merchant mentioned in the previous
chapter.]

It must be admitted that this cruel feeling still exists in Barbadoes.
Prejudice is the last viper of the slavery-gendered brood that dies. But
it is evidently growing weaker. This the reader will infer from several
facts already stated. The colored people themselves are indulging
sanguine hopes that prejudice will shortly die away. They could discover
a bending on the part of the whites, and an apparent readiness to
concede much of the ground hitherto withheld. They informed us that they
had received intimations that they might be admitted as subscribers to
the merchants' exchange if they would apply; but they were in no hurry
to make the advances themselves. They felt assured that not only
business equality, but social equality, would soon be theirs, and were
waiting patiently for the course of events to bring them. They have too
much self-respect to sue for the consideration of their white neighbors,
or to accept it as a condescension and favor, when by a little patience
they might obtain it on more honorable terms. It will doubtless be found
in Barbadoes, as it has been in other countries--and perchance to the
mortification of some lordlings--that freedom is a mighty leveller of
human distinctions. The pyramid of pride and prejudice which slavery had
upreared there, must soon crumble in the dust.

_Indolence and inefficiency among the whites_, was another prominent
feature in slaveholding Barbadoes. Enterprise, public and personal, has
long been a stranger to the island. Internal improvements, such as the
laying and repairing of roads, the erection of bridges, building
wharves, piers, &c., were either wholly neglected, or conducted in such
a listless manner as to be a burlesque on the name of business. It was a
standing task, requiring the combined energy of the island, to repair
the damages of one hurricane before another came. The following
circumstance was told us, by one of the shrewdest observers of men and
things with whom we met in Barbadoes. On the southeastern coast of the
island there is a low point running far out into the sea, endangering
all vessels navigated by persons not well acquainted with the island.
Many vessels have been wrecked upon it in the attempt to make Bridgetown
from the windward. From time immemorial, it has been in contemplation to
erect a light-house on that point. Every time a vessel has been wrecked,
the whole island has been agog for a light-house. Public meetings were
called, and eloquent speeches made, and resolutions passed, to proceed
to the work forthwith. Bills were introduced into the assembly, long
speeches made, and appropriations voted commensurate with the stupendous
undertaking. There the matter ended, and the excitement died away, only
to be revived by another wreck, when a similar scene would ensue. The
light-house is not built to this day. In personal activity, the
Barbadians are as sadly deficient as in public spirit. London is said to
have scores of wealthy merchants who have never been beyond its limits,
nor once snuffed the country air. Bridgetown, we should think, is in
this respect as deserving of the name _Little London_ as Barbadoes is of
the title "Little England," which it proudly assumes. We were credibly
informed that there were merchants in Bridgetown who had never been off
the island in their lives, nor more than five or six miles into the
country. The sum total of their locomotion might be said to be, turning
softly to one side of their chairs, and then softly to the other. Having
no personal cares to harass them, and no political questions to agitate
them--having no extended speculations to push, and no public enterprises
to prosecute, (save occasionally when a wreck on the southern point
throws them into a ferment,) the lives of the higher classes seem a
perfect blank, as it regards every thing manly. Their thoughts are
chiefly occupied with sensual pleasure, anticipated or enjoyed. The
centre of existence to them is the _dinner-table_.

  "They eat and drink and sleep, and then--
   Eat and drink and sleep again."

That the abolition of slavery has laid the foundation for a reform in
this respect, there can be no doubt. The indolence and inefficiency of
the white community has grown out of slavery. It is the legitimate
offspring of oppression everywhere--one of the burning curses which it
never fails to visit upon its supporters. It may be seriously doubted,
however, whether in Barbadoes this evil will terminate with its cause.
There is there such a superabundance of the laboring population, that
for a long time to come, labor must be very cheap, and the habitually
indolent will doubtless prefer employing others to work for them, than
to work themselves. If, therefore, we should not see an active spirit of
enterprise at once kindling among the Barbadians, _if the light-house
should not be build for a quarter of a century to come_, it need not
excite our astonishment.

We heard not a little concerning the expected distress of those white
families whose property consisted chiefly of slaves. There were many
such families, who have hitherto lived respectably and independently by
hiring out their slaves. After 1840, these will be deprived of all their
property, and will have no means of support whatever. As they will
consider it degrading to work, and still more so to beg, they will be
thrown into extremely embarrassing circumstances. It is thought that
many of this class will leave the country, and seek a home where they
will not be ashamed to work for their subsistence. We were forcibly
reminded of the oft alleged objection to emancipation in the United
States, that it would impoverish many excellent families in the South,
and drive delicate females to the distaff and the wash-tub, whose hands
have never been used to any thing--_rougher than the cowhide_. Much
sympathy has been awakened in the North by such appeals, and vast
numbers have been led by them to conclude that it is better for millions
of slaves to famish in eternal bondage, than that a few white families,
here and there scattered over the South, should be reduced to the
humiliation of _working_.

_Hostility to emancipation_ prevailed in Barbadoes. That island has
always been peculiarly attached to slavery. From the beginning of the
anti-slavery agitations in England, the Barbadians distinguished
themselves by their inveterate opposition. As the grand result
approximated they increased their resistance. They appealed,
remonstrated, begged, threatened, deprecated, and imprecated. They
continually protested that abolition would ruin the colony--that the
negroes could never be brought to work--especially to raise
sugar--without the whip. They both besought and demanded of the English
that they should cease their interference with their private affairs and
personal property.

Again and again they informed them that they were wholly disqualified,
by their distance from the colonies, and their ignorance of the subject,
to do any thing respecting it, and they were entreated to leave the
whole matter with the colonies, who alone could judge as to the best
time and manner of moving, or whether it was proper to move at all.

We were assured that there was not a single planter in Barbadoes who was
known to be in favor of abolition, before it took place; if, however,
there had been one such, he would not have dared to avow his sentiments.
The anti-slavery party in England were detested; no epithets were too
vile for them--no curses too bitter. It was a Barbadian lady who once
exclaimed in a public company in England, "O, I wish we had Wilberforce
in the West Indies, I would be one of the very first to tear his heart
out!" If such a felon wish could escape the lips of a female, and that
too amid the awing influence of English society, what may we conclude
were the feelings of planters and drivers on the island!

The opposition was maintained even after the abolition of slavery; and
there was no colony, save Jamaica, with which the English government had
so much trouble in arranging the provisions and conditions under which
abolition was to take place.

From statements already made, the reader will see how great a change has
come over the feelings of the planters.

He has followed us through this and the preceding chapters, he has seen
tranquillity taking the place of insurrections, a sense of security
succeeding to gloomy forbodings, and public order supplanting mob law;
he has seen subordination to authority, peacefulness, industry, and
increasing morality, characterizing the negro population; he has seen
property rising in value, crime lessening, expenses of labor
diminishing, the whole island blooming with unexampled cultivation, and
waving with crops unprecedented in the memory of its inhabitants; above
all, he has seen licentiousness decreasing, prejudice fading away,
marriage extending, education spreading, and religion preparing to
multiply her churches and missionaries over the land.

_These_ are the blessing of abolition--_begun_ only, and but partially
realized as yet, but promising a rich maturity in time to come, after
the work of freedom shall have been completed.



CHAPTER V.

THE APPRENTICESHIP SYSTEM.

The nature of the apprenticeship system may be learned form the
following abstract of its provisions, relative to the three parties
chiefly concerned in its operation--the special magistrate, the master,
and the apprentice.

PROVISIONS RESPECTING THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATES.

1. They must be disconnected with planters and plantership, that they
may be independent of all colonial parties and interests whatever.

2. The special magistrates adjudicate only in cases where the master and
apprentice are parties. Offences committed by apprentices against any
person not connected with the estates on which they live, come under the
cognizance of the local magistrates or of higher courts.

3. The special justices sit three days in the week at their offices,
where all complaints are carried, both by the master and apprentice. The
magistrates do not go the estate, either to try or to punish offenders.
Besides, the three days the magistrates are required to be at home every
Saturday, (that being the day on which the apprentices are disengaged,)
to give friendly advice and instruction on points of law and personal
rights to all apprentices who may call.

PROVISIONS RESPECTING THE MASTER.

1. The master is allowed the gratuitous labor of the apprentice for
forty-five hours each week. The several islands were permitted by the
English government to make such a division of this time as local
circumstances might seem to require. In some islands, as for instance in
St. Christopher's and Tortola, it is spread over six days of the week in
proportions of seven and a half hours per day, thus leaving the
apprentice mere shreds of time in which he can accomplish nothing for
himself. In Barbadoes, the forty-five hours is confined within five
days, in portions of nine hours per day.

2. The allowances of food continue the same as during slavery, excepting
that now the master may give, instead of the allowance, a third of an
acre to each apprentice, but then he must also grant an additional day
every week for the cultivation of this land.

3. The master has no power whatever to punish. A planter observed, "if I
command my butler to stand for half an hour on the parlor floor, and it
can be proved that I designed it as a punishment, I may be fined for
it." The penalty for the first offence (punishing an apprentice) is a
fine of five pounds currency, or sixteen dollars, and imprisonment if
the punishment was cruel. For a second offence the apprentice is
set free.

Masters frequently do punish their apprentices _in despite of all
penalties_. A case in point occurred not long since, in Bridgetown. A
lady owned a handsome young mulatto woman, who had a beautiful head of
hair of which she was very proud. The servant did something displeasing
to her mistress, and the latter in a rage shaved off her hair close to
her head. The girl complained to the special magistrate, and procured an
immediate release from her mistress's service.

4. It is the duty of the master to make complaint to the special
magistrate. When the master chooses to take the punishment into his own
hand, the apprentice has a right to complain.

5. The master is obliged to sell the remainder of the apprentice's term,
whenever the apprentice signifies a wish to buy it. If the parties
cannot agree about the price, the special magistrate, in connection with
two local magistrates, appraises the latter, and the master is bound to
take the amount of the appraisement, whatever that is. Instances of
apprentices purchasing themselves are quite frequent, not withstanding
the term of service is now so short, extending only to August, 1840. The
value of an apprentice varies from thirty to one hundred dollars.

PROVISIONS RESPECTING THE APPRENTICE.

1. He has the whole of Saturday, and the remnants of the other five
days, after giving nine hours to the master.

2. The labor does not begin so early, nor continue so late as during
slavery. Instead of half past four or five o'clock the apprentices are
called out at six o'clock in the morning. They then work till seven,
have an hour for breakfast, again work from eight to twelve, have a
respite of two hours, and then work till six o'clock.

3. If an apprentice hires his time from his master as is not
unfrequently the case, especially among the non-praedials, he pays a
dollar a week, which is two thirds, or at least one half of
his earnings.

4. If the apprentice has a complaint to make against his master, he must
either make it during his own time, or if he prefers to go to the
magistrate during work hours, he must ask his master for a pass. If his
master refuse to give him one, he can then go without it.

5. There is an _unjustifiable inequality_ in the apprentice laws, which
was pointed out by one of the special magistrates. The master is
punishable only for cruelty or corporeal inflictions, whereas the
apprentice is punishable for a variety of offences, such as idleness,
stealing, insubordination, insolence, &c. The master may be as insolent
and abusive as he chooses to be, and the slave can have no redress.

6. Hard labor, solitary confinement, and the treadmill, are the
principal modes of punishment. Shaving the head is sometimes resorted
to. A very sever punishment frequently adopted, is requiring the
apprentice to make up for the time during which he is confined. If he is
committed for ten working days, he must give the master ten successive
Saturdays.

This last regulation is particularly oppressive and palpably unjust. It
matters not how slight the offence may have been, it is discretionary
with the special magistrate to mulct the apprentice of his Saturdays.
This provision really would appear to have been made expressly for the
purpose of depriving the apprentices of their own time. It is a direct
inducement to the master to complain. If the apprentice has been absent
from his work but an hour, the magistrate may sentence him to give a
whole day in return; consequently the master is encouraged to mark the
slightest omission, and to complain of it whether it was unavoidable
or not.

THE DESIGN OF THE APPRENTICESHIP.--It is a serious question with a
portion of the colonists, whether or not the apprenticeship was
originally designed as a preparation for freedom. This however was the
professed object with its advocates, and it was on the strength of this
plausible pretension, doubtless, that the measure was carried through.
We believe it is pretty well understood, both in England and the
colonies; that it was mainly intended _as an additional compensation to
the planters_. The latter complained that the twenty millions of pounds
was but a pittance of the value of their slaves, and to drown their
cries about robbery and oppression this system of modified slavery was
granted to them, that they might, for a term of years, enjoy the toil of
the negro without compensation. As a mockery to the hopes of the slaves
this system was called an apprenticeship, and it was held out to them as
a needful preparatory stage for them to pass through, ere they could
rightly appreciate the blessings of entire freedom. It was not wonderful
that they should be slow to apprehend the necessity of serving a six
years' apprenticeship, at a business which they had been all their lives
employed in. It is not too much to say that it was a grand cheat--a
national imposture at the expense of the poor victims of oppression,
whom, with benevolent pretences, it offered up a sacrifice to cupidity
and power.

PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THE APPRENTICESHIP.--It cannot be denied that
this system is in some respects far better than slavery. Many restraints
are imposed upon the master, and many important privileges are secured
to the apprentice. Being released from the arbitrary power of the
master, is regarded by the latter as a vast stride towards entire
liberty. We once asked an apprentice; if he thought apprenticeship was
better than slavery. "O yes," said he, "great deal better, sir; when we
was slaves, our masters git mad wid us, and give us _plenty of licks_;
but now, thank God, they can't touch us." But the actual enjoyment of
these advantages by the apprentices depends upon so many contingencies,
such as the disposition of the master, and the faithfulness of the
special magistrate, that it is left after all exceedingly precarious. A
very few observations respecting the special magistrates, will serve to
show how liable the apprentice is to suffer wrong without the
possibility of obtaining redress. It is evident that this will be the
case unless the special magistrates are _entirely independent_. This was
foreseen by the English government, and they pretended to provide for it
by paying the magistrates' salaries at home. But how inadequate was
their provision! The salaries scarcely answer for pocket money in the
West Indies. Thus situated, the magistrates are continually exposed to
those temptations, which the planters can so artfully present in the
shape of sumptuous dinners. They doubtless find it very convenient, when
their stinted purses run low, and mutton and wines run high, to do as
the New England school master does, "_board round_;" and consequently
the dependence of the magistrate upon the planter is of all things the
most deprecated by the apprentice.[A]

[Footnote A: The feelings of apprentices on this point are well
illustrated by the following anecdote, which was related to us while in
the West Indies. The governor of one of the islands, shortly after his
arrival, dined with one of the wealthiest proprietors. The next day one
of the negroes of the estate said to another, "De new gubner been
_poison'd_." "What dat you say?" inquired the other in astonishment, "De
gubner been _poison'd_." "Dah, now!--How him poisoned!" "_Him eat massa
turtle soup last night_," said the shrewd negro. The other took his
meaning at once; and his sympathy for the governor was turned into
concern for himself, when he perceived that the poison was one from
which _he_ was likely to suffer more than his excellency.]

Congeniality of feeling, habits, views, style and rank--identity of
country and color--these powerful influences bias the magistrate toward
the master, at the same time that the absence of them all, estrange and
even repel him from the apprentice. There is still an additional
consideration which operates against the unfortunate apprentice. The men
selected for magistrates, are mostly officers of the army and navy. To
those who are acquainted with the arbitrary habits of military and naval
officers, and with the iron despotism which they exercise among the
soldiers and sailors,[B] the bare mention of this fact is sufficient to
convince them of the unenviable situation of the apprentice. It is at
best but a gloomy transfer from the mercies of a slave driver, to the
justice of a military magistrate.

[Footnote B: We had a specimen of the stuff special magistrates are made
of in sailing from Barbadoes to Jamaica. The vessel was originally an
English man-of-war brig, which had been converted into a steamer, and
was employed by the English government, in conveying the island mails
from Barbadoes to Jamaica--to and fro. She was still under the strict
discipline of a man-of-war. The senior officer on board was a
lieutenant. This man was one of the veriest savages on earth. His
passions were in a perpetual storm, at some times higher than at others,
occasionally they blew a hurricane. He quarrelled with his officers, and
his orders to his men were always uttered in oaths. Scarcely a day
passed that he did not have some one of his sailors flogged. One night,
the cabin boy left the water-can sitting on the cabin floor, instead of
putting it on the sideboard, where it usually stood. For this offence
the commander ordered him up on deck after midnight, and made the
quarter-master flog him. The instrument used in this case, (the regular
flogging stick having been _used up_ by previous service,) was the
commander's cane--_a heavy knotted club_. The boy held out one hand and
received the blows. He howled most piteously, and it was some seconds
before he recovered sufficiently from the pain to extend the other.
"_Lay on_," stormed the commander. Down went the cane a second time. We
thought it must have broken every bone in the boy's hand. This was
repeated several times, the boy extending each hand alternately, and
recoiling at every blow. "Now lay on to his back," sternly vociferated
the commander--"give it to him--_hard_--_lay on harder_." The old
seaman, who had some mercy in his heart, seemed very loth to lay out his
strength on the boy with such a club. The commander became
furious--cursed and swore--and again yelled, "_Give it to him harder,
more_--MORE--MORE--there, stop." "you infernal villain"--speaking to the
quarter-master and using the most horrid oaths--"You infernal villain,
if you do not _lay on harder_ the next time I command you, I'll have you
put in irons." The boy limped away, writhing in every joint, and crying
piteously, when the commander called at him, "Silence there, you imp--or
I'll give you a second edition." One of the first things the commander
did after we left Barbadoes, was to have a man flogged, and the last
order we heard him give as we left the steamer at Kingston, was to put
two of the men _in irons_.]

It is not a little remarkable that the apprenticeship should be regarded
by the planters themselves, as well as by other persons generally
throughout the colony, as merely a modified form of slavery. It is
common to hear it called 'slavery under a different form,' 'another name
for slavery,'--'modified slavery,' 'but little better than slavery.'

Nor is the practical operation of the system upon the _master_ much less
exceptionable. It takes out of his hand the power of coercing labor, and
provides no other stimulus. Thus it subjects him to the necessity either
of resorting to empty threats, which must result only in incessant
disputes, or of condescending to persuade and entreat, against which his
habits at once rebel, or of complaining to a third party--an alternative
more revolting if possible, than the former, since it involves the
acknowledgment of a higher power than his own. It sets up over his
actions a foreign judge, at whose bar he is alike amenable (in theory)
with his apprentice, before whose tribunal he may be dragged at any
moment by his apprentice, and from whose lips he may receive the
humiliating sentence of punishment in the presence of his apprentice. It
introduces between him and his laborers, mutual repellancies and
estrangement; it encourages the former to exercise an authority which he
would not venture to assume under a system of perfect freedom; it
emboldens the latter to display an insolence which he would not have
dreamed of in a state of slavery, and thus begetting in the one, the
imperiousness of the slaveholder _without his power_, and in the other,
the independence of the freeman _without his immunities_, it perpetuates
a scene of angry collision, jealousy and hatred.

It does not even serve for the master the unworthy purpose for which it
was mainly devised, viz., that of an additional compensation. The
apprenticeship is estimated to be more expensive than a system of free
labor would be. It is but little less expensive than slavery, and
freedom it is confidently expected will be considerably less. So it
would seem that this system burthens the master with much of the
perplexity, the ignominy and the expensiveness of slavery, while it
denies him its power. Such is the apprenticeship system. A splendid
imposition!--which cheats the planter of his gains, cheats the British
nation of its money, and robs the world of what else might have been a
glorious example of immediate and entire emancipation.

THE APPRENTICESHIP IS NO PREPARATION FOR FREEDOM.--Indeed, as far as it
can be, it is an actual _disqualification_. The testimony on this
subject is ample. We rarely met a planter, who was disposed to maintain
that the apprenticeship was preparing the negroes for freedom. They
generally admitted that the people were no better prepared for freedom
now, than they were in 1834; and some of them did not hesitate to say
that the sole use to which they and their brother planters turned the
system, was to get _as much work out of the apprentices while it lasted,
as possible_. Clergymen and missionaries, declared that the
apprenticeship was no preparation for freedom. If it were a preparation
at all, it would most probably be so in a religious and educational
point of view. We should expect to find the masters, if laboring at all
to prepare their apprentices for freedom, doing so chiefly by
encouraging missionaries and teachers to come to their estates, and by
aiding in the erection of chapels and school-houses. But the
missionaries declare that they meet with little more direct
encouragement now, than they did during slavery.

The special magistrates also testify that the apprenticeship is no
preparation for freedom. On this subject they are very explicit.

The colored people bear the same testimony. Not a few, too, affirm, that
the tendency of the apprenticeship is to unfit the negroes for freedom,
and avow it as their firm persuasion, that the people will be less
prepared for liberty at the end of the apprenticeship, than they were at
its commencement. And it is not without reason that they thus speak.
They say, first, that the bickerings and disputes to which the system
gives rise between the master and the apprentice, and the arraigning of
each other before the special magistrate, are directly calculated to
alienate the parties. The effect of these contentions, kept up for six
years, will be to implant _deep mutual hostility_; and the parties will
be a hundred fold more irreconcilable than they were on the abolition of
slavery. Again, they argue that the apprenticeship system is calculated
to make the negroes regard _law as their foe_, and thus it unfits them
for freedom. They reason thus--the apprentice looks to the magistrate as
his judge, his avenger, his protector; he knows nothing of either law or
justice except as he sees them exemplified in the decisions of the
magistrate. When, therefore, the magistrate sentences him to punishment,
when he knows he was the injured party, he will become disgusted with
the very name of justice, and esteem law his greatest enemy.

The neglect of the planters to use the apprenticeship as a preparation
for freedom, warrants us in the conclusion, that they do not think any
preparation necessary. But we are not confined to doubtful inferences on
this point. They testify positively--and not only planters, but all
other classes of men likewise--that the slaves of Barbadoes were fit for
entire freedom in 1834, and that they might have been emancipated then
with perfect safety. Whatever may have been the sentiment of the
Barbadians relative to the necessity of preparation before the
experiment was made, it is clear that now they have no confidence either
in the necessity or the practicability of preparatory schemes.

But we cannot close our remarks upon the apprenticeship system without
noticing one good end which it has undesignedly accomplished, i.e., _the
illustration of the good disposition of the colored people_. We firmly
believe that if the friends of emancipation had wished to disprove all
that has ever been said about the ferocity and revengefulness of the
negroes, and at the same time to demonstrate that they possess, in a
pre-eminent degree, those other qualities which render them the fit
subjects of liberty and law, they could not have done it more
triumphantly than it has been done by the apprenticeship. _How_ this has
been done may be shown by pointing out several respects in which the
apprenticeship has been calculated to try the negro character most
severely, and to develop all that was fiery and rebellious in it.

1. The apprenticeship removed that strong arm of slavery and substituted
no adequate force. The arbitrary power of the master, which awed the
slave into submission, was annihilated. The whip which was held over the
slave, and compelled a kind of subordination--brutal, indeed, but
effectual--was abolished. Here in the outset the reins were given to the
long-oppressed, but now aspiring mass. No adequate force was
substituted, because it was the intent of the new system to govern by
milder means. This was well, but what were the milder means which were
to take the place of brute force?

2. Was the stimulus of wages substituted? No! That was expressly denied.
Was the liberty of locomotion granted? No. Was the privilege of gaining
a personal interest in the soil extended to them? No. Were the
immunities and rights of citizenship secured to them? No. Was the poor
favor allowed them of selecting their own business, or of choosing their
employer? Not even this? Thus far, then, we see nothing of the milder
measures of the apprenticeship. It has indeed opened the prison doors
and knocked off the prisoners' chains--but it still keeps them grinding
there, as before, and refuses to let them come forth, except
occasionally, and then only to be thrust back again. Is it not thus
directly calculated to encourage indolence and insubordination?

3. In the next place, this system introduces a third party, to whom the
apprentice is encouraged to look for justice, redress, and counsel. Thus
he is led to regard his master as his enemy, and all confidence in him
is for ever destroyed. But this is not the end of the difficulty. The
apprentice carries up complaints against his master. If they gain a
favorable hearing he triumphs over him--if they are disregarded, he
concludes that the magistrate also is his enemy, and he goes away with a
rankling grudge against his master. Thus he is gradually led to assert
his own cause, and he learns to contend with his master, to reply
insolently, to dispute, quarrel, and--it is well that we cannot add, to
_fight_. At least one thing is the result--a permanent state of
alienation, contempt of authority, and hatred. _All these are the fruits
of the apprenticeship system_. They are caused by transferring the power
of the master, while the _relation_ continues the same. Nor is this
contempt for the master, this alienation and hatred, all the mischief.
The unjust decisions of the magistrate, of which the apprentices have
such abundant reasons to complain, excite their abhorrence of him, and
thus their confidence in the protection of law is weakened or destroyed.
Here, then, is contempt for the master, abhorrence of the magistrate,
and mistrust of the law--the apprentice regarding all three as leagued
together to rob him of his rights. What a combination of circumstances
to drive the apprentices to desperation and madness! What a marvel that
the outraged negroes have been restrained from bloody rebellions!

Another insurrectionary feature peculiar to the apprenticeship is its
making the apprentices _free a portion of the time_. One fourth of the
time is given them every week--just enough to afford them a taste of the
sweets of liberty, and render them dissatisfied with their condition.
Then the manner in which this time is divided is calculated to irritate.
After being a slave nine hours, the apprentice is made a freeman for the
remainder of the day; early the next morning the halter is again put on,
and he treads the wheel another day. Thus the week wears away until
Saturday; which is an entire day of freedom. The negro goes out and
works for his master, or any one else, as he pleases, and at night he
receives his quarter of a dollar. This is something like freedom, and he
begins to have the feelings of a freeman--a lighter heart and more
active limbs. He puts his money carefully away at night, and lays
himself down to rest his toil-worn body. He awakes on Sabbath morning,
and _is still free_. He puts on his best clothes, goes to church,
worships a free God, contemplates a free heaven, sees his free children
about him, and his wedded wife; and ere the night again returns, the
consciousness that he is a slave is quite lost in the thoughts of
liberty which fill his breast, and the associations of freedom which
cluster around him. He sleeps again. _Monday morning he is startled from
his dreams by the old "shell-blow" of slavery_, and he arises to endure
another week of toil, alternated by the same tantalizing mockeries of
freedom. Is not this applying the _hot iron to the nerve_?

5. But, lastly, the apprenticeship system, as if it would apply the
match to this magazine of combustibles, holds out the reward of liberty
to every apprentice who shall by any means provoke his master to punish
him a second time.

[NOTE.--In a former part of this work--the report of Antigua--we
mentioned having received information respecting a number of the
apprenticeship islands, viz., Dominica, St. Christopher's, Nevis,
Montserrat, Anguilla, and Tortola, from the Wesleyan Missionaries whom
we providentially met with at the annual district meeting in Antigua. We
designed to give the statements of these men at some length in this
connection, but we find that it would swell our report to too great a
size. It only remains to say, therefore, in a word, that the same things
are generally true of those colonies which have been detailed in the
account of Barbadoes. There is the same peaceableness, subordination,
industry, and patient suffering on the part of the apprentices, the same
inefficiency of the apprenticeship as a preparation for freedom, and the
same conviction in the community that the people will, if at all
affected by it, be _less_ fit for emancipation in 1840 than they were in
1834. A short call at St. Christopher's confirmed these views in our
minds, so far as that island is concerned.

While in Barbadoes, we had repeated interviews with gentlemen who were
well acquainted with the adjacent islands, St. Lucia, St. Vincent's,
Grenada, &c.; one of whom was a proprietor of a sugar estate in St.
Vincent's; and they assured us that there was the same tranquillity
reigning in those islands which we saw in Barbadoes. Sir Evan McGregor,
who is the governor-general of the windward colonies, and of course
thoroughly informed respecting their internal state, gave us the same
assurances. From Mr. H., an American gentleman, a merchant of Barbadoes,
and formerly of Trinidad, we gathered similar information touching that
large and (compared with Barbadoes or Antigua) semi-barbarous island.

We learned enough from these authentic sources to satisfy ourselves that
the various degrees of intelligence in the several islands makes very
little difference in the actual results of abolition; but that in all
the colonies, conciliatory and equitable management has never failed to
secure industry and tranquillity.]



JAMAICA.

CHAPTER I.

KINGSTON.

Having drawn out in detail the results of abolition, and the working of
the apprenticeship system in Barbadoes, we shall spare the reader a
protracted account of Jamaica; but the importance of that colony, and
the fact that greater dissatisfaction on account of the abolition of
slavery has prevailed there than in all the other colonies together,
demand a careful statement of facts.

On landing in Jamaica, we pushed onward in our appropriate inquiries,
scarcely stopping to cast a glance at the towering mountains, with their
cloud-wreathed tops, and the valleys where sunshine and shade sleep side
by side--at the frowning precipices, made more awful by the impenetrable
forest-foliage which shrouds the abysses below, leaving the impression
of an ocean depth--at the broad lawns and magnificent savannahs glowing
in verdure and sunlight--at the princely estates and palace mansions--at
the luxuriant cultivation, and the sublime solitude of primeval forests,
where trees of every name, the mahogany, the boxwood, the rosewood, the
cedar, the palm, the fern, the bamboo, the cocoa, the breadfruit, the
mango, the almond, all grow in wild confusion, interwoven with a dense
tangled undergrowth.[A]

[Footnote A: It is less necessary for us to dwell long on Jamaica, than
it would otherwise be, since the English gentlemen, Messrs. Sturge and
Harvey, spent most of their time in that island, and will, doubtless,
publish their investigations, which will, ere long, be accessible to our
readers. We had the pleasure of meeting these intelligent philanthropic
and pious men in the West Indies, and from the great length of time, and
the superior facilities which they enjoyed over us, of gathering a mass
of facts in Jamaica, we feel assured that their report will be highly
interesting and useful, as well among us as on the other side of
the water.]

We were one month in Jamaica. For about a week we remained in
Kingston,[B] and called on some of the principal gentlemen, both white
and colored. We visited the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General,
some of the editors, the Baptist and Wesleyan missionaries, and several
merchants. We likewise visited the public schools, the house of
correction, penitentiary, hospital, and other public institutions. We
shall speak briefly of several individuals whom we saw in Kingston, and
give some of their statements.

[Footnote B: The chief town of the island, with about forty thousand
inhabitants.]

The Hon. Dowel O'Reily; the Attorney-General; is an Irishman, and of one
of the influential families. In his own country he was a prominent
politician, and a bold advocate of Catholic Emancipation. He is
decidedly one of the ablest men in the island, distinguished for that
simplicity of manners, and flow of natural benevolence, which are the
characteristics of the Irishman. He received his present appointment
from the English government about six years ago, and is, by virtue of
his office, a member of the council. He declared that the apprenticeship
was in no manner preparing the negroes for freedom, but was operating in
a contrary way, especially in Jamaica, where it had been made the
instrument of greater cruelties in some cases, than slavery itself. Mr.
O'Reily is entirely free from prejudice; with all his family rank and
official standing, he identifies himself with the colored people as far
as his extensive professional engagements will allow. Having early
learned this, we were surprised to find him so highly respected by the
whites. In our subsequent excursions to the country, the letters of
introduction with which he kindly furnished us, to planters and others,
were uniformly received with avowals of the profoundest respect for him.
It should be observed, that Mr. O'Reily's attachment to the cause of
freedom in the colonies, is not a mere partizan feeling assumed in order
to be in keeping with the government under which he holds his office.
The fact of his being a Roman Catholic must, of itself, acquit him of
the suspicion of any strong partiality for the English government. On
the other hand, his decided hostility to the apprenticeship--the
favorite offspring of British legislation--demonstrates equally his
sincerity and independence.

We were introduced to the Solicitor-General, William Henry Anderson,
Esq., of Kingston. Mr. A. is a Scotchman, and has resided to Jamaica for
more than six years. We found him the fearless advocate of negro
emancipation. He exposed the corruptions and abominations of the
apprenticeship without reserve. Mr. A. furnished us with a written
statement of his views, respecting the state of the island, the
condition of the apprentices, &c., from which we here make a
few extracts.

"1. A very material change for the better has taken place in the
sentiments of the community since slavery was abolished. Religion and
education were formerly opposed as subversive of the security of
property; now they are in the most direct manner encouraged as its best
support. The value of all kinds of property has risen considerably, and
a general sense of security appears to be rapidly pervading the public
mind. I have not heard one man assert that it would be an advantage to
return to slavery, even were it practicable; and I believe that the
public is beginning to see that slave labor is not the cheapest."

"2. The prejudices against color are _rapidly vanishing_. I do not think
there is a respectable man, I mean one who would be regarded as
respectable on account of his good sense and weight of character, who
would impugn another's conduct for associating with persons of color. So
far as my observation goes, those who would formerly have acted on these
prejudices, will be ashamed to own that they had entertained them. The
distinction of superior acquirements still belongs to the whites, as a
body; but that, and character, will shortly be the only distinguishing
mark recognized among us."

"3. The apprentices are improving, _not, however, in consequence of the
apprenticeship, but in spite of it, and in consequence of the great act
of abolition_!"

"4. I think the negroes might have been emancipated as safely in 1834,
as in 1840; and had the emancipation then taken place, they would be
found much further in advance in 1840, than they can be after the
expiration of the present period of apprenticeship, _through which all,
both apprentices and masters, are_ LABORING HEAVILY."

"5. That the negroes will work if moderately compensated, no candid man
can doubt. Their _endurance_ for the sake of a very little gain is quite
amazing, and they are most desirous to procure for themselves and
families as large a share as possible of the comforts and decencies of
life. They appear peculiarly to reverence and desire intellectual
attainments. They employ, occasionally, children who have been taught in
the schools to teach them in their leisure time to read."

"6. I think the partial modifications of slavery have been attended by
so much improvement in all that constitutes the welfare and
respectability of society, that I cannot doubt the increase of the
benefit were a total abolition accomplished of every restriction that
has arisen out of the former state of things."

During our stay in Kingston, we called on the American consul, to whom
we had a letter from the consul at Antigua. We found him an elderly
gentleman, and a true hearted Virginian, both in his generosity and his
prejudices in favor of slavery. The consul, Colonel Harrison, is a near
relation of General W.H. Harrison, of Ohio. Things, he said, were going
ruinously in Jamaica. The English government were mad for abolishing
slavery. The negroes of Jamaica were the most degraded and ignorant of
all negroes he had ever seen. He had travelled in all our Southern
States, and the American negroes, even those of South Carolina and
Georgia, were as much superior to the negroes of Jamaica, as Henry Clay
was superior to him. He said they were the most ungrateful, faithless
set he ever saw; no confidence could be placed in them, and kindness was
always requited by insult. He proceeded to relate a fact from which it
appeared that the ground on which his grave charges against the negro
character rested, was the ill-conduct of one negro woman whom he had
hired some time ago to assist his family. The town negroes, he said,
were too lazy to work; they loitered and lounged about on the sidewalks
all day, jabbering with one another, and keeping up an incessant noise;
and they would not suffer a white man to order them in the least. They
were rearing their children in perfect idleness and for his part he
could not tell what would become of the rising population of blacks.
Their parents were too proud to let them work, and they sent them to
school all the time. Every afternoon, he said, the streets are thronged
with the half-naked little black devils, just broke from the schools,
and all singing some noisy tune learned in the infant schools; the
_burthen of_ their songs seems to be, "_O that will be joyful_." These
words, said he, are ringing in your ears wherever you go. How
aggravating truly such words must be, bursting cheerily from the lips of
the little free songsters! "O that will be joyful, _joyful_,
JOYFUL"--and so they ring the changes day after day, ceaseless and
untiring. A new song this, well befitting the times and the prospects,
but provoking enough to oppressors. The consul denounced he special
magistrates; they were an insolent set of fellows, they would fine a
white man as quick as they would flog a _nigger_.[A] If a master called
his apprentice "you scoundrel," or, "you huzzy," the magistrate would
either fine him for it or reprove him sharply in the presence of the
apprentice. This, in the eyes of the veteran Virginian, was intolerable.
Outrageous, not to allow a _gentleman_ to call his servant what names he
chooses! We were very much edified by the Colonel's _exposé_ of Jamaica
manners. We must say, however, that his opinions had much less weight
with us after we learned (as we did from the best authority) that he had
never been a half dozen miles into the country during a ten year's
residence in Kingston.

[Footnote A: We fear there is too little truth in this representation.]

We called on the Rev. Jonathan Edmonson, the superintendent of the
Wesleyan missions in Jamaica. Mr. E. has been for many years laboring as
a missionary in the West Indies, first in Barbadoes, then in St.
Vincent's, Grenada, Trinidad, and Demerara, and lastly in Jamaica. He
stated that the planters were doing comparatively nothing to prepare the
negroes for freedom. "_Their whole object was to get as much sugar out
of them as they possibly could_."

We received a call from the Rev. Mr. Wooldridge, one of the Independent
missionaries. He thinks the conduct of the planters is tending to make
the apprentices their bitter enemies. He mentioned one effect of the
apprenticeship which had not been pointed out to us before. The system
of appraisement, he said, was a _premium upon all the bad qualities of
the negroes and a tax upon all the good ones_. When a person is to be
appraised, his virtues and his vices are always inquired into, and they
materially influence the estimate of his value. For example, the usual
rate of appraisement is a dollar per week for the remainder of the term;
but if the apprentice is particularly sober, honest, and industrious,
more particularly if he be a _pious man_, he is valued at the rate of
two or three dollars per week. It was consequently for the interest of
the master, when an apprentice applied for an appraisement, to portray
his virtues, while on the other hand there was an inducement for the
apprentice to conceal or actually to renounce his good qualities, and
foster the worst vices. Some instances of this kind had fallen under his
personal observation.

We called on the Rev. Mr. Gardiner, and on the Rev. Mr. Tinson, two
Baptist missionaries in Kingston. On Sabbath we attended service at the
church of which Mr. G. is the pastor. It is a very large building,
capable of seating two thousand persons. The great mass of the
congregation were apprentices. At the time we were present, the chapel
was well filled, and the broad surface of black faces was scarcely at
all diversified with lighter colors. It was gratifying to witness the
neatness of dress, the sobriety of demeanor, the devotional aspect of
countenance, the quiet and wakeful attention to the preacher which
prevailed. They were mostly rural negroes from the estates adjacent
to Kingston.

The Baptists are the most numerous body of Christians in the island. The
number of their missionaries now in Jamaica is sixteen, the number of
Chapels is thirty-one, and the number of members thirty-two thousand
nine hundred and sixty. The increase of members during the year 1836 was
three thousand three hundred and forty-four.

At present the missionary field is mostly engrossed by the Baptists and
Wesleyans. The Moravians are the next most numerous body. Besides these,
there are the clergy of the English Church, with a Bishop, and a few
Scotch clergymen. The Baptist missionaries, as a body, have been most
distinguished for their opposition to slavery. Their boldness in the
midst of suffering and persecutions, their denunciations of oppression,
though they did for a time arouse the wrath of oppressors, and cause
their chapels to be torn down and themselves to be hunted, imprisoned,
and banished, did more probably than any other cause, to hasten the
abolition of slavery.

_Schools in Kingston_.--We visited the Wolmer free school--the largest
and oldest school in the island. The whole number of scholars is five
hundred. It is under the charge of Mr. Reid, a venerable Scotchman, of
scholarship and piety. All colors are mingled in it promiscuously. We
saw the infant school department examined by Mr. R. There were nearly
one hundred and fifty children, of every hue, from the jettiest black to
the fairest white; they were thoroughly intermingled, and the ready
answers ran along the ranks from black to white, from white to brown,
from brown to pale, with undistinguished vivacity and accuracy. We were
afterwards conducted into the higher department, where lads and misses
from nine to fifteen, were instructed in the various branches of
academic education. A class of lads, mostly colored, were examined in
arithmetic. They wrought several sums in pounds, shillings and pence
currency, with wonderful celerity.

Among other things which we witnessed in that school, we shall not soon
forget having seen a curly headed negro lad of twelve, examining a class
of white young ladies in scientific history.

Some written statements and statistical tables were furnished us by Mr.
Reid, which we subjoin..

_Kingston, May 13th, 1837_

DEAR SIR,--I delayed answering your queries in hopes of being able to
give you an accurate list of the number of schools in Kingston, and
pupils under tuition, but have not been able completely to accomplish my
intention. I shall now answer your queries in the order you propose
them. 1st Quest. How long have you been teaching in Jamaica? Ans.
Thirty-eight years in Kingston. 2d Q. How long have you been master of
Wolmer's free school? A. Twenty-three years. 3d Q. What is the number of
colored children now in the school? A. Four hundred and thirty. 4th Q.
Was there any opposition to their admission at first? A. Considerable
opposition the first year, but none afterwards. 5th Q. Do they learn as
readily us the white children? A. As they are more regular in their
attendance, they learn better. 6th Q. Are they as easily governed? A.
Much easier. 7th Q. What proportion of the school are the children of
apprentices? A. Fifty. 8th Q. Do their parents manifest a desire to have
them educated? A. In general they do. 9th Q. At what age do the children
leave your school? A. Generally between twelve and fourteen. 10th Q What
employments do they chiefly engage in upon leaving you? A. The boys go
to various mechanic trades, to counting-houses, attorney's offices,
clerks to planting attorneys, and others become planters. The, girls
seamstresses, mantuamakers, and a considerable proportion tailoresses,
in Kingston and throughout Jamaica, as situations offer.

I am, dear sirs, yours respectfully,

E. REID.

The following table will show the average numbers of the respective
classes, white and colored, who have attended Wolmer's free school in
each year, from 1814 to the present time.

                                   White    | Colored | Total.
                                   Children.|Children.|
Average number in 1814                87                  87
   "      "       1815               111         3       114
   "      "       1816               129        25       154
   "      "       1817               146        36       182
   "      "       1818               155        38       193
   "      "       1819               136        57       193
   "      "       1820               116        78       194
   "      "       1821               118       122       240
   "      "       1822                93       167       260
   "      "       1823                97       187       280
   "      "       1824                94       196       290
   "      "       1825                89       185       274
   "      "       1826                93       176       269
   "      "       1827                92       156       248
   "      "       1828                88       152       240
   "      "       1829                79       192       271
   "      "       1830                88       194       282
   "      "       1831                88       315       403
   "      "       1832                90       360       450
   "      "       1833                93       411       504
   "      "       1834                81       420       501
   "      "       1835                85       425       510
   "      "       1836                78       428       506
   "      "       1837                72       430       502

With regard to the _comparative intellect_ of white and colored
children, Mr. Reid gives the following valuable statement:

"For the last thirty-eight years I have been employed in this city in
the tuition of children of all classes and colors, and have no
hesitation in saying that the children of color are equal both in
conduct and ability to the white. They have always carried off more than
their proportion of prizes, and at one examination, out of seventy
prizes awarded, sixty-four were obtained by children of color."

Mr. R. afterwards sent to us the table of the number of schools in
Kingston, alluded to in the foregoing communication. We insert it here,
as it affords a view of the increase of schools and scholars since the
abolition of slavery.


                1831.
    Schools.                                Scholars.
2   Wolmer's,                                  403
1   National,                                  270
34  Gentlemen's private,                      1368
40  Ladies' do.                               1005
8   Sunday,                                   1042
----                                          ----
85                           Total,           4088

                1832.

    Schools.                                Scholars.
2   Wolmer's,                                  472
1   National,                                  260
31  Gentlemen's private,                      1169
41  Ladies' do.                                856
8   Sunday,                                    981
----                                          ----
83                           Total,           3738

                1836.

    Schools.                                Scholars.
2   Wolmer's,                                  527
3   National,                                 1136
3   Mico,                                      590
1   Baptist,                                   250
1   Jamaica Union,                             120
31  Gentlemen's private,                      1137
59  Ladies' do.                               1339
9   Sunday,                                   1108
    By itinerant teachers and children.       1500
----                                          ----
109                        Total,             7707

                1837.
    Schools.                                Scholars.
 2  Wolmer's,                                  502
 3  National,                                 1238
 4  Mico,                                      611
 1  Baptist                                    260
 1  Jamaica Union,                             200
34  Gentlemen's private,                      1476
63  Ladies' do.                               1525
10  Sunday,                                   1316
    By itinerant teachers and children,       1625
----                                          ----
118                        Total,             8753

We also visited the Union school, which has been established for some
years in Kingston. All the children connected with it, about one hundred
and fifty, are, with two exceptions, black or colored. The school is
conducted generally on the Lancasterian plan. We examined several of the
boys in arithmetic. We put a variety of questions to them, to be worked
out on the slate, and the reasons of the process to be explained as they
went along; all which they executed with great expertness. There was a
jet black boy, whom we selected for a special trial. We commenced with
the simple rules, and went through them one by one, together with the
compound rules and Reduction, to Practice, propounding questions and
examples in each of them, which were entirely new to him, and to all of
them he gave prompt and correct replies. He was only thirteen years old,
and we can aver we never saw a boy of that age in any of our common
schools, that exhibited a fuller and clearer knowledge of the science
of numbers.

In general, our opinion of this school was similar to that already
expressed concerning the others. It is supported by the pupils, aided by
six hundred dollars granted by the assembly.

In connection with this subject, there is one fact of much interest.
However strong and exclusive was the prejudice of color a few years
since in the schools of Jamaica, we could not, during our stay in that
island, learn of more than two or three places of education, and those
private ones, from which colored children were excluded, and among the
numerous schools in Kingston, there is not one of this kind.

We called on several colored gentlemen of Kingston, from whom we
received much valuable information. The colored population are opposed
to the apprenticeship, and all the influence which they have, both in
the colony and with the home government, (which is not small,) is
exerted against it. They are a festering thorn in the sides of the
planters, among whom they maintain a fearless espionage, exposing by pen
and tongue their iniquitous proceedings. It is to be regretted that
their influence in this respect is so sadly weakened by their _holding
apprentices themselves_.

We had repeated invitations to breakfast and dine with colored
gentlemen, which we accepted as often as our engagements would permit.
On such occasions we generally met a company of gentlemen and ladies of
superior social and intellectual accomplishments. We must say, that it
is a great self-denial to refrain from a description of some of the
animated, and we must add splendid, parties of colored people which we
attended. The conversation on these occasions mostly turned on the
political and civil disabilities under which the colored population
formerly labored, and the various straggles by which they ultimately
obtained their rights. The following are a few items of their history.
The colored people of Jamaica, though very numerous, and to some extent
wealthy and intelligent, were long kept by the white colonists in a
state of abject political bondage. Not only were offices withheld from
them, and the right of suffrage denied, but they were not even allowed
the privilege of an oath in court, in defense of their property or their
persons. They might be violently assaulted, their limbs broken, their
wives and daughters might be outraged before their eyes by villains
having white skins; yet they had no legal redress unless another white
man chanced to see the deed. It was not until 1824 that this oppressive
enactment was repealed, and the protection of an oath extended to the
colored people; nor was it then effected without a long struggle on
their part.

Another law, equally worthy of a slaveholding legislature, prohibited
any white man, however wealthy, bequeathing, or in any manner giving his
colored son or daughter more than £2000 currency, or six thousand
dollars. The design of this law was to keep the colored people poor and
dependent upon the whites. Further to secure the same object, every
effort, both legislative and private, was made to debar them from
schools, and sink them in the lowest ignorance. Their young men of
talent were glad to get situations as clerks in the stores of white
merchants. Their young ladies of beauty and accomplishments were
fortune-made if they got a place in the white man's harem. These were
the highest stations to which the flower of their youth aspired. The
rest sank beneath the discouragements, and grovelled in vice and
debasement. If a colored person had any business with a white gentleman,
and should call at his house, "he must take off his hat, and wait at the
door, and be _as polite as a dog_."

These insults and oppressions the colored people in Jamaica bore, until
they could bear them no longer. By secret correspondence they formed a
union throughout the island, for the purpose of resistance. This,
however, was not effected for a long time, and while in process, the
correspondence was detected, and the most vigorous means were used by
the whites to crush the growing conspiracy--for such it was virtually.
Persuasions and intimations were used privately, and when these failed,
public persecutions were resorted to, under the form of judicial
procedures. Among the milder means was the dismission of clerks, agents,
&c., from the employ of a white men. As soon as a merchant discovered
that his clerk was implicated in the correspondence, he first threatened
to discharge him unless he would promise to desert his brethren: if he
could not extort this promise, he immediately put his threat in
execution. Edward Jordon, Esq., the talented editor of the Watchman,
then first clerk in the store of a Mr. Briden, was prominently concerned
in the correspondence, and was summarily dismissed.

White men drove their colored sons from their houses, and subjected them
to every indignity and suffering, in order to deter them from
prosecuting an enterprise which was seen by the terrified oppressors to
be fraught with danger to themselves. Then followed more violent
measures. Persons suspected of being the projectors of the disaffection,
were dragged before incensed judges, and after mock trials, were
sentenced to imprisonment in the city jail. Messrs. Jordon and Osborne,
(after they had established the Watchman paper,) were both imprisoned;
the former twice, for five months each time. At the close of the second
term of imprisonment, Mr. Jordon was _tried for his life_, on the charge
of having published _seditious matter_ in the Watchman.

The paragraph which was denominated '_seditious matter_' was this--

"Now that the member for Westmoreland (Mr. Beaumont) has come over to
our side, we will, by a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull altogether,
bring down the system by the run, knock off the fetters, and let the
oppressed go free."

On the day of Mr. J.'s trial, the court-room was thronged with colored
men, who had armed themselves, and were determined, if the sentence of
death were pronounced upon Mr. Jordon, to rescue him at whatever hazard.
It is supposed that their purpose was conjectured by the judges--at any
rate, they saw fit to acquit Mr. J. and give him his enlargement. The
Watchman continued as fearless and _seditious_ as ever, until the
Assembly were ultimately provoked to threaten some extreme measure which
should effectually silence the agitators. _Then_ Mr. Jordon issued a
spirited circular, in which he stated the extent of the coalition among
the colored people, and in a tone of defiance demanded the instant
repeal of every restrictive law, the removal of every disability, and
the extension of complete political equality; declaring, that if the
demand were not complied with, the whole colored population would rise
in arms, would proclaim freedom to their own slaves, instigate the
slaves generally to rebellion, and then shout war and wage it, until
_the streets of Kingston should run blood_. This bold piece of
generalship succeeded. The terrified legislators huddled together in
their Assembly-room, and swept away, at one blow, all restrictions, and
gave the colored people entire enfranchisement. These occurrences took
place in 1831; since which time the colored class have been politically
free, and have been marching forward with rapid step in every species of
improvement, and are now on a higher footing than in any other colony.
All offices are open to them; they are aldermen of the city, justices of
the peace, inspectors of public institutions, trustees of schools, etc.
There are, at least, then colored special magistrates, natives of the
island. There are four colored members of the Assembly, including
Messrs. Jordon and Osborne. Mr. Jordon now sits in the same Assembly,
side by side, with the man who, a few years ago, ejected him
disdainfully from his clerkship. He is a member of the Assembly for the
city of Kingston, where not long since he was imprisoned, and tried for
his life. He is also alderman of the city, and one of its local
magistrates. He is now inspector of the same prison in which he was
formerly immured as a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition.

The secretary of the special magistrate department, Richard Hill, Esq.,
is a colored gentleman, and is one of the first men in the island,[A]
for integrity, independence, superior abilities, and extensive
acquirements. It has seldom been our happiness to meet with a man more
illustrious for true nobility of soul, or in whose countenance there
were deeper traces of intellectual and moral greatness. We are confident
that no man can _see_ him without being impressed with his rare
combination of excellences.

[Footnote A: We learn from the Jamaica papers, since our return to this
country, that Mr. Hill has been elected a member of the Assembly.]

Having said thus much respecting the political advancement of the
colored people, it is proper to remark, that they have by no means
evinced a determination to claim more than their share of office and
influence. On the contrary, they stop very far short of what they are
entitled to. Having an extent of suffrage but little less than the
whites, they might fill one third of the seats in the Assembly, whereas
they now return but four members out of forty-five. The same may be said
of other offices, particularly those in the city of Kingston, and the
larger towns, where they are equal to, or more numerous, than the
whites. It is a fact, that a portion of the colored people continue at
this time to return white members to the Assembly, and to vote for white
aldermen and other city officers. The influential men among them, have
always urged them to take up white men, unless they could find
_competent_ men of their own color. As they remarked to us, if they were
obliged to send an _ass_ to the Assembly, it was far better for _them_
to send a _white_ ass than a _black_ one.

In company with a friend, we visited the principal streets and places of
business in Kingston, for the purpose of seeing for ourselves the
general employments of the people of color; and those who engage in the
lowest offices, such as porters, watermen, draymen, and servants of all
grades, from him who flaunts in livery, to him who polishes shoes, are
of course from this class. So with the fruiterers, fishmongers, and the
almost innumerable tribe of petty hucksters which swarm throughout the
city, and is collected in a dense mass in its suburbs. The market, which
is the largest and best in the West Indies, is almost entirely supplied
and attended by colored persons, mostly females. The great body of
artisans is composed mostly of colored persons.

There are two large furniture and cabinet manufactories in Kingston, one
owned by two colored men, and the other by a white man. The operatives,
of which one contains eighty, and the other nearly as many, are all
black and colored. A large number of them are what the British law terms
_apprentices_, and are still bound in unremunerated servitude, though
some of them for thrice seven years have been adepts in their trades,
and not a few are earning their masters twenty or thirty dollars each
month, clear of all expenses. Some of these _apprentices_ are
hoary-headed and wrinkle-browned men, with their children, and
grand-children, apprentices also, around them, and who, after having
used the plane and the chisel for half a century, with faithfulness for
_others_, are now spending the few hours and the failing strength of old
again in _preparing_ to use the plane and the chisel for _themselves_.
The work on which they were engaged evinced no lack of mechanical skill
and ingenuity, but on the contrary we were shown some of the most
elegant specimens of mechanical skill, which we ever saw. The rich woods
of the West Indies were put into almost every form and combination which
taste could designate or luxury desire.

The owners of these establishments informed us that their business had
much _increased within the last two years_, and was still extending.
Neither of them had any fears for the results of complete emancipation,
but both were laying their plans for the future as broadly and
confidently as ever.

In our walk we accidentally met a colored man, whom we had heard
mentioned on several occasions as a superior architect. From the
conversation we had with him, then and subsequently, he appeared to
possess a fine mechanical genius, and to have made acquirements which
would be honorable in any man, but which were truly admirable in one who
had been shut up all his life by the disabilities which in Jamaica have,
until recently, attached to color. He superintended the erection of the
Wesleyan chapel in Kingston, the largest building of the kind in the
island, and esteemed by many as the most elegant. The plan was his own,
and the work was executed under his own eye. This man is using his means
and influence to encourage the study of his favorite art, and of the
arts and sciences generally, among those of his own hue.

One of the largest bookstores in the island is owned by two colored men.
(Messrs. Jordon and Osborne, already referred to.) Connected with it is
an extensive printing-office, from which a newspaper is issued twice a
week. Another paper, under the control of colored men, is published at
Spanishtown. These are the two principal liberal presses in Jamaica, and
are conducted with spirit and ability. Their influence in the political
and civil affairs of the island is very great. They are the organs of
the colored people, bond and free, and through them any violation of law
or humanity is exposed to the public, and redress demanded, and
generally obtained. In literary merit and correctness of moral
sentiment, they are not excelled by any press there, while some of their
white contemporaries fall far below them in both. Besides the workmen
employed in these two offices, there is a large number of colored
printers in the other printing offices, of which there are several.

We called at two large establishment for making jellies, comfits,
pickles, and all the varieties of tropic _preserves_. In each of them
thirty or more persons are constantly employed, and a capital of some
thousands of dollars invested. Several large rooms were occupied by
boxes, jars, and canisters, with the apparatus necessary to the process,
through which the fruit passes. We saw every species of fruits and
vegetables which the island produces, some fresh from the trees and
vines, and others ready to be transported to the four quarters of the
globe, in almost every state which the invalid or epicure could desire.
These articles, with the different preparations of arrow-root and
cassada, form a lucrative branch of trade, which is mostly in the hands
of the colored people.

We were introduced to a large number of colored merchants, dealers in
dry goods, crockery and glass ware, ironmongers, booksellers, druggists,
grocers, and general importers and were conducted by them through their
stores; many of which were on an extensive scale, and managed,
apparently, with much order and regularity. One of the largest
commercial houses in Kingston has a colored man as a partner, the other
two being white. Of a large auction and commission firm, the most active
and leading partner is a colored man. Besides these, there is hardly a
respectable house among the white merchants, in which some important
office, oftentimes the head clerkship, is not filled by a person of
color. They are as much respected in business transactions, and their
mercantile talents, their acquaintance with the generalities and details
of commerce, and sagacity and judgment in making bargains, are as highly
esteemed by the white merchants, as though they wore an European hue.
The commercial room is open to them, where they resort unrestrainedly to
ascertain the news; and a visitor may not unfrequently see sitting
together at a table of newspapers, or conversing together in the
parlance of trade, persons as dissimilar in complexion as white and
black can make them. In the streets the same intercourse is seen.

The general trade of the island is gradually and quietly passing into
the hands of the colored people. Before emancipation, they seldom
reached a higher grade in mercantile life than a clerkship, or, if they
commenced business for themselves, they were shackled and confined in
their operations by the overgrown and monopolizing establishments which
slavery had built up. Though the civil and political rights of one class
of them were acknowledged three years previous, yet they found they
could not, even if they desired it, disconnect themselves from the
slaves. They could not transact business--form credits and agencies, and
receive the confidence of the commercial public--like free men. Strange
or not, their fate was inseparably linked with that of the bondman,
their interests were considered as involved with his. However honest
they might be, it was not safe to trust them; and any attempt to rise
above a clerkship, to become the employer instead of the employed, was
regarded as a kind of insurrection, and strongly disapproved and
opposed. Since emancipation, they have been unshackling them selves from
white domination in matters of trade; extending their connections, and
becoming every day more and more independent. They have formed credits
with commercial houses abroad, and now import directly for themselves,
at wholesale prices, what they were formerly obliged to receive from
white importers, or rather speculators, at such prices as they, in their
tender mercies, saw fit to impose.

Trade is now equalizing itself among all classes. A spirit of
competition is awakened, banks have been established, steam navigation
introduced, railroads projected, old highways repaired, and new ones
opened. The descendants of the slaves are rapidly supplying the places
which were formerly filled by whites from abroad.

We had the pleasure of being present one day at the sitting of the
police court of Kingston. Mr. Jordon, the editor of the Watchman, in his
turn as a member of the common council, was presiding justice, with an
alderman of the city, a black man, as his associate. At a table below
them sat the superintendent of police, a white man, and two white
attorneys, with their huge law books and green bags before them. The bar
was surrounded by a motley assemblage of black, colored, and white
faces, intermingled without any regard to hue in the order of
superiority and precedence. There were about a dozen cases adjudged
while we were present. The court was conducted with order and dignity,
and the justices were treated with great respect and deference both by
white and black.

After the adjournment of the court, we had some conversation with the
presiding justice. He informed us that whites were not unfrequently
brought before him for trial, and, in spite of his color, sometimes even
our own countrymen. He mentioned several instances of the latter, in
some of which American prejudice assumed very amusing and ludicrous
forms. In one case, he was obliged to threaten the party, a captain from
one of our southern ports, with imprisonment for contempt, before he
could induce him to behave himself with proper decorum. The captain,
unaccustomed to obey injunctions from men of such a complexion, curled
his lip in scorn, and showed a spirit of defiance, but on the approach
of two police officers, whom the court had ordered to arrest him, he
submitted himself. We were gratified with the spirit of good humor and
pleasantry with which Mr. J. described the astonishment and gaping
curiosity which Americans manifest on seeing colored men in offices of
authority, particularly on the judicial bench, and their evident
embarrassment and uneasiness whenever obliged to transact business with
them as magistrates. He seemed to regard it as a subject well worthy of
ridicule; and we remarked, in our intercourse with the colored people,
that they were generally more disposed to make themselves merry with
American sensitiveness on this point, than to bring serious complaints
against it, though they feel deeply the wrongs which they have suffered
from it, and speak of them occasionally with solemnity and earnestness.
Still the feeling is so absurd and ludicrous in itself, and is exhibited
in so many grotesque positions, even when oppressive, that the sufferer
cannot help laughing at it. Mr. Jordon has held his present office since
1832. He has had an extensive opportunity, both as a justice of the
police court, and as a member of the jail committee, and in other
official stations, to become well acquainted with the state of crime in
the island at different periods. He informed us that the number of
complaints brought before him had much diminished since 1834, and he had
no hesitation in saying, that crime had decreased throughout the island
generally more than one third.

During one of our excursions into the country, we witnessed another
instance of the amicability with which the different colors associated
in the civil affairs of the island. It was a meeting of one of the
parish vestries, a kind of local legislature, which possesses
considerable power over its own territory. There were fifteen members
present, and nearly as many different shades of complexion. There was
the planter of aristocratic blood, and at his side was a deep mulatto,
born in the same parish a slave. There was the quadroon, and the
unmitigated hue and unmodified features of the negro. They sat together
around a circular table, and conversed as freely as though they had been
all of one color. There was no restraint, no uneasiness, as though the
parties felt themselves out of place, no assumption nor disrespect, but
all the proceedings manifested the most perfect harmony, confidence, and
good feeling.

At the same time there was a meeting of the parish committee on roads,
at which there was the same intermixture of colors, the same freedom and
kindness of demeanor, and the same unanimity of action. Thus it is with
all the political and civil bodies in the island, from the House of
Assembly, to committees on jails and houses of correction. Into all of
them, the colored people are gradually making their way, and
participating in public debates and public measures, and dividing with
the whites legislative and judicial power, and in many cases they
exhibit a superiority, and in all cases a respectability, of talents and
attainments, and a courtesy and general propriety of conduct, which gain
for them the respect of the intelligent and candid among their white
associates.

We visited the house of correction for the parish of St. Andrews. The
superintendent received us with the iron-hearted courtesy of a Newgate
turnkey. Our company was evidently unwelcome, but as the friend who
accompanied us was a man in authority, he was constrained to admit us.
The first sound that greeted us was a piercing outcry from the
treadmill. On going to it, we saw a youth of about eighteen hanging in
the air by a strap bound to his wrist, and dangling against the wheel in
such a manner that every revolution of it scraped the body from the
breast to the ankles. He had fallen off from weakness and fatigue, and
was struggling and crying in the greatest distress, while the strap,
which extended to a pole above and stretched his arm high above his
head, held him fast. The superintendent, in a harsh voice, ordered him
to be lifted up, and his feet again placed on the wheel. But before he
had taken five steps, he again fell off, and was suspended as before. At
the same instant, a woman also fell off, and without a sigh or the
motion of a muscle, for she was too much exhausted for either, but with
a shocking wildness of the eye, hung by her half-dislocated arms against
the wheel. As the allotted time (fifteen minutes) had expired, the
persons on the wheel were released, and permitted to rest. The boy could
hardly stand on the ground. He had a large ulcer on one of his feet,
which was much swollen and inflamed, and his legs and body were greatly
bruised and peeled by the revolving of the wheel. The gentleman who was
with us reproved the superintendent severely for his conduct, and told
him to remove the boy from the treadmill gang, and see that proper care
was taken of him. The poor woman who fell off, seemed completely
exhausted; she tottered to the wall near by, and took up a little babe
which we had not observed before. It appeared to be not more than two or
three months old, and the little thing stretched out its arms and
welcomed its mother. On inquiry, we ascertained that this woman's
offence was absence from the field an hour after the required time (six
o'clock) in the morning. Besides the infant with her, she had two or
three other children. Whether the care of them was any excuse for her,
we leave American mothers to judge. There were two other women on the
treadmill--one was sentenced there for stealing cane from her master's
field, and the other, we believe, for running away.

The superintendent next took us to the solitary cells. They were dirty,
and badly ventilated, and unfit to keep beasts in. On opening the doors,
such a stench rushed forth, that we could not remain. There was a poor
woman in one of them, who appeared, as the light of day and the fresh
air burst in upon her, like a despairing maniac.

We went through the other buildings, all of which were old and dirty,
nay, worse, _filthy_ in the extreme. The whole establishment was a
disgrace to the island. The prisoners were poorly clad, and had the
appearance of harsh usage. Our suspicions of ill treatment were
strengthened by noticing a large whip in the treadmill, and sundry iron
collars and handcuffs hanging about in the several rooms through which
we passed.

The number of inmates in this house at our visit, was
forty-eight--eighteen of whom were females. Twenty of these were in the
treadmill and in solitary confinement--the remainder were working on
the public road at a little distance--many of them _in irons_--iron
collars about their necks, and chains passing between, connecting them
together two and two.



CHAPTER II.

TOUR TO THE COUNTRY.

Wishing to accomplish the most that our limited time would allow; we
separated at Kingston;--the one taking a northwesterly route among the
mountainous coffee districts of Port Royal and St. Andrews, and the
other going into the parish of St. Thomas in the East.

St. Thomas in the East is said to present the apprenticeship in its most
favorable aspects. There is probably no other parish in the island which
includes so many fine estates, or has so many liberal-minded
planters.[A] A day's easy drive from Kingston, brought us to Morant Bay,
where we spent two days, and called on several influential gentlemen,
besides visiting the neighboring estate of Belvidere. One gentleman whom
we met was Thomas Thomson, Esq., the senior local magistrate of the
Parish, next in civil influence to the Custos. His standing may be
inferred from the circumstance, (not trifling in Jamaica,) that the
Governor, during his tour of the island, spent a night at his house. We
breakfasted with Mr. Thomson, and at that time, and subsequently, he
showed the utmost readiness in furnishing us with information. He is a
Scotchman, has been in the island for thirty-eight years, and has served
as a local magistrate for thirty-four. Until very lately, he has been a
proprietor of estates; he informed us that he had sold out, but did not
mention the reasons. We strongly suspected, from the drift of his
conversation, that he sold about the time of abolition, through alarm
for the consequences. We early discovered that he was one of the old
school tyrants, hostile to the change which _had_ taken place, and
dreadfully alarmed in view of that which was yet to come. Although full
of the prejudices of an old slaveholder, yet we found him a man of
strong native sense and considerable intelligence. He declared it most
unreservedly as his opinion, that the negroes would not work after
1810--they were _naturally so indolent_, that they would prefer
gaining a livelihood in some easier way than by digging cane holes. He
had all the results of the emancipation of 1840 as clearly before his
mind, as though he saw them in prophetic vision; he knew the whole
process. One portion of the negroes, too lazy to provide food by their
own labor, will rob the provision grounds of the few who will remain at
work. The latter will endure the wrong as long as they well can, and
then they will procure arms and fire upon the marauders; this will give
rise to incessant petty conflicts between the lazy and the industrious,
and a great destruction of life will ensue. Others will die in vast
numbers from starvation; among these will be the superannuated and the
young, who cannot support themselves, and whom the planters will not be
able to support. Others numerous will perish from disease, chiefly for
want of medical attendance, which it will be wholly out of their power
to provide. Such is the dismal picture drawn by a late slaveholder, of
the consequences of removing the negroes from the tender mercies of
oppressors. Happily for all parties, Mr. Thomson is not very likely to
establish his claim to the character of a prophet. We were not at all
surprised to hear him wind up his prophecies against freedom with a
_denunciation of slavery_. He declared that slavery was a wretched
system. Man was _naturally a tyrant_. Mr. T. said he had one good
thing to say of the negroes, viz., that they were an _exceedingly
temperate people_. It was a very unusual thing to see one of them drunk.
Slavery, he said, was a system of _horrid cruelties_. He had lately
read, in the history of Jamaica, of a planter, in 1763, having a slave's
_leg_ cut off, to keep him from running away. He said that dreadful
cruelties were perpetrated until the close of slavery, and they were
inseparable from slavery. He also spoke of the fears which haunted the
slaveholders. He never would live on an estate; and whenever he chanced
to stay over night in the country, he always took care to secure his
door by bolting and barricading it. At Mr. Thomson's we met Andrew
Wright, Esq., the proprietor of a sugar estate called Green Wall,
situated some six miles from the bay. He is an intelligent gentleman, of
an amiable disposition--has on his estate one hundred and sixty
apprentices. He described his people as being in a very peaceable state,
and as industrious as he could wish. He said he had no trouble with
them, and it was his opinion, that where there is trouble, it must be
_owing to bad management_. He anticipated no difficulty after 1840, and
was confident that his people would not leave him. He believed that the
negroes would not to any great extent abandon the cultivation of sugar
after 1840. Mr. T. stated two facts respecting this enlightened planter,
which amply account for the good conduct of his apprentices. One was,
that he was an exceedingly kind and amiable man. _He had never been
known to have a falling out with any man in his life_. Another fact was,
that Mr. Wright was the only resident sugar proprietor in all that
region of country. He superintends his own estate, while the other large
estates are generally left in the hands of unprincipled, mercenary men.

[Footnote A: We have the following testimony of Sir Lionel Smith to the
superiority of St. Thomas in the East. It is taken from the Royal
Gazette, (Kingston.) May 6, 1837. "His Excellency has said, that in all
his tour he was not more highly gratified with any parish than he was
with St. Thomas in the East."]

We called on the Wesleyan missionary at Morant Bay, Rev. Mr. Crookes,
who has been in Jamaica fifteen years. Mr. C. said, that in many
respects there had been a great improvement since the abolition of
slavery, but, said he, "I abominate the apprenticeship system. At best,
it is only _improved slavery_." The obstacles to religious efforts
have been considerably diminished, but the masters were not to be
thanked for this; it was owing chiefly to the protection of British law.
The apprenticeship, Mr. C. thought, could not be any material
preparation for freedom. He was persuaded that it would have been far
better policy to have granted entire emancipation at once.

In company with Mr. Howell, an Independent, and teacher of a school of
eighty negro children in Morant Bay, we drove out to Belvidere estate,
which is situated about four miles from the bay, in a rich district
called the Blue Mountain Valley. The Belvidere is one of the finest
estates in the valley. It contains two thousand acres, only four hundred
of which are cultivated in sugar; the most of it is woodland. This
estate belongs to Count Freeman, an absentee proprietor. We took
breakfast with the overseer, or manager, Mr. Briant. Mr. B. stated that
there was not so much work done now as there was during slavery. Thinks
there is _as much done for the length of time that the apprentices are
at work_; but a day and a half every week is lost; neither _are they
called out as early in the morning, nor do they work as late at night_.
The apprentices work at night very cheerfully for money: but they will
not work on Saturday for the common wages--quarter of a dollar. On
inquiry of Mr. B. we ascertained that the reason the apprentices did not
work on Saturdays was, that they could _make twice or three times as
much_ by cultivating their provision grounds, and carrying their produce
to market. At _night_ they cannot cultivate their grounds, then they
work for their masters "very cheerfully."

The manager stated, that there had been no disturbance with the people
of Belvidere since the change. They work well, and conduct themselves
peaceably; and he had no fear but that the great body of the negroes
would remain on the estate after 1840, and labor as usual. This he
thought would be the case on every estate where there _is mild
management_. Some, indeed, might leave even such estates to _try their
fortunes_ elsewhere, but they would soon discover that they could get no
better treatment abroad, and they would then return to their old homes.

While we were at Belvidere, Mr. Howell took us to see a new chapel which
the apprentices of that estate have erected since 1834, by their own
labor, and at their own expense. The house is thirty feet by forty;
composed of the same materials of which the negro huts are built. We
were told that the building of this chapel was first suggested by the
apprentices, and as soon as permission was obtained, they commenced the
preparations for its erection. We record this as a delightful _sign of
the times_.

On our return to Morant Bay, we visited the house of correction,
situated near the village. This is the only "institution," as a Kingston
paper gravely terms it, of the kind in the parish. It is a small,
ill-constructed establishment, horribly filthy, more like a receptacle
for wild beasts than human beings. There is a treadmill connected with
it, made to _accommodate_ fifteen persons at a time. Alternate companies
ascend the wheel every fifteen minutes. It was unoccupied when we went
in; most of the prisoners being at work on the public roads. Two or
three, who happened to be near by, were called in by the keeper, and
ordered to mount the wheel, to show us how it worked. It made our blood
run cold as we thought of the dreadful suffering that inevitably ensues,
when the foot loses the step, and the body hangs against the
revolving cylinder.

Leaving the house of correction, we proceeded to the village. In a small
open square in the centre of it, we saw a number of the unhappy inmates
of the house of correction at work under the direction, we are sorry to
say, of our friend Thomas Thomson, Esq. They were chained two and two by
heavy chains fastened to iron bands around their necks. On another
occasion, we saw the same gang at work in the yard attached to the
Independent chapel.

We received a visit, at our lodgings, from the special justice of this
district, Major Baines. He was accompanied by Mr. Thomson, who came to
introduce him as his friend. We were not left to this recommendation
alone, suspicious as it was, to infer the character of this magistrate,
for we were advertised previously that he was a "planter's man"--unjust
and cruel to the apprentices. Major B. appeared to have been looking
through his friend Thomson's prophetic telescope. There was certainly a
wonderful coincidence of vision--the same abandonment of labor, the same
preying upon provision grounds; the same violence, bloodshed and great
loss of life among the negroes themselves! However, the special
magistrate appeared to see a little further than the local magistrate,
even to the _end_ of the carnage, and to the re-establishment of
industry, peace and prosperity. The evil, he was confident, would soon
cure itself.

One remark of the special magistrate was worthy a prophet. When asked if
he thought there would be any serious disaffection produced among the
praedials by the emancipation of the non-praedials in 1838, he said, he
thought there would not be, and assigned as the reason, that the
praedials knew all about the arrangement, and did not _expect to be
free_. That is, the field apprentices knew that the domestics were to be
liberated two years sooner than they, and, without inquiring into the
grounds, or justice of the arrangement, _they would promptly
acquiesce in it_!

What a fine compliment to the patience and forbearance of the mass of
the negroes. The majority see the minority emancipated two years before
them, and that, too, upon the ground of an odious distinction which
makes the domestic more worthy than they who "bear the heat and burthen
of the day," in the open field; and yet they submit patiently, because
they are told that it is the pleasure of government that it should
be so!

The _non-praedials_, too, have their noble traits, as well as the less
favored agriculturalists. The special magistrate said that he was then
engaged in classifying the apprentices of the different estates in his
district. The object of this classification was, to ascertain all those
who were non-praedials, that they might be recorded as the subjects of
emancipation in 1838. To his astonishment he found numbers of this class
who expressed a wish to remain apprentices until 1840. On one estate,
six out of eight took this course, on another, twelve out of fourteen,
and in some instances, _all_ the non-praedials determined to suffer it
out with the rest of their brethren, refusing to accept freedom until
with the whole body they could rise up and shout the jubilee of
universal disinthrallment. Here is a nobility worthy to compare with the
patience of the praedials. In connection with the conduct of the
non-praedials, he mentioned the following instance of white brutality
and negro magnanimity. A planter, whose negroes he was classifying,
brought forward a woman whom he claimed as a praedial. The woman
declared that she was a non-praedial, and on investigation it was
clearly proved that she had always been a domestic; and consequently
entitled to freedom in 1838. After the planter's claim was set aside,
the woman said, "_Now_ I will stay with massa, and be his 'prentice for
de udder two year."

Shortly before we left the Bay, our landlady, a colored woman,
introduced one of her neighbors, whose conversation afforded us a rare
treat. She was a colored lady of good appearance and lady like manners.
Supposing from her color that she had been prompted by strong sympathy
in our objects to seek an interview with us, we immediately introduced
the subject of slavery, stating that as we had a vast number of slaves
in our country, we had visited Jamaica to see how the freed people
behaved, with the hope that our countrymen might be encouraged to adopt
emancipation. "Alack a day!" The tawny madam shook her head, and, with
that peculiar creole whine, so expressive of contempt, said, "Can't say
any thing for you, sir--they not doing no good now, sir--the negroes
an't!"--and on she went abusing the apprentices, and denouncing
abolition. No American white lady could speak more disparagingly of the
niggers, than did this recreant descendant of the negro race. They did
no work, they stole, were insolent, insubordinate, and what not.

She concluded in the following elegiac strain, which did not fail to
touch our sympathies. "I can't tell what will become of us after 1840.
Our negroes will be taken away from us--we shall find no work to do
ourselves--we shall all have to beg, and who shall we beg from? _All
will be beggars, and we must starve_!"

Poor Miss L. is one of that unfortunate class who have hitherto gained a
meagre support from the stolen hire of a few slaves, and who, after
entire emancipation, will be stripped of every thing. This is the class
upon whom emancipation will fall most heavily; it will at once cast many
out of a situation of ease, into the humiliating dilemma of _laboring or
begging_--to the _latter_ of which alternatives, Miss L. seems inclined.
Let Miss L. be comforted! It is better to beg than to _steal_.

We proceeded from Morant Bay to Bath, a distance of fourteen miles,
where we put up at a neat cottage lodging-house, kept by Miss P., a
colored lady. Bath is a picturesque little village, embowered in
perpetual green, and lying at the foot of a mountain on one side, and on
the other by the margin of a rambling little river. It seems to have
accumulated around it and within it, all the verdure and foliage of a
tropical clime.

Having a letter of introduction, we called on the special magistrate for
that district--George Willis, Esq. As we entered his office, an
apprentice was led up in irons by a policeman, and at the same time
another man rode up with a letter from the master of the apprentice,
directing the magistrate to release him instantly. The facts of this
case, as Mr. W. himself explained them to us, will illustrate the
careless manner in which the magistrates administer the law. The master
had sent his apprentice to a neighboring estate, where there had been
some disturbance, to get his clothes, which had been left there. The
overseer of the estate finding an intruder on his property, had him
handcuffed forthwith, notwithstanding his repeated declarations that his
master had sent him. Having handcuffed him, he ordered him to be taken
before the special magistrate, Mr. W., who had him confined in the
station-house all night. Mr. W., in pursuance of the direction received
from the master, ordered the man to be released, but at the same time
repeatedly declared to him that the _overseer was not to blame for
arresting him_.

After this case was disposed of, Mr. W, turned to us. He said he had a
district of thirty miles in extent, including five thousand apprentices;
these he visited thrice every month. He stated that there had been a
gradual decrease of crime since he came to the district, which was early
in 1835. For example, in March, 1837, there were but twenty-four persons
punished, and in March, 1835, there were as many punished in a single
week. He explained this by saying that the apprentices had become
_better acquainted with the requirements of the law_. The chief offence
at present was _absconding from labor_.

This magistrate gave us an account of an alarming rebellion which had
lately occurred in his district, which we will venture to notice, since
it is the only serious disturbance on the part of the negroes, which has
taken place in the island, from the beginning of the apprenticeship.
About two weeks before, the apprentices on Thornton estate, amounting to
about ninety, had refused to work, and fled in a body to the woods,
where they still remained. Their complaint, according to our informant,
was, that their master had turned the cattle upon their provision
grounds, and all their provisions were destroyed, so that they could not
live. They, therefore, determined that they would not continue at work,
seeing they would be obliged to starve. Mr. W. stated that he had
visited the provision grounds, in company with two _disinterested
planters_, and he could affirm that the apprentices had _no just cause
of complaint_. It was true their fences had been broken down, and their
provisions had been somewhat injured, but the fence could be very easily
repaired, and there was an _abundance of yams left_ to furnish food for
the whole gang for some time to come--those that were destroyed being
chiefly young roots which would not have come to maturity for several
months. These statements were the substance of a formal report which he
had just prepared for the eye of Sir Lionel Smith, and which he was kind
enough to read to us. This was a fine report, truly, to come from a
special justice. To say nothing of the short time in which the fence
might be repaired, those were surely very dainty-mouthed cattle that
would consume those roots only which were so small that several months
would be requisite for their maturity. The report concluded with a
recommendation to his Excellency to take seminary vengeance upon a few
of the gang as soon as they could be arrested, since they had set such
an example to the surrounding apprentices. He could not see how order
and subordination could be preserved in his district unless such a
punishment was inflicted as would be a warning to all evil doers. He
further suggested the propriety of sending the maroons[A] after them, to
hunt them out of their hiding places and bring them to justice.

[Footnote A: The maroons are free negroes, inhabiting the mountains of
the interior, who were formerly hired by the authorities, or by
planters, to hunt up runaway slaves, and return them to their masters.
Unfortunately our own country is not without _its_ maroons.]

We chanced to obtain a different version of this affair, which, as it
was confirmed by different persons in Bath, both white and colored, who
had no connection with each other, we cannot help thinking it the
true one.

The apprentices on Thornton, are what is termed a jobbing gang, that is,
they are hired out by their master to any planter who may want their
services. Jobbing is universally regarded by the negroes as the worst
kind of service, for many reasons--principally because it often takes
them many miles from their homes, and they are still required to supply
themselves with food from their own provision grounds. They are allowed
to return home every Friday evening or Saturday, and stay till Monday
morning. The owner of the gang in question lately died--to whom it is
said they were greatly attached--and they passed into the hands of a Mr.
Jocken, the present overseer. Jocken is a notoriously cruel man. It was
scarcely a twelvemonth ago, that he was fined one hundred pounds
currency, and sentenced to imprisonment for three months in the Kingston
jail, _for tying one of his apprentices to a dead ox_, because the
animal died while in the care of the apprentice. He also confined a
woman in the same pen with a dead sheep, because she suffered the sheep
to die. Repeated acts of cruelty have caused Jocken to be regarded as a
monster in the community. From a knowledge of his character, the
apprentices of Thornton had a strong prejudice against him. One of the
earliest acts after he went among them, was to break down their fences,
and turn his cattle into their provision grounds. He then ordered them
to go to a distant estate to work. This they refused to do, and when he
attempted to compel them to go, they left the estate in a body, and went
to the woods. This is what is called a _state of open rebellion_, and
for this they were to be hunted like beasts, and to suffer such a
terrible punishment as would deter all other apprentices from taking a
similar step.

This Jocken is the same wretch who wantonly handcuffed the apprentice,
who went on to his estate by the direction of his master.

Mr. Willis showed us a letter which he had received that morning from a
planter in his district, who had just been trying an experiment in job
work, (i.e., paying his people so much for a certain amount of work.) He
had made a proposition to one of the head men on the estate, that he
would give him a doubloon an acre if he would get ten acres of cane land
holed. The man employed a large number of apprentices, and accomplished
the job on three successive Saturdays. They worked at the rate of nearly
one hundred holes per day for each man, whereas the usual day's work is
only seventy-five holes.

Mr. W. bore testimony that the great body of the negroes in his district
were very peaceable. There were but a few _incorrigible fellows_, that
did all the mischief. When any disturbance took place on an estate, he
could generally tell who the individual offenders were. He did not think
there would be any serious difficulty after 1840. However, the result he
thought would _greatly depend on the conduct of the managers!_

We met in Bath with the proprietor of a coffee estate situated a few
miles in the country. He gave a very favorable account of the people on
his estate; stating that they were as peaceable and industrious as he
could desire, that he had their confidence, and fully expected to retain
it after entire emancipation. He anticipated no trouble whatever, and he
felt assured, too, that if _the planters would conduct in a proper
manner_, emancipation would be a blessing to the whole colony.

We called on the Wesleyan missionary, whom we found the decided friend
and advocate of freedom. He scrupled not to declare his sentiments
respecting the special magistrate, whom he declared to be a cruel and
dishonest man. He seemed to take delight in flogging the apprentices. He
had got a whipping machine made and erected in front of the Episcopal
church in the village of Bath. It was a frame of a triangular shape, the
base of which rested firmly on the ground, and having a perpendicular
beam from the base to the apex or angle. To this beam the apprentice's
body was lashed, with his face towards the machine, and his arms
extended at right angles, and tied by the wrists. The missionary had
witnessed the floggings at this machine repeatedly, as it stood but a
few steps from his house. Before we reached Bath, the machine had been
removed from its conspicuous place and _concealed in the bushes, that
the governor might not see it when he visited the village_.

As this missionary had been for several years laboring in the island,
and had enjoyed the best opportunities to become extensively acquainted
with the negroes, we solicited from him a written answer to a number of
inquiries. We make some extracts from his communication.

1. Have the facilities for missionary effort greatly increased since the
abolition of slavery?

The opportunities of the apprentices to attend the means of grace are
greater than during absolute slavery. They have now one day and a half
every week to work for their support, leaving the Sabbath free to
worship God.

2. Do you anticipate that these facilities will increase still more
after entire freedom?

Yes. The people will then have _six days of their own to labor for their
bread_, and will be at liberty to go to the house of God every Sabbath.
Under the present system, the magistrate often takes away the Saturday,
as a punishment, and then they must either work on the Sabbath
or starve.

3. Are the negroes likely to revenge by violence the wrongs which they
have suffered, after they obtain their freedom?

_I never heard the idea suggested, nor should I have thought of it had
you not made the inquiry._

We called on Mr. Rogers, the teacher of a Mico charity infant school in
Bath. Mr. R., his wife and daughter, are all engaged in this work. They
have a day school, and evening school three evenings in the week, and
Sabbath school twice each Sabbath. The evening schools are for the
benefit of the adult apprentices, who manifest the greatest eagerness to
learn to read. After working all day, they will come several miles to
school, and stay cheerfully till nine o'clock.

Mr. R. furnished us with a written communication, from which we extract
the following.

_Quest._ Are the apprentices desirous of being instructed?

_Ans._ Most assuredly they are; in proof of which I would observe that
since our establishment in Bath, the people not only attend the schools
regularly, but if they obtain a leaf of a book with letters upon it,
that is their _constant companion_. We have found mothers with their
sucking babes in their arms, standing night after night in their classes
learning the alphabet.

_Q._ Are the negroes grateful for attentions and favors?

_A._ They are; I have met some who have been so much affected by acts of
kindness, that they have burst into tears, exclaiming, 'Massa so
kind--my heart full.' Their affection to their teachers is very
remarkable. On my return lately from Kingston, after a temporary
absence, the negroes flocked to our residence and surrounded the chaise,
saying, 'We glad to see massa again; we glad to see school massa.' On my
way through an estate some time ago, some of the children observed me,
and in a transport of joy cried, 'Thank God, massa come again! Bless God
de Savior, massa come again!'

Mr. R., said he, casually met with an apprentice whose master had lately
died. The man was in the habit of visiting his master's grave every
Saturday. He said to Mr. R., "Me go to massa grave, and de water come
into me yeye; but me can't help it, massa, _de water will come into
me yeye_."

The Wesleyan missionary told us, that two apprentices, an aged man and
his daughter, a young woman, had been brought up by their master before
the special magistrate who sentenced them to several days confinement in
the house of correction at Morant Bay and to dance the treadmill. When
the sentence was passed the daughter entreated that she might be allowed
to _do her father's part_, as well as her own, on the treadmill, for he
was too old to dance the wheel--it would kill him.

From Bath we went into the Plantain Garden River Valley, one of the
richest and most beautiful savannahs in the island. It is an extensive
plain, from one to three miles wide, and about six miles long. The
Plantain Garden River, a small stream, winds through the midst of the
valley lengthwise, emptying into the sea. Passing through the valley, we
went a few miles south of it to call on Alexander Barclay, Esq., to whom
we had a letter of introduction. Mr. Barclay is a prominent member of
the assembly, and an attorney for eight estates. He made himself
somewhat distinguished a few years ago by writing an octavo volume of
five hundred pages in defence of the colonies, i.e., in defence of
colonial slavery. It was a reply to Stephen's masterly work against West
India slavery, and was considered by the Jamaicans a triumphant
vindication of their "peculiar institutions." We went several miles out
of our route expressly to have an interview with so zealous and
celebrated a champion of slavery. We were received with marked courtesy
by Mr. B., who constrained us to spend a day and night with him at his
seat at Fairfield. One of the first objects that met our eye in Mr. B.'s
dining hall was a splendid piece of silver plate, which was presented to
him by the planters of St. Thomas in the East, in consideration of his
able defence of colonial slavery. We were favorably impressed with Mr.
B.'s intelligence, and somewhat so with his present sentiments
respecting slavery. We gathered from him that he had resisted with all
his might the anti-slavery measures of the English government, and
exerted every power to prevent the introduction of the apprenticeship
system. After he saw that slavery would inevitably be abolished, he drew
up at length a plan of emancipation according to which the condition of
the slave was to be commuted into that of the old English _villein_--he
was to be made an appendage to _the soil_ instead of the "chattel
personal" of the master, the whip was to be partially abolished, a
modicum of wages was to be allowed the slave, and so on. There was to be
no fixed period when this system would terminate, but it was to fade
gradually and imperceptibly into entire freedom. He presented a copy of
his scheme to the then governor, the Earl of Mulgrave, requesting that
it might be forwarded to the home government. Mr. B. said that the
anti-slavery party in England had acted from the blind impulses of
religious fanaticism, and had precipitated to its issue a work which
required many years of silent preparation in order to its safe
accomplishment. He intimated that the management of abolition ought to
have been left with the colonists; they had been the long experienced
managers of slavery, and they were the only men qualified to superintend
its burial, and give it a decent interment.

He did not think that the apprenticeship afforded any clue to the dark
mystery of 1840. Apprenticeship was so inconsiderably different from
slavery, that it furnished no more satisfactory data for judging of the
results of entire freedom than slavery itself. Neither would he consent
to be comforted by the actual results of emancipation in Antigua.

Taking leave of Mr. Barclay, we returned to the Plantain Garden River
Valley, and called at the Golden Grove, one of the most splendid estates
in that magnificent district. This is an estate of two thousand acres;
it has five hundred apprentices and one hundred free children. The
average annual crop is six hundred hogsheads of sugar. Thomas McCornock,
Esq., the attorney of this estate, is the custos, or chief magistrate of
the parish, and colonel of the parish militia. There is no man in all
the parish of greater consequence, either in fact or in seeming
self-estimation, than Thomas McCornock, Esq. He is a Scotchman, as is
also Mr. Barclay. The custos received us with as much freedom as the
dignity of his numerous offices would admit of. The overseer, (manager,)
Mr. Duncan, is an intelligent, active, business man, and on any other
estate than Golden Grove, would doubtless be a personage of considerable
distinction. He conducted us through the numerous buildings, from the
boiling-house to the pig-stye. The principal complaint of the overseer,
was that he could not make the people work to any good purpose. They
were not at all refractory or disobedient; there was no difficulty in
getting them on to the field; but when they were there, they moved
without any life or energy. They took no interest in their work, and he
was obliged to be watching and scolding them all the time, or else they
would do nothing. We had not gone many steps after this observation,
before we met with a practical illustration of it. A number of the
apprentices had been ordered that morning to cart away some dirt to a
particular place. When we approached them, Mr. D. found that one of the
"wains" was standing idle. He inquired of the driver why he was keeping
the team idle. The reply was, that there was nothing there for it to do;
there were enough other wains to carry away all the dirt. "Then," inquired
the overseer with an ill-concealed irritation, "why did not go to some
other work?" The overseer then turned to us and said, "You see, sir,
what lazy dogs the apprentices are--this is the way they do every day,
if they are not closely watched." It was not long after this little
incident, before the overseer remarked that the apprentices worked very
well during their own time, _when they were paid for it_. When we went
into the hospital, Mr. D. directed out attention to one fact, which to
him was very provoking. A great portion of the patients that come in
during the week, unable to work, are in the habit of getting well on
Friday evening, so that they can go out on Saturday and Sunday; but on
Monday morning they are sure to be sick again, then they return to the
hospital and remain very poorly till Friday evening, when they get well
all at once, and ask permission to go out. The overseer saw into the
trick; but he could find no medicine that could cure the negroes of that
intermittent sickness. The Antigua planters discovered the remedy for
it, and doubtless Mr. D. will make the grand discovery in 1840.

On returning to the "great house," we found the custos sitting in state,
ready to communicate any official information which might be called for.
He expressed similar sentiments in the main, with those of Mr. Barclay.
He feared for the consequences of complete emancipation; the negroes
would to a great extent abandon the sugar cultivation and retire to the
woods, there to live in idleness, planting merely yams enough to keep
them alive, and in the process of time, retrograding into African
barbarism. The attorney did not see how it was possible to prevent this.
When asked whether he expected that such would be the case with the
negroes on Golden Grove, he replied that he did not think it would,
except with a very few persons. His people had been _so well treated_,
and had _so many comforts_, that they would not be at all likely to
abandon the estate! [Mark that!] Whose are the people that will desert
after 1840? Not Thomas McCornock's, Esq.! _They are too well situated.
Whose_ then will desert? _Mr. Jocken's_, or in other words, those who
are ill-treated, who are cruelly driven, whose fences are broken down,
and whose provision grounds are exposed to the cattle. They, and they
alone, will retire to the woods who can't get food any where else!

The custos thought the apprentices were behaving very ill. On being
asked if he had any trouble with his, he said, O, no! his apprentices
did quite well, and so did the apprentices generally, in the Plantain
Garden River Valley. But in _far off parishes_, he _heard_ that they
were very refractory and troublesome.

The custos testified that the negroes were very easily managed. He said
he had often thought that he would rather have the charge of six hundred
negroes, than of two hundred English sailors. He spoke also of the
temperate habits of the negroes. He had been in the island twenty-two
years, and he had never seen a negro woman drunk, on the estate. It was
very seldom that the men got drunk. There were not more than ten men on
Golden Grove, out of a population of five hundred, who were in the habit
of occasionally getting intoxicated. He also remarked that the negroes
were a remarkable people for their attention to the old and infirm among
them; they seldom suffered them to want, if it was in their power to
supply them. Among other remarks of the custos, was this sweeping
declaration--"_No man in his senses can pretend to defend slavery._"

After spending a day at Golden Grove, we proceeded to the adjacent
estate of Amity Hall. On entering the residence of the manager, Mr.
Kirkland, we were most gratefully surprised to find him engaged in
family prayers. It was the first time and the last that we heard the
voice of prayer in a Jamaican planter's house. We were no less
gratefully surprised to see a white lady, to whom we were introduced as
Mrs. Kirkland, and several modest and lovely little children. It was the
first and the last _family circle_ that we were permitted to see among
the planters of that licentious colony. The motley group of colored
children--of every age from tender infancy--which we found on other
estates, revealed the state of domestic manners among the planters.

Mr. K. regarded the abolition of slavery as a great blessing to the
colony; it was true that the apprenticeship was a wretchedly bad system,
but notwithstanding, things moved smoothly on his estate. He informed us
that the negroes on Amity Hall had formerly borne the character of being
the _worst gang in the parish_; and when he first came to the estate, he
found that half the truth had not been told of them; but they had become
remarkably peaceable and subordinate. It was his policy to give them
every comfort that he possibly could. Mr. K. made the same declaration,
which has been so often repeated in the course of this narrative, i.e.,
that if any of the estates were abandoned, it would be owing to the
harsh treatment of the people. He knew many overseers and book-keepers
who were cruel driving men, and he should not be surprised if _they_
lost a part, or all, of their laborers. He made one remark which we had
not heard before. There were some estates, he said, which would probably
be abandoned, for the same reason that they ought never to have been
cultivated, because they require _almost double labor_;--such are the
mountainous estates and barren, worn-out properties, which nothing but a
system of forced labor could possibly retain in cultivation. But the
idea that the negroes generally would leave their comfortable homes, and
various privileges on the estates, and retire to the wild woods, he
ridiculed as preposterous in the extreme. Mr. K. declared repeatedly
that he could not look forward to 1840, but with the most sanguine
hopes; he confidently believed that the introduction of complete freedom
would be the _regeneration of the island_. He alluded to the memorable
declaration of Lord Belmore, (made memorable by the excitement which it
caused among the colonists,) in his valedictory address to the assembly,
on the eve of his departure for England.[A] "Gentlemen," said he, "the
resources of this noble island will never be fully developed until
slavery is abolished!" For this manly avowal the assembly ignobly
refused him the usual marks of respect and honor at his departure. Mr.
K. expected to see Jamaica become a new world under the enterprise and
energies of freedom. There were a few disaffected planters, who would
probably remain so, and leave the islands after emancipation. It would
be a blessing to the country if such men left it, for as long as they
were disaffected, they were the enemies of its prosperity.

[Footnote A: Lord Belmore left the government of Jamaica, a short time
before the abolition act passed in parliament.]

Mr. K. conducted us through the negro quarters, which are situated on
the hill side, nearly a mile from his residence. We went into several of
the houses; which were of a better style somewhat than the huts in
Antigua and Barbadoes--larger, better finished and furnished. Some few
of them had verandahs or porches on one or more sides, after the West
India fashion, closed in with _jalousies_. In each of the houses to
which we were admitted, there was one apartment fitted up in a very neat
manner, with waxed floor, a good bedstead, and snow white coverings, a
few good chairs, a mahogany sideboard, ornamented with dishes,
decanters, etc.

From Amity Hall, we drove to Manchioneal, a small village ten miles
north of the Plantain Garden River Valley. We had a letter to the
special magistrate for that district, R. Chamberlain, Esq., a colored
gentleman, and the first magistrate we found in the parish of St. Thomas
in the East, who was faithful to the interests of the apprentices. He
was a boarder at the public house, where we were directed for lodgings,
and as we spent a few days in the village, we had opportunities of
obtaining much information from him, as well as of attending some of his
courts. Mr. C. had been only five months in the district of Manchioneal,
having been removed thither from a distant district. Being a friend of
the apprentices, he is hated and persecuted by the planters. He gave us
a gloomy picture of the oppressions and cruelties of the planters. Their
complaints brought before him are often of the most trivial kind; yet
because he does not condemn the apprentices to receive a punishment
which the most serious offences alone could justify him in inflicting,
they revile and denounce him as unfit for his station. He represents the
planters as not having the most distant idea that it is the province of
the special magistrate to secure justice to the apprentice; but they
regard it as his sole duty to _help them_ in getting from the laborers
as much work as whips, and chains, and tread-wheels can extort. His
predecessor, in the Manchioneal district, answered perfectly to the
planters' _beau ideal_. He ordered a _cat_ to be kept on every estate in
his district, to be ready for use as he went around on his weekly
visits. Every week he inspected the cats, and when they became too much
worn to do good execution, he _condemned_ them, and ordered new ones
to be made.

Mr. C. said the most frequent complaints made by the planters are for
_insolence_. He gave a few specimens of what were regarded by the
planters as serious offences. An overseer will say to his apprentice,
"Work along there faster, you lazy villain, or I'll strike you;" the
apprentice will reply, "You _can't_ strike me now," and for this he is
taken before the magistrate on the complaint of _insolence_. An
overseer, in passing the gang on the field, will hear them singing; he
will order them, in a peremptory tone to stop instantly, and if they
continue singing, they are complained of for _insubordination_. An
apprentice has been confined to the hospital with disease,--when he gets
able to walk, tired of the filthy sick house, he hobbles to his hut,
where he may have the attentions of his wife until he gets well. That is
called _absconding from labor_! Where the magistrate does not happen to
be an independent man, the complaint is sustained, and the poor invalid
is sentenced to the treadmill for absenting himself from work. It is
easy to conjecture the dreadful consequence. The apprentice, debilitated
by sickness, dragged off twenty-five miles on foot to Morant Bay,
mounted on the wheel, is unable to keep the step with the stronger ones,
slips off and hangs by the wrists, and his flesh is mangled and torn by
the wheel.

The apprentices frequently called at our lodgings to complain to Mr. C.
of the hard treatment of their masters. Among the numerous distressing
cases which we witnessed, we shall never forget that of a poor little
negro boy, of about twelve, who presented himself one afternoon before
Mr. C., with a complaint against his master for violently beating him. A
gash was cut in his head, and the blood had flowed freely. He fled from
his master, and came to Mr. C. for refuge. He belonged to A. Ross, Esq.,
of Mulatto Run estate. We remembered that we had a letter of
introduction to that planter, and we had designed visiting him, but
after witnessing this scene, we resolved not to go near a monster who
could inflict such a wound, with his own hand, upon a child. We were
highly gratified with the kind and sympathizing manner in which Mr. C.
spoke with the unfortunate beings who, in the extremity of their wrongs,
ventured to his door.

At the request of the magistrate we accompanied him, on one occasion, to
the station-house, where he held a weekly court. We had there a good
opportunity to observe the hostile feelings of the planters towards this
faithful officer--"faithful among the faithless," (though we are glad
that we cannot quite add, "_only he_.")

A number of managers, overseers, and book-keepers, assembled; some with
complaints, and some to have their apprentices classified. They all set
upon the magistrate like bloodhounds upon a lone stag. They strove
together with one accord, to subdue his independent spirit by taunts,
jeers, insults, intimidations and bullyings. He was obliged to threaten
one of the overseers with arrest, on account of his abusive conduct. We
were actually amazed at the intrepidity of the magistrate. We were
convinced from what we saw that day, that only the most fearless and
conscientious men could be _faithful magistrates_ in Jamaica. Mr. C.
assured us that he met with similar indignities every time he held his
courts, and on most of the estates that he visited. It was in his power
to punish them severely, but he chose to use all possible forbearance,
so as not to give the planters any grounds of complaint.

On a subsequent day we accompanied Mr. C. in one of his estate visits.
As it was late in the afternoon, he called at but one estate, the name
of which was Williamsfield. Mr. Gordon, the overseer of Williamsfield,
is among the fairest specimens of planters. He has naturally a generous
disposition, which, like that of Mr. Kirkland, has out-lived the
witherings of slavery.

He informed us that his people worked as well under the apprenticeship
system, as ever they did during slavery; and he had every encouragement
that they would do still better after they were completely free. He was
satisfied that he should be able to conduct his estate at much less
expense after 1840; he thought that fifty men would do as much then as a
hundred do now. We may add here a similar remark of Mr. Kirkland--that
forty freemen would accomplish as much as eighty slaves. Mr. Gordon
hires his people on Saturdays, and he expressed his astonishment at the
increased vigor with which they worked when they were to receive wages.
He pointedly condemned the driving system which was resorted to by many
of the planters. They foolishly endeavored to keep up the coercion of
slavery, _and they had the special magistrates incessantly flogging the
apprentices_. The planters also not unfrequently take away the provision
grounds from their apprentices, and in every way oppress and
harass them.

In the course of the conversation Mr. G. accidentally struck upon a
fresh vein of facts, respecting the SLAVERY OF BOOK-KEEPERS,[A] _under
the old system_. The book-keepers, said Mr. G., were the complete slaves
of the overseers, who acted like despots on the estates. They were
mostly young men from England, and not unfrequently had considerable
refinement; but ignorant of the treatment which book-keepers had to
submit to, and allured by the prospect of becoming wealthy by
plantership, they came to Jamaica and entered as candidates. They soon
discovered the cruel bondage in which they were involved. The overseers
domineered over them, and stormed at them as violently as though they
were the most abject slaves. They were allowed no privileges such as
their former habits impelled them to seek. If they played a flute in the
hearing of the overseer, they were commanded to be silent instantly. If
they dared to put a gold ring on their finger, even that trifling
pretension to gentility was detected and disallowed by the jealous
overseer. (These things were specified by Mr. G. himself.) They were
seldom permitted to associate with the overseers as equals. The only
thing which reconciled the book-keepers to this abject state, was the
reflection that they might one day _possibly_ become overseers
themselves, and then they could exercise the same authority over others.
In addition to this degradation, the book-keepers suffered great
hardships. Every morning (during slavery) they were obliged to be in the
field before day; they had to be there as soon as the slaves, in order
to call the roll, and mark absentees, if any. Often Mr. G. and the other
gentleman had gone to the field, when it was so dark that they could not
see to call the roll, and the negroes have all lain down on their hoes,
and slept till the light broke. Sometimes there would be a thick dew on
the ground, and the air was so cold and damp, that they would be
completely chilled. When they were shivering on the ground, the negroes
would often lend them their blankets, saying, "Poor _busha pickaninny_
sent out here from England to die." Mr. Gordon said that his
constitution had been permanently injured by such exposure. Many young
men, he said, had doubtless been killed by it. During crop time, the
book-keepers had to be up every night till twelve o'clock, and every
other night _all night_, superintending the work in the boiling-house,
and at the mill. They did not have rest even on the Sabbath; they must
have the mill put about (set to the wind so as to grind) by sunset every
Sabbath. Often the mills were in the wind before four o'clock, on
Sabbath afternoon. They knew of slaves being flogged for not being on
the spot by sunset, though it was known that they had been to meeting.
Mr. G. said that he had a young friend who came from England with him,
and acted as book-keeper. His labors and exposures were so intolerable,
that he had often said to Mr. G., confidentially, _that if the slaves
should rise in rebellion, he would most cheerfully join them_! Said Mr.
G., _there was great rejoicing_ among the book-keepers in August 1834!
_The abolition of slavery was_ EMANCIPATION TO THE BOOK-KEEPERS.

[Footnote A: The book-keepers are subordinate overseers and drivers;
they are generally young white men, who after serving a course of years
in a sort of apprenticeship, are promoted to managers of estates.]

No complaints were brought before Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Gordon pleasantly
remarked when we arrived, that he had some cases which he should have
presented if the magistrate had come a little earlier, but he presumed
he should forget them before his next visit. When we left Williamsfield,
Mr. C. informed us that during five months there had been but two cases
of complaint on that estate--and but _a single instance of punishment._
Such are the results where there is a good manager and a good special
magistrate.

On Sabbath we attended service in the Baptist chapel, of which Rev. Mr.
Kingdon is pastor. The chapel, which is a part of Mr. K.'s
dwelling-house, is situated on the summit of a high mountain which
overlooks the sea. As seen from the valley below, it appears to topple
on the very brink of a frightful precipice. It is reached by a winding
tedious road, too rugged to admit of a chaise, and in some places so
steep as to try the activity of a horse. As we approached nearer, we
observed the people climbing up in throngs by various footpaths, and
halting in the thick woods which skirted the chapel, the men to put on
their shoes, which they had carried in their hands up the mountain, and
the women to draw on their white stockings and shoes. On entering the
place of worship, we found it well filled with the apprentices, who came
from many miles around in every direction. The services had commenced
when we arrived. We heard an excellent sermon from the devoted and pious
missionary, Mr. Kingdon, whose praise is among all the good throughout
the island, and who is eminently known as the negro's friend. After the
sermon, we were invited to make a few remarks; and the minister briefly
stated to the congregation whence we had come, and what was the object
of our visit. We cannot soon forget the scene which followed. We begun
by expressing, in simple terms, the interest which we felt in the
temporal and spiritual concerns of the people present, and scarcely had
we uttered a sentence when the whole congregation were filled with
emotion. Soon they burst into tears--some sobbed, others cried aloud;
insomuch that for a time we were unable to proceed. We were, indeed, not
a little astonished at so unusual a scene; it was a thing which we were
by no means expecting to see. Being at a loss to account for it, we
inquired of Mr. K. afterwards, who told us that it was occasioned by our
expressions of sympathy and regard. They were so unaccustomed to hear
such language from the lips of white people, that it fell upon them like
rain upon the parched earth. The idea that one who was a stranger and a
foreigner should feel an interest in their welfare, was to them, in such
circumstances, peculiarly affecting, and stirred the deep fountains of
their hearts.

After the services, the missionary, anxious to further our objects,
proposed that we should hold an interview with a number of the
apprentices; and he accordingly invited fifteen of them into his study,
and introduced them to us by name, stating also the estates to which
they severally belonged. We had thus an opportunity of seeing the
_representatives of twelve different estates_, men of trust on their
respective estates, mostly constables and head boilers. For nearly two
hours we conversed with these men, making inquiries on all points
connected with slavery, the apprenticeship, and the expected
emancipation.

From no interview, during our stay in the colonies, did we derive so
much information respecting the real workings of the apprenticeship;
from none did we gain such an insight into the character and disposition
of the negroes. The company was composed of intelligent and pious
men;--so manly and dignified were they in appearance, and so elevated in
their sentiments, that we could with difficulty realize that they were
_slaves_. They were wholly unreserved in their communications, though
they deeply implicated their masters, the special magistrates, and
others in authority. It is not improbable that they would have shrunk
from some of the disclosures which they made, had they known that they
would be published. Nevertheless we feel assured that in making them
public, we shall not betray the informants, concealing as we do their
names and the estates to which they belong.

With regard to the wrongs and hardships of the apprenticeship much as
said; we can only give a small part.

Their masters were often very harsh with them, more so than when they
were slaves. They could not flog them, but they would scold them, and
swear at them, and call them hard names, which hurt their feelings
almost as much as it would if they were to flog them. They would not
allow them as many privileges as they did formerly. Sometimes they would
take their provision grounds away, and sometimes they would go on their
grounds and carry away provisions for their own use without paying for
them, or as much as asking their leave. They had to bear this, for it
was useless to complain--they could get no justice; there was no law in
Manchioneal. The special magistrate would only hear the master, and
would not allow the apprentices to say any thing for themselves[A]. The
magistrate would do just as the busha (master) said. If he say flog him,
he flog him; if he say, send him to Morant Bay, (to the treadmill,) de
magistrate send him. If we happen to laugh before de busha, he complain
to de magistrate, and we get licked. If we go to a friend's house, when
we hungry, to get something to eat, and happen to get lost in de woods
between, we are called runaways, and are punished severely. Our half
Friday is taken away from us; we must give that time to busha for a
little salt-fish, which was always allowed us during slavery. If we lay
in bed after six o'clock, they take away our Saturday too. If we lose a
little time from work, they make us pay a great deal more time. They
stated, and so did several of the missionaries, that the loss of the
half Friday was very serious to them; as it often rendered it impossible
for them to get to meeting on Sunday. The whole work of cultivating
their grounds, preparing their produce for sale, carrying it to the
distant market, (Morant Bay, and sometimes further,) and returning, all
this was, by the loss of the Friday afternoon, crowded into Saturday,
and it was often impossible for them to get back from market before
Sabbath morning; then they had to dress and go six or ten miles further
to chapel, or stay away altogether, which, from weariness and worldly
cares, they would be strongly tempted to do. This they represented as
being a grievous thing to them. Said one of the men; in a peculiarly
solemn and earnest manner, while the tears stood in his eyes, "I declare
to you, massa, if de Lord spare we to be free, we be much more
'ligiours--_we be wise to many more tings_; we be better Christians;
because den we have all de Sunday for go to meeting. But now de holy
time taken up in work for we food." These words were deeply impressed
upon us by the intense earnestness with which they were spoken. They
revealed "the heart's own bitterness." There was also a lighting up of
joy and hope in the countenance of that child of God, as he looked
forward to the time when he might become _wise to many more tings_.

[Footnote A: We would observe, that they did not refer to Mr.
Chamberlain, but to another magistrate, whose name they mentioned.]

They gave a heart-sickening account of the cruelties of the treadmill.
They spoke of the apprentices having their wrists tied to the handboard,
and said it was very common for them to fall and hang against the wheel.
Some who had been sent to the treadmill, had actually died from the
injuries they there received. They were often obliged to see their wives
dragged off to Morant Bay, and tied to the treadmill, even when they
were in a state of pregnancy. They suffered a great deal of misery from
_that; but they could not help it_.

Sometimes it was a wonder to themselves how they could endure all the
provocations and sufferings of the apprenticeship; _it was only "by de
mercy of God_!"

They were asked why they did not complain to the special magistrates.
They replied, that it did no good, for the magistrates would not take
any notice of their complaints, besides, it made the masters treat them
still worse. Said one, "We go to de magistrate to complain, and den when
we come back de busha do all him can to vex us. He _wingle_ (tease) us,
and _wingle_ us; de book-keeper curse us and treaten us; de constable he
scold us, and call hard names, and dey all strive to make we mad, so we
say someting wrong, and den dey take we to de magistrate for insolence."
Such was the final consequence of complaining to the magistrate. We
asked them why they did not complain, when they had a good magistrate
who would do them justice. Their answer revealed a new fact. They were
afraid to complain to a magistrate, who they knew was their friend,
_because their masters told them that the magistrate would soon be
changed, and another would come who would flog them; and that for every
time they dared to complain to the GOOD magistrate, they would be
flogged when the BAD one came_. They said their masters had explained it
all to them long ago.

We inquired of them particularly what course they intended to take when
they should become free. We requested them to speak, not only with
reference to themselves, but of the apprentices generally, as far as
they knew their views. They said the apprentices expected to work on the
estates, if they were allowed to do so. They had no intention of leaving
work. Nothing would cause them to leave their estates but bad treatment;
if their masters were harsh, they would go to another estate, where they
would get better treatment. They would be _obliged_ to work when they
were free; even more than now, for _then_ they would have no other
dependence.

One tried to prove to us by reasoning, that the people would work
when they were free. Said he, "In slavery time we work _even_ wid de
whip, now we work 'till better--_what tink we will do when we free?
Won't_ we work den, _when we get paid_?" He appealed to us so earnestly,
that we could not help acknowledging we were fully convinced. However,
in order to establish the point still more clearly, he stated some
facts, such as the following:

During slavery, it took six men to tend the coppers in boiling sugar,
and it was thought that fewer could not possibly do the work; but now,
since the boilers are paid for their extra time, the work is monopolized
by _three_ men. They _would not have any help_; they did all the work
"_dat dey might get all de pay_."

We sounded them thoroughly on their views of law and freedom. We
inquired whether they expected to be allowed to do as they pleased when
they were free. On this subject they spoke very rationally. Said one,
"We could never live widout de law; (we use, his very expressions) we
must have some law when we free. In other countries, where dey are free,
_don't_ dey have law? Wouldn't dey shoot one another if they did not
have law?" Thus they reasoned about freedom. Their chief complaint
against the apprenticeship was, that it did not allow them _justice_.
"_There was no law now_." They had been told by the governor, that there
was the same law for all the island; but they knew better, for there was
more justice done them in some districts than in others.

Some of their expressions indicated very strongly the characteristic
kindness of the negro. They would say, we work now as well as we can
_for the sake of peace; any thing for peace_. Don't want to be
complained of to the magistrate; don't like to be called hard names--do
any thing to keep peace. Such expressions were repeatedly made. We asked
them what they thought of the domestics being emancipated in 1838, while
they had to remain apprentices two years longer? They said, "it bad
enough--but we know de law make it so, and _for peace sake_, we will be
satisfy. _But we murmur in we minds_."

We asked what they expected to do with the old and infirm, after
freedom? They said, "we will support dem--as how dey brought us up when
we was pickaninny, and now we come trong, must care for dem." In such a
spirit did these apprentices discourse for two hours. They won greatly
upon our sympathy and respect. The touching story of their wrongs, the
artless unbosoming of their hopes, their forgiving spirit toward their
masters, their distinct views of their own rights, their amiable bearing
under provocation, their just notions of law, and of a state of
freedom--these things were well calculated to excite our admiration for
them, and their companions in suffering. Having prayed with the company,
and commended them to the grace of God, and the salvation of Jesus
Christ, we shook hands with them individually, and separated from them,
never more to see them, until we meet at the bar of God.

While one of us was prosecuting the foregoing inquiries in St. Thomas in
the East, the other was performing a horse-back tour among the mountains
of St. Andrews and Port Royal. We had been invited by Stephen Bourne,
Esq., special magistrate for one of the rural districts in those
parishes, to spend a week in his family, and accompany him in his
official visits to the plantations embraced in his commission--an
invitation we were very glad to accept, as it laid open to us at the
same time three important sources of information,--the magistrate, the
planter, and the apprentice.

The sun was just rising as we left Kingston, and entered the high road.
The air, which the day before had been painfully hot and stived, was
cool and fresh, and from flowers and spice-trees, on which the dew still
lay, went forth a thousand fragrant exhalations. Our course for about
six miles, lay over the broad, low plain, which spreads around Kingston,
westward to the highlands of St. Andrews, and southward beyond
Spanishtown. All along the road, and in various directions in the
distance, were seen the residences--uncouthly termed 'pens'--of
merchants and gentlemen of wealth, whose business frequently calls them
to town. Unlike Barbadoes, the fields here were protected by walls and
hedges, with broad gateways and avenues leading to the house. We soon
began to meet here and there, at intervals, person going to the market
with fruits and provisions. The number continually increased, and at the
end of an hour, they could be seen trudging over the fields, and along
the by-paths and roads, on every hand. Some had a couple of stunted
donkeys yoked to a ricketty cart,--others had mules with
pack-saddles--but the many loaded their own heads, instead of the
donkeys and mules. Most of them were well dressed, and all civil and
respectful in their conduct.

Invigorated by the mountain air, and animated by the novelty and
grandeur of the mountain scenery, through which we had passed, we
arrived at 'Grecian Regale' in season for an early West Indian
breakfast, (8 o'clock.) Mr. Bourne's district is entirely composed of
coffee plantations, and embraces three thousand apprentices. The people
on coffee plantations are not worked so hard as those employed on sugar
estates; but they are more liable to suffer from insufficient food
and clothing.

After breakfast we accompanied Mr. Bourne on a visit to the plantations,
but there were no complaints either from the master or apprentice,
except on one. Here Mr. B. was hailed by a hoary-headed man, sitting at
the side of his house. He said that he was lame and sick, and could not
work, and complained that his master did not give him any food. All he
had to eat was given him by a relative. As the master was not at home,
Mr. B. could not attend to the complaint at that time, but promised to
write the master about it in the course of the day. He informed us that
the aged and disabled were very much neglected under the apprenticeship.
When the working days are over, the profit days are over, and how few in
any country are willing to support an animal which is past labor? If
these complaints are numerous under the new system, when magistrates are
all abroad to remedy them, what must it have been during slavery, when
master and magistrate were the same!

On one of the plantations we called at the house of an emigrant, of
which some hundreds have been imported from different parts of Europe,
since emancipation. He had been in the island eighteen months, and was
much dissatisfied with his situation. The experiment of importing whites
to Jamaica as laborers, has proved disastrous--an unfortunate
speculation to all parties, and all parties wish them back again.

We had some conversation with several apprentices, who called on Mr.
Bourne for advice and aid. They all thought the apprenticeship very
hard, but still, on the whole, liked it better than slavery. They "were
killed too bad,"--that was their expression--during slavery--were worked
hard and terribly flogged. They were up ever so early and late--went out
in the mountains to work, when so cold busha would have to cover himself
up on the ground. Had little time to eat, or go to meeting. 'Twas all
slash, slash! Now they couldn't be flogged, unless the magistrate said
so. Still the busha was very hard to them, and many of the apprentices
run away to the woods, they are so badly used.

The next plantation which we visited was Dublin Castle. It lies in a
deep valley, quite enclosed by mountains. The present attorney has been
in the island nine years, and is attorney for several other properties.
In England he was a religious man, and intimately acquainted with the
eccentric Irving. For a while after he came out he preached to the
slaves, but having taken a black concubine, and treating those under his
charge oppressively, he soon obtained a bad character among the blacks,
and his meetings were deserted. He is now a most passionate and wicked
man, having cast off even the show of religion.

Mr. B. visited Dublin Castle a few weeks since, and spent two days in
hearing complaints brought against the manager and book-keeper by the
apprentices. He fined the manager, for different acts of oppression, one
hundred and eight dollars. The attorney was present during the whole
time. Near the close of the second day he requested permission to say a
few words, which was granted. He raised his hands and eyes in the most
agonized manner, as though passion was writhing within, and burst
forth--"O, my God! my God! has it indeed come to this! Am I to be
arraigned in this way? Is my conduct to be questioned by these people?
Is my authority to be destroyed by the interference of stranger? O, my
God!" And he fell back into the arms of his book-keeper, and was carried
out of the room in convulsions.

The next morning we started on another excursion, for the purpose of
attending the appraisement of an apprentice belonging to Silver Hill, a
plantation about ten miles distant from Grecian Regale. We rode but a
short distance in the town road, when we struck off into a narrow defile
by a mule-path, and pushed into the very heart of the mountains.

We felt somewhat timid at the commencement of our excursion among these
minor Andes, but we gained confidence as we proceeded, and finding our
horse sure-footed and quite familiar with mountain paths, we soon
learned to gallop, without fear, along the highest cliffs, and through
the most dangerous passes. We were once put in some jeopardy by a drove
of mules, laden with coffee. We fortunately saw them, as they came round
the point of a hill, at some distance, in season to secure ourselves in
a little recess where the path widened. On they came, cheered by the
loud cries of their drivers, and passed rapidly forward, one after
another, with the headlong stupidity which animals, claiming more wisdom
than quadrupeds, not unfrequently manifest. When they came up to us,
however, they showed that they were not unaccustomed to such encounters,
and, although the space between us and the brow of the precipice, was
not three feet wide, they all contrived to sway their bodies and heavy
sacks in such a manner as to pass us safely, except one. He, more stupid
or more unlucky than the rest, struck us a full broad-side as he went by
jolting us hard against the hill, and well-nigh jolting himself down the
craggy descent into the abyss below. One leg hung a moment over the
precipice, but the poor beast suddenly threw his whole weight forward,
and by a desperate leap, obtained sure foothold in the path, and again
trudged along with his coffee-bags.

On our way we called at two plantations, but found no complaints. At one
of them we had some conversation with the overseer. He has on it one
hundred and thirty apprentices, and produces annually thirty thousand
pounds of coffee. He informed us that he was getting along well. His
people are industrious and obedient, as much so, to say the least, as
under the old system. The crop this year is not so great as usual, on
account of the severe drought. His plantation was never better
cultivated. Besides the one hundred and thirty apprentices, there are
forty free children, who are supported by their parents. None of them
will work for hire, or in any way put themselves under his control, as
the parents fear there is some plot laid for making them apprentices,
and through that process reducing them to slavery. He thinks this
feeling will continue till the apprenticeship is entirely broken up, and
the people begin to feel assured of complete freedom, when it will
disappear.

We reached Silver Hill about noon. This plantation contains one hundred
and ten apprentices, and is under the management of a colored man, who
has had charge of it seven years. He informed us that it was under as
good cultivation now as it was before emancipation. His people are
easily controlled. Very much depends on the conduct of the overseer. If
he is disposed to be just and kind, the apprentices are sure to behave
well; if he is harsh and severe, and attempts to _drive_ them, they will
take no pains to please him, but on the contrary, will be sulky and
obstinate.

There were three overseers from other estates present. One of them had
been an overseer for forty years, and he possessed the looks and
feelings which we suppose a man who has been thus long in a school of
despotism, must possess. He had a giant form, which seemed to be
breaking down with luxury and sensualism. His ordinary voice was hoarse
and gusty, and his smile diabolical. Emancipation had swept away his
power while it left the love of it ravaging his heart. He could not
speak of the new system with composure. His contempt and hatred of the
negro was unadulterated. He spoke of the apprentices with great
bitterness. They were excessively lazy and impudent, and were becoming
more and more so every day. They did not do half the work now that they
did before emancipation. It was the character of the negro never to work
unless compelled. His people would not labor for him an hour in their
own time, although he had offered to pay them for it. They have not the
least gratitude. They will leave him in the midst of his crop, and help
others, because they can get a little more. They spend all their half
Fridays and their Saturdays on other plantations where they receive
forty cents a day. Twenty-five cents is enough for them, and is as much
as he will give.

Mr. B. requested the overseer to bring forward his complaints. He had
only two. One was against a boy of ten for stealing a gill of goat's
milk. The charge was disproved. The other was against a boy of twelve
for neglecting the cattle, and permitting them to trespass on the lands
of a neighbor. He was sentenced to receive a good switching--that is, to
be beaten with a small stick by the constable of the plantation.

Several apprentices then appeared and made a few trivial complaints
against 'busha.' They were quickly adjusted. These were all the
complaints that had accumulated in five weeks.

The principal business which called Mr. Bourne to the plantation, as we
have already remarked, was the appraisement of an apprentice. The
appraisers were himself and a local magistrate. The apprentice was a
native born African, and was stolen from his country when a boy. He had
always resided on this plantation, and had always been a faithful
laborer. He was now the constable, or driver, as the office was called
in slavery times, of the second gang. The overseer testified to his
honesty and industry, and said he regretted much to have him leave. He
was, as appeared by the plantation books, fifty-four years old, but was
evidently above sixty. After examining several witnesses as to the old
man's ability and general health, and making calculations by the rule of
three, with the cold accuracy of a yankee horse-bargain, it was decided
that his services were worth to the plantation forty-eight dollars a
years, and for the remaining time of the apprenticeship, consequently,
at that rate, one hundred and fifty-six dollars. One third of this was
deducted as an allowance for the probabilities of death, and sickness,
leaving one hundred and four dollars as the price of his redemption. The
old man objected strongly and earnestly to the price; he said, it was
too much; he had not money enough to pay it; and begged them, with tears
in his eyes, not to make him pay so much "for his old bones;" but they
would not remit a cent. They could not. They were the stern ministers of
the British emancipation law, the praises of which have been shouted
through the earth!

Of the three overseers who were present, not one could be called a
respectable man. Their countenances were the mirrors of all lustful and
desperate passions. They were continually drinking rum and water, and
one of them was half drunk.

Our next visit was to an elevated plantation called Peter's Rock. The
path to it was, in one place, so steep, that we had to dismount and
permit our horses to work their way up as they could, while we followed
on foot. We then wound along among provision grounds and coffee fields,
through forests where hardly a track was to be seen, and over hedges,
which the horses were obliged to leap, till we issued on the great path
which leads from the plantation to Kingston.

Peter's Rock has one hundred apprentices, and is under the management,
as Mr. Bourne informed us, of a very humane man. During the two years
and a half of the apprenticeship, there had been _only six complaints_.
As we approached the plantation we saw the apprentices at the side of
the road, eating their breakfast. They had been at work some distance
from their houses, and could not spend time to go home. They saluted us
with great civility, most of them rising and uncovering their heads. In
answer to our questions, they said they were getting along very well.
They said their master was kind to them, and they appeared in
fine spirits.

The overseer met us as we rode up to the door, and received us very
courteously. He had no complaints. He informed us that the plantation
was as well cultivated as it had been for many years, and the people
were perfectly obedient and industrious.

From Peter's Rock we rode to "Hall's Prospect," a plantation on which
there are sixty apprentices under the charge of a black overseer, who,
two years ago, was a slave. It was five weeks since Mr. B. had been
there, and yet he had only one complaint, and that against a woman for
being late at work on Monday morning. The reason she gave for this was,
that she went to an estate some miles distant to spend the Sabbath with
her husband.

Mr. Bourne, by the aid of funds left in his hands by Mr. Sturge, is
about to establish a school on this plantation. Mr. B., at a previous
visit, had informed the people of what he intended to do, and asked
their co-operation. As soon as they saw him to-day, several of them
immediately inquired about the school, when it would begin, &c. They
showed the greatest eagerness and thankfulness. Mr. B. told them he
should send a teacher as soon as a house was prepared. He had been
talking with their master (the attorney of the plantation) about fixing
one, who had offered them the old "lock-up house," if they would put it
in order. There was a murmur among them at this annunciation. At length
one of the men said, they did not want the school to be held in the
"lock-up house." It was not a good place for their "pickaninnies" to go
to. They had much rather have some other building, and would be glad to
have it close to their houses. Mr. B. told them if they would put up a
small house near their own, he would furnish it with desks and benches.
To this they all assented with great joy.

On our way home we saw, as we did on various other occasions, many of
the apprentices with hoes, baskets, &c., going to their provision
grounds. We had some conversation with them as we rode along. They said
they had been in the fields picking coffee since half past five o'clock.
They were now going, as they always did after "horn-blow" in the
afternoon, (four o'clock,) to their grounds, where they should stay till
dark. Some of their grounds were four, others six miles from home. They
all liked the apprenticeship better than slavery. They were not flogged
so much now, and had more time to themselves. But they should like
freedom much better, and should be glad when it came.

We met a brown young woman driving an ass laden with a great variety of
articles. She said she had been to Kingston (fifteen miles off) with a
load of provisions, and had purchased some things to sell to the
apprentices. We asked her what she did with her money. "Give it to my
husband," said she. "Do you keep none for yourself?" She smiled and
replied: "What for him for me."

After we had passed, Mr. B. informed us that she had been an apprentice,
but purchased her freedom a few months previous, and was now engaged as
a kind of country merchant. She purchases provisions of the negroes, and
carries them to Kingston, where she exchanges them for pins, needles,
thread, dry goods, and such articles as the apprentices need, which she
again exchanges for provisions and money.

Mr. Bourne informed us that real estate is much higher than before
emancipation. He mentioned one "pen" which was purchased for eighteen
hundred dollars a few years since. The owner had received nine hundred
dollars as 'compensation' for freedom. It has lately been leased for
seven years by the owner, for nine hundred dollars per year.

A gentleman who owns a plantation in Mr. B.'s district, sold parcels of
land to the negroes before emancipation at five shillings per acre. He
now obtains twenty-seven shillings per acre.

The house in which Mr. B. resides was rented in 1833 for one hundred and
fifty dollars. Mr. B. engaged it on his arrival for three years, at two
hundred and forty dollars per year. His landlord informed him a few days
since, that on the expiration of his present lease, he should raise the
rent to three hundred and thirty dollars.

Mr. B. is acquainted with a gentleman of wealth, who has been
endeavoring for the last twelve months to purchase an estate in this
island. He has offered high prices, but has as yet been unable to obtain
one. Landholders have so much confidence in the value and security of
real estate, that they do not wish to part with it.

After our visit to Silver Hill, our attention was particularly turned to
the condition of the negro grounds. Most of them were very clean and
flourishing. Large plats of the onion, of cocoa, plantain, banana, yam,
potatoe, and other tropic vegetables, were scattered all around within
five or six miles of a plantation. We were much pleased with the
appearance of them during a ride on a Friday. In the forenoon, they had
all been vacant; not a person was to be seen in them; but after one
o'clock, they began gradually to be occupied, till, at the end of an
hour, where-ever we went, we saw men, women, and children laboring
industriously in their little gardens. In some places, the hills to
their very summits were spotted with cultivation. Till Monday morning
the apprentices were free, and they certainly manifested a strong
disposition to spend that time in taking care of themselves. The
testimony of the numerous apprentices with whom we conversed, was to the
same effect as our observation. They all testified that they were paying
as much attention to their grounds as they ever did, but that their
provisions had been cut short by the drought. They had their land all
prepared for a new crop, and were only waiting for rain to put in the
seed. Mr. Bourne corroborated their statement, and remarked, that he
never found the least difficulty in procuring laborers. Could he have
the possession of the largest plantation in the island to-day, he had no
doubt that, within a week, he could procure free laborers enough to
cultivate every acre.

On one occasion, while among the mountains, we were impressed on a jury
to sit in inquest on the body of a negro woman found dead on the high
road. She was, as appeared in evidence, on her return from the house of
correction, at Half-Way-Tree, where she had been sentenced for fourteen
days, and been put on the treadmill. She had complained to some of her
acquaintances of harsh treatment there, and said they had killed her,
and that if she ever lived to reach home, she should tell all her
massa's negroes never to cross the threshold of Half-Way-Tree, as it
would kill them. The evidence, however, was not clear that she died in
consequence of such treatment, and the jury, accordingly, decided that
she came to her death by some cause unknown to them.

Nine of the jury were overseers, and if they, collected together
indiscriminately on this occasion, were a specimen of those who have
charge of the apprentices in this island, they must be most degraded and
brutal men. They appeared more under the influence of low passions, more
degraded by sensuality, and but little more intelligent, than the
negroes themselves. Instead of possessing irresponsible power over their
fellows, they ought themselves to be under the power of the most strict
and energetic laws. Our visits to the plantations, and inquiries on this
point, confirmed this opinion. They are the 'feculum' of European
society--ignorant, passionate, licentious. We do them no injustice when
we say this, nor when we further add, that the apprentices suffer in a
hundred ways which the law cannot reach, gross insults and oppression
from their excessive rapaciousness and lust. What must it have been
during slavery?

We had some conversation with Cheny Hamilton, Esq., one of the special
magistrates for Port Royal. He is a colored man, and has held his office
about eighteen months. There are three thousand apprentices in his
district, which embraces sugar and coffee estates. The complaints are
few and of a very trivial nature. They mostly originate with the
planters. Most of the cases brought before him are for petty theft and
absence from work.

In his district, cultivation was never better. The negroes are willing
to work during their own time. His father-in-law is clearing up some
mountain land for a coffee plantation, by the labor of apprentices from
neighboring estates. The seasons since emancipation have been bad. The
blacks cultivate their own grounds on their half Fridays and Saturdays,
unless they can obtain employment from others.

Nothing is doing by the planters for the education of the apprentices.
Their only object is to get as much work out of them as possible.

The blacks, so far as he has had opportunity to observe, are in every
respect as quiet and industrious as they were before freedom. He said if
we would compare the character of the complaints brought by the
overseers and apprentices against each other, we should see for
ourselves which party was the most peaceable and law-abiding.

To these views we may here add those of another gentleman, with whom we
had considerable conversation about the same time. He is a proprietor
and local magistrate, and was represented to us as a kind and humane
man. Mr. Bourne stated to us that he had not had six cases of complaint
on his plantation for the last twelve months. We give his most important
statements in the following brief items:

1. He has had charge of estates in Jamaica since 1804. At one time he
had twelve hundred negroes under his control. He now owns a coffee
plantation, on which there are one hundred and ten apprentices, and is
also attorney for several others, the owners of which reside out of
the island.

2. His plantation is well cultivated and clean, and his people are as
industrious and civil as they ever were. He employs them during their
own time, and always finds them willing to work for him, unless their
own grounds require their attendance. Cultivation generally, through the
island, is as good as it ever was. Many of the planters, at the
commencement of the apprenticeship, reduced the quantity of land
cultivated; he did not do so, but on the contrary is extending his
plantation.

3. The crops this year are not so good as usual. This is no fault of the
apprentices, but is owing to the bad season.

4. The conduct of the apprentices depends very much on the conduct of
those who have charge of them. If you find a plantation on which the
overseer is kind, and does common justice to the laborer, you will find
things going on well--if otherwise, the reverse. Those estates and
plantations on which the proprietor himself resides, are most peaceable
and prosperous.

5. Real estate is more valuable than before emancipation. Property is
more secure, and capitalists are more ready to invest their funds.

6. The result of 1840 is as yet doubtful. For his part, he has no fears.
He doubts not he can cultivate his plantation as easily after that
period as before. He is confident he can do it cheaper. He thinks it not
only likely, but certain, that many of the plantations on which the
people have been ill used, while slaves and apprentices, will be
abandoned by the present laborers, and that they will never be worked
until overseers are put over them who, instead of doing all they can to
harass them, will soothe and conciliate them. The apprenticeship has
done much harm instead of good in the way of preparing the blacks to
work after 1840.

A few days after our return from the mountains, we rode to Spanishtown,
which is about twelve miles west of Kingston. Spanishtown is the seat of
government, containing the various buildings for the residence of the
governor, the meeting of the legislature, the session of the courts, and
rooms for the several officers of the crown. They are all strong and
massive structures, but display little architectural magnificence
or beauty.

We spent nearly a day with Richard Hill, Esq., the secretary of the
special magistrates' department, of whom we have already spoken. He is a
colored gentleman, and in every respect the noblest man, white or black,
whom we met in the West Indies. He is highly intelligent, and of fine
moral feelings. His manners are free and unassuming, and his language in
conversation fluent and well chosen. He is intimately acquainted with
English and French authors, and has studied thoroughly the history and
character of the people with whom the tie of color has connected him. He
travelled two years in Hayti, and his letters, written in a flowing and
luxuriant style, as a son of the tropics should write, giving an account
of his observations and inquiries in that interesting island, were
published extensively in England; and have been copied into the
anti-slavery journals in this country. His journal will be given to the
public as soon as his official duties will permit him to prepare it. He
is at the head of the special magistrates, (of which there are sixty in
the island,) and all the correspondence between them and the governor is
carried on through him. The station he holds is a very important one,
and the business connected with it is of a character and an extent that,
were he not a man of superior abilities, he could not sustain. He is
highly respected by the government in the island, and at home, and
possesses the esteem of his fellow-citizens of all colors. He associates
with persons of the highest rank, dining and attending parties at the
government-house with all the aristocracy of Jamaica. We had the
pleasure of spending an evening with him at the solicitor-general's.
Though an African sun has burnt a deep tinge on him, he is truly one of
nature's noblemen. His demeanor is such, so dignified, yet bland and
amiable, that no one can help respecting him.

He spoke in the warmest terms of Lord Sligo,[A] the predecessor of Sir
Lionel Smith, who was driven from the island by the machinations of the
planters and the enemies of the blacks. Lord Sligo was remarkable for
his statistical accuracy. Reports were made to him by the special
magistrates every week. No act of injustice or oppression could escape
his indefatigable inquiries. He was accessible, and lent an open ear to
the lowest person in the island. The planters left no means untried to
remove him, and unhappily succeeded.

[Footnote A: When Lord Sligo visited the United States in the summer of
1836, he spoke with great respect of Mr. Hill to Elizur Wright, Esq.,
Corresponding Secretary of the American Anti-Slavery Society. Mr. Wright
has furnished us with the following statement:--"Just before his
lordship left this city for England, he bore testimony to us
substantially as follows:--'When I went to Jamaica, Mr. Hill was a
special magistrate. In a certain case he refused to comply with my
directions, differing from me in his interpretation of the law. I
informed him that his continued non-compliance must result in his
removal from office. He replied that his mind was made up as to the law,
and he would not violate his reason to save his bread. Being satisfied
of the correctness of my own interpretation, I was obliged, of course,
to remove him; but I was so forcibly struck with his manly independence,
that I applied to the government for power to employ him as my
secretary, which was granted. And having had him as an _intimate of my
family_ for several months, I can most cordially bear my testimony to
his trustworthiness, ability, and gentlemanly deportment.' Lord Sligo
also added, that Mr. Hill was treated in his family in all respects as
if he had not been colored, and that with no gentleman in the West
Indies was he, in social life, on terms of more intimate friendship."]

The following items contain the principal information received from Mr.
Hill:

1. The apprenticeship is a most vicious system, full of blunders and
absurdities, and directly calculated to set master and slave at war.

2. The complaints against the apprentices are decreasing every month,
_except, perhaps, complaints against mothers for absence from work,
which he thinks are increasing_. The apprenticeship _law_ makes no
provision for the free children, and on most of the plantations and
estates no allowance is given them, but they are thrown entirely for
support on their parents, who are obliged to work the most and best part
of their time for their masters unrewarded. The nurseries are broken up,
and frequently the mothers are obliged to work in the fields with their
infants at their backs, or else to leave them at some distance under the
shade of a hedge or tree. Every year is making their condition worse and
worse. The number of children is increasing, and yet the mothers are
required, after their youngest child has attained the age of a few
weeks, to be at work the same number of hours as the men. Very little
time is given them to take care of their household. When they are tardy
they are brought before the magistrate.

A woman was brought before Mr. Hill a few days before we were there,
charged with not being in the field till one hour after the rest of the
gang. She had twins, and appeared before him with a child hanging on
each arm. What an eloquent defence! He dismissed the complaint.

He mentioned another case, of a woman whose master resided in
Spanishtown, but who was hired out by him to some person in the country.
Her child became sick, but her employer refused any assistance. With it
in her arms, she entreated aid of her master. The monster drove her and
her dying little one into the street at night, and she sought shelter
with Mr. Hill, where her child expired before morning. For such horrid
cruelty as this, the apprenticeship law provides no remedy. The woman
had no claim for the support of her child, on the man who was receiving
the wages of her daily toil. That child was not worth a farthing to him,
because it was no longer his _chattel_; and while the law gives him
power to rob the mother, it has no compulsion to make him support
the child.

3. The complaints are generally of the most trivial and frivolous
nature. They are mostly against mothers for neglect of duty, and vague
charges of insolence. There is no provision in the law to prevent the
master from using abusive language to the apprentice; any insult short
of a blow, he is free to commit; but the slightest word of incivility, a
look, smile, or grin, is punished in the apprentice, even though it
were provoked.

4. There is still much flogging by the overseers. Last week a girl came
to Mr. H. terribly scarred and "slashed," and complained that her master
had beaten her. It appeared that this was the _seventh offence_, for
neither of which she could obtain a hearing from the special magistrate
in her district. While Mr. H. was relating to me this fact, a girl came
in with a little babe in her arms. He called my attention to a large
bruise near her eye. He said her master knocked her down a few days
since, and made that wound by kicking her.

Frequently when complaints of insolence are made, on investigation, it
is found that the offence was the result of a quarrel commenced by the
master, during which he either cuffed or kicked the offender.

The special magistrates also frequently resort to flogging. Many of
them, as has been mentioned already, have been connected with the army
or navy, where corporal punishment is practised and flogging is not only
in consonance with their feelings and habits, but is a punishment more
briefly inflicted and more grateful to the planters, as it does not
deprive them of the apprentice's time.

5. Mr. H. says that the apprentices who have purchased their freedom
behave well. He has not known one of them to be brought before
the police.

6. Many of the special magistrates require much looking after. Their
salaries are not sufficient to support them independently. Some of them
leave their homes on Monday morning, and make the whole circuit of their
district before returning, living and lodging meanwhile, _free of
expense_, with the planters. If they are not inclined to listen to the
complaints of the apprentices, they soon find that the apprentices are
not inclined to make complaints to them, and that they consequently have
much more leisure time, and get through their district much easier. Of
the sixty magistrates in Jamaica, but few can be said to discharge their
duties faithfully. The governor is often required to interfere. A few
weeks since he discharged two magistrates for putting iron collars on
two women, in direct violation of the law, and then sending him
false reports.

7. The negro grounds are often at a great distance, five or six miles,
and some of them fifteen miles, from the plantation. Of course much
time, which would otherwise be spent in cultivating them, is necessarily
consumed in going to them and returning. Yet for all that, and though in
many cases the planters have withdrawn the watchmen who used to protect
them, and have left them entirely exposed to thieves and cattle, they
are generally well cultivated--on the whole, better than during slavery.
When there is inattention to them, it is caused either by some planters
hiring them during their own time, or because their master permits his
cattle to trespass on them, and the people feel an insecurity. When you
find a kind planter, in whom the apprentices have confidence, there you
will find beautiful gardens. In not a few instances, where the overseer
is particularly harsh and cruel, the negroes have thrown up their old
grounds, and taken new ones on other plantations, where the overseer is
better liked, or gone into the depths of the mountain forests, where no
human foot has been before them, and there cleared up small plats. This
was also done to some extent during slavery. Many of the people, against
whom the planters are declaiming as lazy and worthless, have rich
grounds of which those planters little dream.

8. There is no feeling of insecurity, either of life or property. One
may travel through the whole island without the least fear of violence.
If there is any danger, it is from the _emigrants_, who have been guilty
of several outrages. So far from the planters fearing violence from the
apprentices, when an assault or theft is committed, they refer it,
almost as a matter of course, to some one else. A few weeks ago one of
the island mails was robbed. As soon as it became known, it was at once
said, "Some of those villanous emigrants did it," and so indeed
it proved.

People in the country, in the midst of the mountains, where the whites
are few and isolated, sleep with their doors and windows open, without a
thought of being molested. In the towns there are no watchmen, and but a
small police, and yet the streets are quiet and property safe.

9. The apprentices understand the great provisions of the new system,
such as the number of hours they must work for their master, and that
their masters have no right to flog them, &c., but its details are
inexplicable mysteries. The masters have done much injury by deceiving
them on points of which they were ignorant.

10. The apprentices almost to a man are ready to work for wages during
their own time. When the overseer is severe towards them, they prefer
working on other plantations, even for less wages, as is very natural.

11. Almost all the evils of the apprenticeship arise from the obstinacy
and oppressive conduct of the overseers. They are constantly taking
advantage of the defects of the system, which are many, and while they
demand to the last grain's weight "the pound of flesh," they are utterly
unwilling to yield the requirements which the law makes of them. Where
you find an overseer endeavoring in every way to overreach the
apprentices, taking away the privileges which they enjoyed during
slavery, and exacting from them the utmost minute and mite of labor,
there you will find abundant complaints both against the master and the
apprentice. And the reverse. The cruel overseers are complaining of
idleness, insubordination, and ruin, while the kind master is moving on
peaceably and prosperously.

12. The domestic apprentices have either one day, or fifty cents cash,
each week, as an allowance for food and clothing. This is quite
insufficient. Many of the females seem obliged to resort to theft or to
prostitution to obtain a support. Two girls were brought before Mr. Hill
while we were with him, charged with neglect of duty and night-walking.
One of them said her allowance was too small, and she must get food in
some other way or starve.

13. The apprentices on many plantations have been deprived of several
privileges which they enjoyed under the old system. Nurseries have been
abolished, water-carriers have been taken away, keeping stock is
restricted, if not entirely forbidden, watchmen are no longer provided
to guard the negro grounds, &c.--petty aggressions in our eyes, perhaps,
but severe to them. Another instance is still more hard. By the custom
of slavery, women who had reared up seven children were permitted to
"sit down," as it was termed; that is, were not obliged to go into the
field to work. Now no such distinction is made, but all are driven into
the field.

14. One reason why the crops were smaller in 1835 and 1836 than in
former years, was, that the planters in the preceding seasons, either
fearful that the negroes would not take off the crops after
emancipation, and acting on their baseless predictions instead of facts,
or determined to make the results of emancipation appear as disastrous
as possible, neglected to put in the usual amount of cane, and to clean
the coffee fields. As they refused to sow, of course they could
not reap.

15. The complaints against the apprentices generally are becoming fewer
every week, but the complaints against the masters are increasing both
in number and severity. One reason of this is, that the apprentices, on
the one hand, are becoming better acquainted with the new system, and
therefore better able to avoid a violation of its provisions, and are
also learning that they cannot violate these provisions with impunity;
and, on the other hand, they are gaining courage to complain against
their masters, to whom they have hitherto been subjected by a fear
created by the whips and dungeons, and nameless tortures of slavery.
Another reason is, that the masters, as the term of the apprenticeship
shortens, and the end of their authority approaches nearer, are pressing
their poor victims harder and harder, determined to extort from them all
they can, before complete emancipation rescues them for ever from
their grasp.

While we were in conversation with Mr. Hill, Mr. Ramsay, one of the
special magistrates for this parish, called in. He is a native of
Jamaica, and has been educated under all the influences of West India
society, but has held fast his integrity, and is considered the firm
friend of the apprentices. He confirmed every fact and opinion which Mr.
Hill had given. He was even stronger than Mr. H. in his expressions of
disapprobation of the apprenticeship.

The day which we spent with Mr. Hill was one of those on which he holds
a special justice's court. There were only three cases of complaint
brought before him.

The first was brought by a woman, attended by her husband, against her
servant girl, for "impertinence and insubordination." She took the oath
and commenced her testimony with an abundance of vague charges. "She is
the most insolent girl I ever saw. She'll do nothing that she is told to
do--she never thinks of minding what is said to her--she is sulky and
saucy," etc. Mr. H. told her she must be specific--he could not convict
the girl on such general charges--some particular acts must be proved.

She became specific. Her charges were as follows:

1. On the previous Thursday the defendant was plaiting a shirt. The
complainant went up to her and asked her why she did not plait it as she
ought, and not hold it in her hand as she did. Defendant replied, that
it was easier, and she preferred that way to the other. The complainant
remonstrated, but, despite all she could say, the obstinate girl
persisted, and did it as she chose. The complainant granted that the
work was done well, only it was not done in the way she desired.

2. The same day she ordered the defendant to wipe up some tracks in the
hall. She did so. While she was doing it, the mistress told her the room
was very dusty, and reproved her for it. The girl replied, "Is it
morning?" (It is customary to clean the rooms early in the morning, and
the girl made this reply late in the afternoon, when sufficient time had
elapsed for the room to become dusty again.)

3. The girl did not wash a cloth clean which the complainant gave her,
and the complainant was obliged to wash it herself.

4. Several times when the complainant and her daughter have been
conversing together, this girl had burst into laughter--whether at them
or their conversation, complainant did not know.

5. When the complainant has reproved the defendant for not doing her
work well, she has replied, "Can't you let me alone to my work, and not
worry my life out."

A black man, a constable on the same property, was brought up to confirm
the charges. He knew nothing about the case, only that he often heard
the parties quarrelling, and sometimes had told the girl not to say any
thing, as she knew what her mistress was.

It appeared in the course of the evidence, that the complainant and her
husband had both been in the habit of speaking disrespectfully of the
special magistrate, stationed in their district, and that many of the
contentions arose out of that, as the girl sometimes defended him.

While the accused was making her defence, which she did in a modest way,
her mistress was highly enraged, and interrupted her several times, by
calling her a liar and a jade. The magistrate was two or three times
obliged to reprove her, and command her to be silent, and, so passionate
did she become, that her husband, ashamed of her, put his hand on her
shoulder, and entreated her to be calm.

Mr. Hill dismissed the complaint by giving some good advice to both
parties, much to the annoyance of the mistress.

The second complaint was brought by a man against a servant girl, for
disobedience of orders, and insolence. It appears that she was ordered,
at ten o'clock at night, to do some work. She was just leaving the house
to call on some friends, as she said, and refused. On being told by her
mistress that she only wanted to go out for bad purposes, she replied,
that "It was no matter--the allowance they gave her was not sufficient
to support her, and if they would not give her more, she must get a
living any way she could, so she did not steal." She was sentenced to
the house of correction for one week.

The third case was a complaint against a boy for taking every alternate
Friday and Saturday, instead of every Saturday, for allowance. He was
ordered to take every Saturday, or to receive in lieu of it half
a dollar.

Mr. Hill said these were a fair specimen of the character of the
complaints that came before him. We were much pleased with the manner in
which he presided in his court, the ease, dignity, and impartiality
which he exhibited, and the respect which was shown him by all parties.

In company with Mr. Hill, we called on Rev. Mr. Phillips, the Baptist
missionary, stationed at Spanishtown. Mr. P. has been in the island
thirteen years. He regards the apprenticeship as a great amelioration of
the old system of slavery, but as coming far short of the full
privileges and rights of freedom, and of what it was expected to be. It
is beneficial to the missionaries, as it gives them access to the
plantations, while before, in many instances, they were entirely
excluded from them, and in all cases were much shackled in their
operations.

Mr. P. has enlarged his chapel within the last fifteen months, so that
it admits several hundreds more than formerly. But it is now too small.
The apprentices are much more anxious to receive religious instruction,
and much more open to conviction, than when slaves. He finds a great
difference now on different plantations. Where severity is used, as it
still is on many estates, and the new system is moulded as nearly as
possible on the old, the minds of the apprentices are apparently closed
against all impressions,--but where they are treated with kindness, they
are warm in their affections, and solicitous to be taught.

In connection with his church, Mr. P. has charge of a large school. The
number present, when we visited it, was about two hundred. There was, to
say the least, as much manifestation of intellect and sprightliness as
we ever saw in white pupils of the same age. Most of the children were
slaves previous to 1834, and their parents are still apprentices.
Several were pointed out to us who were not yet free, and attend only by
permission, sometimes purchased, of their master. The greater part live
from three to five miles distant. Mr. P. says he finds no lack of
interest among the apprentices about education. He can find scholars for
as many schools as he can establish, if he keeps himself unconnected
with the planters. The apprentices are opposed to all schools
established by, or in any way allied to, their masters.

Mr. P. says the planters are doing nothing to prepare the apprentices
for freedom in 1840. They do not regard the apprenticeship as
intermediate time for preparation, but as part of the _compensation_.
Every day is counted, not as worth so much for education and moral
instruction, but as worth so much for digging cane-holes, and clearing
coffee fields.

Mr. P.'s church escaped destruction during the persecution of the
Baptists. The wives and connections of many of the colored soldiers had
taken refuge in it, and had given out word that they would defend it
even against their own husbands and brothers, who in turn informed their
officers that if ordered to destroy it, they should refuse at all peril.



CHAPTER III.

RESULTS OF ABOLITION.

The actual working of the apprenticeship in Jamaica, was the specific
object of our investigations in that island. That it had not operated so
happily as in Barbadoes, and in most of the other colonies, was admitted
by all parties. As to the _degree_ of its failure, we were satisfied it
was not so great as had been represented. There has been nothing of an
_insurrectionary_ character since the abolition of slavery. The affair
on Thornton's estate, of which an account is given in the preceding
chapter, is the most serious disturbance which has occurred during the
apprenticeship. The _fear_ of insurrection is as effectually dead in
Jamaica, as in Barbadoes--so long as the apprenticeship lasts. There has
been no _increase of crime_. The character of the negro population has
been gradually improving in morals and intelligence. Marriage has
increased, the Sabbath is more generally observed, and religious worship
is better attended. Again, the apprentices of Jamaica have not
manifested any peculiar _defiance of law_. The most illiberal
magistrates testified that the people respected the law, when they
understood it. As it respects the _industry_ of the apprentices, there
are different opinions among the _planters_ themselves. Some admitted
that they were as industrious as before, and did as much work _in
proportion to the time they were employed_. Others complained that they
_lacked the power_ to compel industry, and that hence there was a
falling off of work. The prominent evils complained of in Jamaica are,
absconding from work, and insolence to masters. From the statements in
the preceding chapter, it may be inferred that many things are called by
these names, and severely punished, which are really innocent or
unavoidable; however, it would not be wonderful if there were numerous
instances of both. Insolence is the legitimate fruit of the
apprenticeship, which holds out to the apprentice, that he possesses the
rights of a man, and still authorizes the master to treat him as though
he were little better than a dog. The result must often be that the
apprentice will repay insult with insolence. This will continue to exist
until either the former system of _absolute force_ is restored, or a
system of free compensated labor, with its powerful checks and balances
on both parties, is substituted. The prevalence and causes of the other
offence--absconding from labor--will be noticed hereafter.

The atrocities which are practised by the masters and magistrates, are
appalling enough. It is probable that the actual condition of the
negroes in Jamaica, is but little if any better than it was during
slavery. The amount of punishment inflicted by the special magistrates,
cannot fall much short of that usually perpetrated by the drivers. In
addition to this, the apprentices are robbed of the _time_ allowed them
by law, at the will of the magistrate, who often deprives them of it on
the slightest complaint of the overseer. The situation of the _free
children_[A] is often very deplorable. The master feels none of that
interest in them which he formerly felt in the children that were his
property, and consequently, makes no provision for them. They are thrown
entirely upon their parents, who are _unable_ to take proper care of
them, from the almost constant demands which the master makes upon their
time. The condition of pregnant women, and nursing mothers, is
_decidedly worse_ than it was during slavery. The privileges which the
planter felt it for his interest to grant these formerly, for _the sake
of their children_, are now withheld. The former are exposed to the
inclemencies of the weather, and the hardships of toil--the latter are
cruelly dragged away from their infants, that the master may not lose
the smallest portion of time,--and _both_ are liable at any moment to be
incarcerated in the dungeon, or strung up on the treadwheel. In
consequence of the cruelties which are practised, the apprentices are in
a _disaffected state_ throughout the island.

[Footnote A: All children under _six years_ of age at the time of
abolition, were made entirely free.]

In assigning the causes of the ill-working of the apprenticeship in
Jamaica, we would say in the commencement, that nearly all of them are
embodied in the intrinsic defects of the system itself. These defects
have been exposed in a former chapter, and we need not repeat them here.
The reason why the system has not produced as much mischief in all the
colonies as it has in Jamaica, is that the local circumstances in the
other islands were not so adapted to develop its legitimate results.

It is not without the most careful investigation of facts, that we have
allowed ourselves to entertain the views which we are now about to
express, respecting the conduct of the planters and special
justices--for it is to _them_ that we must ascribe the evils which exist
in Jamaica. We cheerfully accede to them all of palliation which may be
found in the provocations incident to the wretched system of
apprenticeship.

The causes of the difficulties rest chiefly with the _planters_. They
were _originally_ implicated, and by their wily schemes they soon
involved the special magistrates. The Jamaica planters, as a body,
always violently opposed the abolition of slavery. Unlike the planters
in most of the colonies, they cherished their hostility _after the act
of abolition_. It would seem that they had agreed with one accord, never
to become reconciled to the measures of the English government, and had
sworn eternal hostility to every scheme of emancipation. Whether this
resulted most from love for slavery or hatred of English interference,
it is difficult to determine. If we were to believe the planters
themselves, who are of the opposition, we should conclude that they were
far from being in favor of slavery--that they were "as much opposed to
slavery, as any one can be[A]." Notwithstanding this avowal, the
tenacity with which the planters cling to the remnant of their power,
shows an affection for it, of the strength of which they are not
probably themselves aware.

[Footnote A: It seems to be the order of the day, with the opposition
party in Jamaica, to disclaim all friendship with slavery. We noticed
several instances of this in the island papers, which have been most
hostile to abolition. We quote the following sample from the Royal
Gazette, (Kingston) for May 6, 1837. The editor, in an article
respecting Cuba, says:

    "In writing this, one chief object is to arouse the attention of our
    own fellow-subjects, in this colony, to the situation--the dangerous
    situation--in which they stand, and to implore them to lend all
    their energies to avert the ruin that is likely to visit them,
    should America get the domination of Cuba.

    The negroes of this and of all the British W.I. colonies have been
    '_emancipated_.' Cuba on the other hand is still a _slave country_.
    (Let not our readers imagine for one moment that we advocate the
    _continuance of slavery_,") &c.
]

When public men have endeavored to be faithful and upright, they have
uniformly been abused, and even persecuted, by the planters. The
following facts will show that the latter have not scrupled to resort to
the most dishonest and unmanly intrigues to effect the removal or to
circumvent the influence of such men. Neglect, ridicule, vulgar abuse,
slander, threats, intimidation, misrepresentation, and legal
prosecutions, have been the mildest weapons employed against those who
in the discharge of their sworn duties dared to befriend the oppressed.

The shameful treatment of the late governor, Lord Sligo, illustrates
this. His Lordship was appointed to the government about the period of
abolition. Being himself a proprietor of estates in the island, and
formerly chairman of the West India Body, he was received at first with
the greatest cordiality; but it was soon perceived that he was disposed
to secure justice to the apprentices. From the accounts we received, we
have been led to entertain an exalted opinion of his integrity and
friendship for the poor. It was his custom (unprecedented in the West
Indies,) to give a patient hearing to the poorest negro who might carry
his grievances to the government-house. After hearing the complaint, he
would despatch an order to the special magistrate of the district in
which the complainant lived, directing him to inquire into the case. By
this means he kept the magistrates employed, and secured redress to the
apprentices to many cases where they would otherwise have bean
neglected.

The governor soon rendered himself exceedingly obnoxious to the
planters, and they began to manoeuvre for his removal, which, in a short
time, was effected by a most flagitious procedure. The home government,
disposed to humor their unruly colony, sent them a governor in whom they
are not likely to find any fault. The present governor, Sir Lionel
Smith, is the antipode of his predecessor in every worthy respect. When
the apprentices come to him with their complaints, he sends them back
unheard, with curses on their heads. A distinguished gentleman in the
colony remarked of him that he _was a heartless military chieftain, who
ruled without regard to mercy_. Of course the planters are full of his
praise. His late tour of the island was a _triumphal procession_, amid
the sycophantic greetings of oppressors.

Several special magistrates have been suspended because of the faithful
discharge of their duties. Among these was Dr. Palmer, an independent
and courageous man. Repeated complaints were urged against him by the
planters, until finally Sir Lionel Smith appointed a commission to
inquire into the grounds of the difficulty.

"This commission consisted of two local magistrates, both of them
planters or managers of estates, and two stipendiary magistrates, the
bias of one of whom, at least, was believed to be against Dr. Palmer. At
the conclusion of their inquiry they summed up their report by saying
that Dr. Palmer had administered the abolition law in the spirit of the
English abolition act, and in his administration of the law he had
adapted it more to the comprehension of freemen than to the
understandings of apprenticed laborers. Not only did Sir Lionel Smith
suspend Dr. Palmer on this report, but the colonial office at home have
dismissed him from his situation."

The following facts respecting the persecution of Special Justice
Bourne, illustrate the same thing.

    "A book-keeper of the name of Maclean, on the estate of the Rev. M.
    Hamilton, an Irish clergyman, committed a brutal assault upon an old
    African. The attorney on the property refused to hear the complaint
    of the negro, who went to Stephen Bourne, a special magistrate. When
    Maclean was brought before him, he did not deny the fact; but said
    as the old man was not a Christian, his oath could not be taken! The
    magistrate not being able to ascertain the amount of injury
    inflicted upon the negro (whose head was dreadfully cut,) but
    feeling that it was a case which required a greater penalty than
    three pounds sterling, the amount of punishment to which he was
    limited by the local acts, detained Maclean, and afterwards
    committed him to jail, and wrote the next day to the chief justice
    upon the subject. He was discharged as soon as a doctor's
    certificate was procured of the state of the wounded man, and bail
    was given for his appearance at the assizes. Maclean's trial came on
    at the assizes, and he was found guilty by a Jamaica Jury; he was
    severely reprimanded for his inhuman conduct and fined thirty
    pounds. The poor apprentice however got no remuneration for the
    severe injury inflicted upon him, and the special justice was
    prosecuted for false imprisonment, dragged from court to court,
    represented as an oppressor and a tyrant, subjected to four hundred
    pounds expenses in defending himself, and actually had judgment
    given against him for one hundred and fifty pounds damages.

    Thus have the planters succeeded in pulling down every magistrate
    who ventures to do more than fine them three pounds sterling for any
    act of cruelty of which they may be guilty. On the other hand, there
    were two magistrates who were lately dismissed, through, I believe,
    the representation of Lord Sligo, for flagrant violations of the law
    in inflicting punishment; and in order to evince their sympathy for
    those men, the planters gave them a farewell dinner, and had
    actually set on foot a subscription, as a tribute of gratitude for
    their "Impartial" conduct in administering the laws, as special
    justices. Thus were two men, notoriously guilty of violations of law
    and humanity, publicly encouraged and protected, while Stephen
    Bourne, who according to the testimony of the present and late
    attorney-general had acted not only justly but _legally_, was
    suffering every species of persecution and indignity for so doing."

Probably nothing could demonstrate the meanness of the artifices to
which the planters resort to get rid of troublesome magistrates better
than the following fact. When the present governor, in making his tour
of the island, came into St. Thomas in the East, some of the planters of
Manchioneal district hired a negro constable on one of the estates to go
to the governor and complain to him that Mr. Chamberlain encouraged the
apprentices to be disorderly and idle. The negro went accordingly, but
like another Balaam, he prophesied _against his employers_. He stated to
the governor that the apprentices on the estate where he lived were lazy
and wouldn't do right, _but he declared that it was not Mr. C.'s fault,
for that he was not allowed to come on the estate!_

Having given such an unfavorable description of the mass of planters, it
is but just to add that there are a few honorable exceptions. There are
some attorneys and overseers, who if they dared to face the allied
powers of oppression, would act a noble part. But they are trammelled by
an overpowering public sentiment, and are induced to fall in very much
with the prevailing practices. One of this class, an attorney of
considerable influence, declined giving us his views in writing, stating
that his situation and the state of public sentiment must be his
apology. An overseer who was disposed to manifest the most liberal
bearing towards his apprentices, and who had directions from the
absentee proprietor to that effect, was yet effectually prevented by his
attorney, who having several other estates under his charge, was fearful
of losing them, if he did not maintain the same severe discipline
on all.

The special magistrates are also deeply implicated in causing the
difficulties existing under the apprenticeship. They are incessantly
exposed to multiplied and powerful temptations. The persecution which
they are sure to incur by a faithful discharge of their duties, has
already been noticed. It would require men of unusual sternness of
principle to face so fierce an array. Instead of being _independent_ of
the planters, their situation is in every respect totally the reverse.
Instead of having a central office or station-house to hold their courts
at, as is the case in Barbadoes, they are required to visit each estate
in their districts. They have a circuit from forty to sixty miles to
compass every fortnight, or in some cases three times every month. On
these tours they are absolutely dependent upon the hospitality of the
planters. None but men of the "sterner stuff" could escape, (to use the
negro's phrase) _being poisoned by massa's turtle soup._ The _character_
of the men who are acting as magistrates is thus described by a colonial
magistrate of high standing and experience.

"The special magistracy department is filled with the most worthless
men, both domestic and imported. It was a necessary qualification of the
former to possess no property; hence the most worthless vagabonds on the
island were appointed. The latter were worn out officers and dissipated
rakes, whom the English government sent off here in order to get rid of
them." As a specimen of the latter kind, this gentleman mentioned one
(special Justice Light) who died lately from excessive dissipation. He
was constantly drunk, and the only way in which to get him to do any
business was to take him on to an estate in the evening so that he might
sleep off his intoxication, and then the business was brought before him
early the next morning, before he had time to get to his cups.

It is well known that many of the special magistrates are totally
unprincipled men, monsters of cruelty, lust, and despotism. As a result
of natural character in many cases, and of dependence upon planters in
many more, the great mass of the special justices are a disgrace to
their office, and to the government which commissioned them. Out of
sixty, the number of special justices in Jamaica, there are not more
than fifteen, or twenty at farthest, who are not the merest tools of the
attorneys and overseers. Their servility was graphically hit off by the
apprentice. "If busha say flog em, he flog em; if busha say send them to
the treadmill, he send em." If an apprentice laughs or sings, and the
busha represents it to the magistrate as insolence, he _feels it his
duty_ to make an example of the offender!

The following fact will illustrate the injustice of the magistrates. It
was stated in writing by a missionary. We conceal all names, in
compliance with the request of the writer. "An apprentice belonging to
---- in the ---- was sent to the treadmill by special justice G. He was
ordered to go out and count the sheep, as he was able to count higher
than some of the field people, although a house servant from his
youth--I may say childhood. Instead of bringing in the tally cut upon a
piece of board, as usual, he wrote the number eighty upon a piece of
paper. When the overseer saw it, he would scarcely believe that any of
his people could write, and ordered a piece of coal to be brought and
made him write it over again; the next day he turned him into the field,
but unable to perform the task (to hoe and weed one hundred coffee roots
daily) with those who had been accustomed to field work all their lives,
he was tried for neglect of duty, and sentenced to fourteen days on the
treadmill!"

We quote the following heart-rending account from the Telegraph,
(Spanishtown,) April 28, 1837. It is from a Baptist missionary.

    "I see something is doing in England to shorten the apprenticeship
    system. I pray God it may soon follow its predecessor--slavery, for
    it is indeed slavery under a less disgusting name. Business lately
    (December 23) called me to Rodney Hall; and while I was there, a
    poor old negro was brought in for punishment. I heard the fearful
    vociferation, 'twenty stripes.' 'Very well; here ----, put this man
    down.' I felt as I cannot describe; yet I thought, as the supervisor
    was disposed to be civil, my presence might tend to make the
    punishment less severe than it usually is--but I was disappointed. I
    inquired into the crime for which such an old man could be so
    severely punished, and heard various accounts. I wrote to the
    magistrate who sentenced him to receive it; and after many days I
    got the following reply."

    "_Logan Castle, Jan. 9, 1836._

    Sir--In answer to your note of the 4th instant, I beg leave to
    state, that ---- ----, an apprentice belonging to ---- ----, was
    brought before me by Mr. ----, his late overseer, charged upon oath
    with continual neglect of duty and disobedience of orders as
    cattle-man, and also for stealing milk--was convicted, and sentenced
    to receive twenty stripes. So far from the punishment of the
    offender being severe, he was not ordered one half the number of
    stripes provided for such cases by the abolition act--if he received
    more than that number, or if those were inflicted with undue
    severity, I shall feel happy in making every inquiry amongst the
    authorities at Rodney Hall institution.

    I remain, sir, yours, truly,

    T.W. JONES, S.M."

'Rev. J. Clarke, &c., &c.'

From Mr. Clarke's reply, we make the following extract:

    "_Jericho, January 19, 1836._

    Sir--I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th
    instant.

    Respecting the punishment of ---- ----, I still adhere to the
    opinion I before expressed, that, for an old man of about sixty
    years of age, the punishment was severe. To see a venerable old man
    tied as if to be broken on the wheel, and cut to the bone by the
    lash of an athletic driver--writhing and yelling under the most
    exquisite torture, were certainly circumstances sufficiently strong
    to touch the heart of any one possessed of the smallest degree of
    common humanity. The usual preparations being made, the old man
    quietly stripped off his upper garments, and lay down upon the
    board--he was then tied by his legs, middle, above the elbows, and
    at each wrist. Mr. ---- then called out to the driver, 'I hope you
    will do your duty--he is not sent here for nothing.' At the first
    lash the skin started up; and at the third, the blood began to flow;
    ere the driver had given ten, the cat was covered with gore; and he
    stopped to change it for a dry one, which appeared to me somewhat
    longer than the first. When the poor tortured creature had received
    sixteen, his violent struggles enabled him to get one of his hands
    loose, which he put instantly to his back--the driver stopped to
    retie him, and then proceeded to give the remaining four. The
    struggles of the poor old man from the first lash bespoke the most
    extreme torture; and his cries were to me most distressing. 'Oh! oh!
    mercy! mercy! mercy! oh! massa! massa! dat enough--enough! oh,
    enough! O, massa, have pity! O, massa! massa! dat enough--enough!
    Oh, never do de like again--only pity me--forgive me dis once! oh!
    pity! mercy! mercy! oh! oh!' were the cries he perpetually uttered.
    I shall remember them while I live; and would not for ten thousand
    worlds have been the cause of producing them. It was some minutes
    after he was loosed ere he could rise to his feet, and as he
    attempted to rise, he continued calling out, 'My back! oh! my back!
    my back is broken.' A long time he remained half-doubled, the blood
    flowing round his body; 'I serve my master,' said the aged sufferer,
    'at all times; get no Saturday, no Sunday; yet this is de way
    dem use me.'

    With such planters, and such magistrates to play into their hands,
    is it to be wondered at that the apprentices do badly? Enough has
    been said, we think, to satisfy any candid person as to the _causes
    of the evils in Jamaica_. If any thing further were needed, we might
    speak of the peculiar facilities which these men have for
    perpetrating acts of cruelty and injustice. The major part of the
    island is exceedingly mountainous, and a large portion of the sugar
    estates, and most of the coffee plantations, are among the
    mountains. These estates are scattered over a wide extent of
    country, and separated by dense forests and mountains, which conceal
    each plantation from the public view almost as effectually as though
    it were the only property on the island. The only mode of access to
    many of the estates in the mountainous districts, is by mule paths
    winding about, amid fastnesses, precipices, and frightful solitudes.
    In those lone retirements, on the mountain top, or in the deep glen
    by the side of the rocky rivers, the traveller occasionally meets
    with an estate. Strangers but rarely intrude upon those little
    domains. They are left to the solitary sway of the overseers
    dwelling amid their "gangs," and undisturbed, save by the weekly
    visitations of the special magistrates. While the traveller is
    struck with the facilities for the perpetration of those enormities
    which must have existed there during slavery; he is painfully
    impressed also with the numerous opportunities which are still
    afforded for oppressing the apprentices, particularly where the
    special magistrates are not honest men.[A]

[Footnote A: From the nature of the case, it must be impossible to know
how much actual flogging is perpetrated by the overseers. We might
safely conjecture that there must be a vast deal of it that never comes
to the light. Such is the decided belief of many of the first men in the
island. The planters, say they, flog their apprentices, and then, to
prevent their complaining to the magistrate, threaten them with severe
punishment, or bribe them to silence by giving them a few shillings. The
attorney-general mentioned an instance of the latter policy. A planter
got angry with one of his head men, who was a constable, and knocked him
down. The man started off to complain to the special magistrate. The
master called him back, and told him he need not go to the
magistrate--that he was constable, and had a right to fine him himself.
"Well, massa," said the negro, "I fine you five shillings on de spot."
The master was glad to get off with that--the magistrate would probably
have fined him £5 currency.]

    In view of the local situation of Jamaica--the violent character of
    its planters--and the inevitable dependency of the magistrates, it
    is very manifest _that immediate emancipation was imperatively
    demanded there_. In no other colony did the negroes require to be
    more _entirely released from the tyranny of the overseers, or more
    thoroughly shielded by the power of equal law_. This is a principle
    which must hold good always--that where slavery has been most
    rigorous and absolute, there emancipation, needs to be most
    unqualified; and where the sway of the master has been _most
    despotic, cruel, and_ LONG CONTINUED, there the protection of law
    should be most SPEEDILY _extended and most impartially applied_."[B]

[Footnote B: Since the above was written we have seen a copy of a
message sent by Sir Lionel Smith, to the house of assembly of Jamaica,
on the 3d November, 1837, in which a statement of the deprivations of
the apprentices, is officially laid before the house. We make the
following extract from it, which contains, to use his Excellency's
language, "the principal causes, as has been found by the records of the
special magistrates, of complaints among the apprentices; and of
consequent collisions between the planters and magistrates."

    "Prudent and humane planters have already adopted what is
    recommended, and their properties present the good working of this
    system in peace and industry, without their resorting to the
    authority of the special magistrates; but there are other properties
    where neither the law of the apprenticeship nor the usages of
    slavery have been found sufficient to guard the rights of the
    apprentices.

    First, the magistrates' reports show that on some estates the
    apprentices have been deprived of cooks and water-carriers while at
    work in the field--thus, the time allowed for breakfast, instead of
    being a period of rest, is one of continual labor, as they have to
    seek for fuel and to cook. The depriving them of water-carriers is
    still more injurious, as the workmen are not allowed to quit their
    rows to obtain it. Both these privations are detrimental to the
    planter's work. Second, a law seems wanting to supply the estates'
    hospitals with sufficient attendants on the sick apprentices, as
    well as for the supply of proper food, as they cannot depend on
    their own grounds, whilst unable to leave the hospitals. The first
    clause of the abolition law has not been found strong enough to
    secure these necessary attentions to the sick. Third, in regard to
    jobbers, more exposed to hardships than any other class. A law is
    greatly required allowing them the distance they may have to walk to
    their work, at the rate of three miles an hour, and for compelling
    the parties hiring them to supply them with salt food and meal;
    their grounds are oftentimes so many miles distant, it is impossible
    for them to supply themselves. Hence constant complaints and
    irregularities. Fourth, that mothers of six children and upwards,
    pregnant women, and the aged of both sexes, would be greatly
    benefited by a law enforcing the kind treatment which they received
    in slavery, but which is now considered optional, or is altogether
    avoided on many properties. Fifth, nothing would tend more to effect
    general contentment and repress the evils of comparative treatment,
    than the issue of fish as a right by law. It was an indulgence in
    slavery seldom denied, but on many properties is now withheld, or
    given for extra labor instead of wages. Sixth, his Excellency during
    the last sessions had the honor to address a message to the house
    for a stronger definition of working time. The clause of the act in
    aid expressed that it was the intention of the legislature to
    regulate 'uniformity' of labor, but in practice there is still a
    great diversity of system. The legal adviser of the crown considers
    the clause active and binding; the special magistrate cannot,
    therefore, adjudicate on disputes of labor under the eight hour
    system, and the consequences have been continual complaints and
    bickerings between the magistrates and managers, and discontent
    among the apprentices by comparison of the advantages which one
    system presents over the other. Seventh, if your honorable house
    would adopt some equitable fixed principle for the value of
    apprentices desirous of purchasing their discharge, either by
    ascertained rates of weekly labor, or by fixed sums according to
    their trade or occupation, which should not be exceeded, and
    allowing the deduction of one third from the extreme value for the
    contingencies of maintenance, clothing, medical aid, risk of life,
    and health, it would greatly tend to set at rest one cause of
    constant disappointment. In proportion as the term of apprenticeship
    draws to a close, THE DEMANDS FOR THE SALE OF SERVICES HAVE GREATLY
    INCREASED. It is in the hope that the honorable house will be
    disposed to enforce a more general system of equal treatment, that
    his Excellency now circumstantially represents what have been the
    most common causes of complaint among the apprentices, and why the
    island is subject to the reproach that the negroes, in some
    respects, are now in a worse condition than they were in slavery."
]

We heard frequent complaints in Jamaica respecting the falling off of
the crops since abolition. In order that the reader may know the extent
of the failure in the aggregate island crops, we have inserted in the
appendix a table showing the "exports for fifty-three years, ending 31st
December, 1836, condensed from the journals of the House."

By the disaffected planters, the diminished crops were hailed as "an
evident token of perdition." They had foretold that abolition would be
the ruin of cultivation, they had maintained that sugar, coffee, rum,
&c., could not be produced extensively without the _whip of slavery_,
and now they exultingly point to the short crops and say, "See the
results of abolition!" We say exultingly, for a portion of the planters
do really seem to rejoice in any indication of ruin. Having staked their
reputation as prophets against their credit as colonists and their
interests as men, they seem happy in the establishment of the former,
even though it be by the sacrifice of the latter. Said an intelligent
gentleman in St. Thomas in the East, "The planters have _set their
hearts upon_ ruin, and they will be sorely disappointed if it should
not come."

Hearing so much said concerning the diminution of the crops, we spared
no pains to ascertain the _true causes_. We satisfied ourselves that the
causes were mainly two.

First. The prevailing impression that the negroes would not _work well_
after the abolition of slavery, led many planters to throw a part of
their land out of cultivation, in 1834. This is a fact which was
published by Lord Sligo, in an official account which he gave shortly
before leaving Jamaica, of the working of the apprenticeship. The
overseer of Belvidere estate declared that he knew of many cases in
which part of the land usually planted in canes was thrown up, owing to
the general expectation that _much less work_ would be done after
abolition. He also mentioned one attorney _who ordered all the estates
under his charge to be thrown out of cultivation_ in 1834, so confident
was he that the negroes would not work. The name of this attorney was
White. Mr. Gordon, of Williamsfield, stated, that the quantity of land
planted in cane, in 1834, was considerably less than the usual amount:
on some estates it was less by twenty, and on others by forty acres. Now
if such were the fact in the Parish of St. Thomas in the East, where
greater confidence was felt probably than in any other parish, we have a
clue by which we may conjecture (if indeed we were left to conjecture)
to what extent the cultivation was diminished in the island generally.
This of itself would satisfactorily account for the falling off in the
crops--which at most is not above one third. Nor would this explain the
decrease in '34 _only_, for it is well known among sugar planters that a
neglect of planting, either total or partial, for one year, will affect
the crops for two or three successive years.

The other cause of short crops has been the _diminished amount of time
for labor_. One fourth of the time now belongs to the laborers, and they
often prefer to employ it in cultivating their provision grounds and
carrying their produce to market. Thus the estate cultivation is
necessarily impeded. This cause operates very extensively, particularly
on two classes of estates: those which lie convenient to market places,
where the apprentices have strong inducements to cultivate their
grounds, and those (more numerous still) which _have harsh overseers_,
to whom the apprentices are averse to hire their time--in which cases
they will choose to work for neighboring planters, who are better men.
We should not omit to add here, that owing to a singular fact, the
falling off of the crops _appears_ greater than it really has been. We
learned from the most credible sources that _the size of the hogsheads_
had been considerably enlarged since abolition. Formerly they contained,
on an average, eighteen hundred weight, now they vary from a ton to
twenty-two hundred! As the crops are estimated by the number of
hogsheads, this will make a material difference. There were two reasons
for enlarging in the hogsheads,--one was, to lessen the amount of
certain port charges in exportation, which were made _by the hogshead_;
the other, and perhaps the principal, was to create some foundation in
appearance for the complaint that the crops had failed because of
abolition.

While we feel fully warranted in stating these as the chief causes of
the diminished crops, we are at the same time disposed to admit that the
apprenticeship is in itself exceedingly ill calculated either to
encourage or to compel industry. We must confess that we have no special
zeal to vindicate this system from its full share of blame; but we are
rather inclined to award to it every jot and tittle of the dishonored
instrumentality which it has had in working mischief to the colony.
However, in all candor, we must say, that we can scarcely check the
risings of exultation when we perceive that this party-fangled
measure--this offspring of old Slavery in her dying throes, _which was
expressly designed as a compensation to the proprietor_, HAS ACTUALLY
DIMINISHED HIS ANNUAL RETURNS BY ONE THIRD! So may it ever be with
legislation which is based on _iniquity and robbery!_

But the subject which excites the deepest interest in Jamaica _is the
probable consequences of entire emancipation in 1840_. The most common
opinion among the prognosticators of evil is, that the emancipated
negroes will abandon the cultivation of all the staple products, retire
to the woods, and live in a state of semi-barbarism; and as a
consequence, the splendid sugar and coffee estates must be "thrown up,"
and the beautiful and fertile island of Jamaica become a waste howling
wilderness.

The _reasons_ for this opinion consist in part of naked assumptions, and
in part of inferences from _supposed_ facts. The assumed reasons are
such as these. The negroes will not cultivate the cane _without the
whip_. How is this known? Simply because _they never have_, to any great
extent, in Jamaica. Such, it has been shown, was the opinion formerly in
Barbadoes, but it has been forever exploded there by experiment. Again,
the negroes are _naturally improvident_, and will never have enough
foresight to work steadily. What is the evidence of _natural_
improvidence in the negroes? Barely this--their carelessness in a state
of slavery. But that furnishes no ground at all for judging of _natural_
character, or of the developments of character under a _totally
different system_. If it testifies any thing, it is only this, that the
natural disposition of the negroes is not always _proof_ against the
degenerating influences of slavery.[A] Again, the actual wants of the
negroes are very few and easily supplied, and they will undoubtedly
prefer going into the woods where they can live almost without labor, to
toiling in the hot cane fields or climbing the coffee mountains. But
they who urge this, lose sight of the fact that the negroes are
considerably civilized, and that, like other civilized people, they will
seek for more than supply for the necessities of the rudest state of
nature. Their wants are already many, even in the degraded condition of
slaves; is it probable that they will be satisfied with _fewer of the
comforts and luxuries of civilized life_, when they are elevated to the
sphere, and feel the self-respect and dignity of freemen? But let us
notice some of the reasons which profess to be _founded on fact_. They
may all be resolved into two, _the laziness of negroes, and their
tendency to barbarism_.

[Footnote A: Probably in more instances than the one recorded in the
foregoing chapter, the improvidence of the negroes is inferred from
their otherwise unaccountable preference in walking six or ten miles to
chapel, rather than to work for a maccaroni a day.]

i. They _now_ refuse to work on Saturdays, even with wages. On this
assertion we have several remarks to make.

1.) It is true only to a partial extent. The apprentices on many
estates--whether a majority or not it is impossible to say--do work for
their masters on Saturdays, when their services are called for.

2.) They often refuse to work on the estates, because they can earn
three or four times as much by cultivating their provision grounds and
carrying their produce to market. The ordinary day's wages on an estate
is a quarter of a dollar, and where the apprentices are conveniently
situated to market, they can make from seventy-five cents to a dollar a
day with their provisions.

3.) The overseers are often such overbearing and detestable men, that
the apprentices doubtless feel it a great relief to be freed from their
command on Saturday, after submitting to it compulsorily for five days
of the week.

2. Another fact from which the laziness of the negroes is inferred, is
their _neglecting their provision grounds_. It is said that they have
fallen off greatly to their attention to their grounds, since the
abolition of slavery. This fact does not comport very well with the
complaint, that the apprentices cultivate their provision grounds to the
neglect of the estates. But both assertions may be true under opposite
circumstances. On those estates which are situated near the market,
provisions will be cultivated; on those which are remote from the
market, provisions will of course be partially neglected, and it will be
more profitable to the apprentices to work on the estates at a quarter
of a dollar per day, raising only enough provisions for their own use.
But we ascertained another circumstance which throws light on this
point. The negroes expect, after emancipation, to _lose their provision
grounds_; many expect certainly to be turned off by their masters, and
many who have harsh masters, intend to leave, and seek homes on other
estates, and _all_ feel a great uncertainty about their situation after
1840; and consequently they can have but little encouragement to
vigorous and extended cultivation of their grounds. Besides this, there
are very many cases in which the apprentices of one estate cultivate
provision grounds on another estate, where the manager is a man in whom
they have more confidence than they have in their own "busha." They, of
course, in such cases, abandon their former grounds, and consequently
are charged with neglecting them through laziness.

3. Another alleged fact is, that _actually less work_ is done now than
was done during slavery. The argument founded on this fact is this:
there is less work done under the apprenticeship than was done during
slavery: therefore _no work at all_ will be done after entire freedom!
But the apprenticeship allows _one fourth less time_ for labor than
slavery did, and presents no inducement, either compulsory or
persuasive, to continued industry. Will it be replied that emancipation
will take away _all_ the time from labor, and offer no encouragement
_but to idleness_? How is it now? Do the apprentices work better or
worse during their own time when they are paid? Better, unquestionably.
What does this prove? That freedom will supply both the time and the
inducement to the most vigorous industry.

The _other reason_ for believing that the negroes will abandon
estate-labor after entire emancipation, is their _strong tendency to
barbarism!_ And what are the facts in proof of this? We know but one.

We heard it said repeatedly that the apprentices were not willing to
have their free children educated--that they had pertinaciously declined
every offer of the _bushas_ to educate their children, and _this_, it
was alleged, evinced a determination on the part of the negroes to
perpetuate ignorance and barbarism among their posterity. We heard from
no less than four persons of distinction in St. Thomas in the East, the
following curious fact. It was stated each time for the double purpose
of proving that the apprentices did not wish to have their children
_learn to work_, and that they were opposed to their _receiving
education_. A company of the first-gentlemen of that parish, consisting
of the rector of the parish, the custos, the special magistrate, an
attorney, and member of the assembly, etc., had mustered in imposing
array, and proceeded to one of the large estates in the Plantain Garden
River Valley, and there having called the apprentices together, made the
following proposals to them respecting their free children, the rector
acting as spokesman. The attorney would provide a teacher for the
estate, and would give the children four hours' instruction daily, if
the parents would _bind them to work_ four hours every day; the attorney
further offered to pay for all medical attendance the children should
require. The apprentices, after due deliberation among themselves,
unanimously declined this proposition. It was repeatedly urged upon
them, and the advantages it promised were held up to them; but they
persisted in declining it wholly. This was a great marvel to the
planters; and they could not account for it in any other way than by
supposing that the apprentices were opposed both to labor and education,
and were determined that their free children should grow up in ignorance
and indolence! Now the true reason why the apprentices rejected this
proposal was, _because it came from the planters_, in whom they have no
confidence. They suspected that some evil scheme was hid under the fair
pretence of benevolence; the design of the planters, as they firmly
believed, was to get their _free children bound to them_, so that they
might continue to keep them in a species of apprenticeship. This was
stated to us, as the real ground of the rejection, by several
missionaries, who gave the best evidence that it was so; viz. that at
the same time that the apprentices declined the offer, they would send
their free children _six or eight miles to a school taught by a
missionary_. We inquired particularly of some of the apprentices, to
whom this offer was made, why they did not accept it. They said that
they could not trust their masters; the whole design of it was to get
them to give up their children, and if they should give them up _but for
a single month_, it would be the same as acknowledging that they (the
parents) were not able to take care of them themselves. The busha would
then send word to the Governor that the people had given up their
children, not being able to support them, and the Governor would have
the children bound to the busha, "and _then_," said they, "_we might
whistle for our children_!" In this manner the apprentices, the
_parents_, reasoned. They professed the greatest anxiety to have their
children educated, but they said they could have no confidence in the
honest intentions of their busha.

The views given above, touching the results of entire emancipation in
1840, are not unanimously entertained even among the planters, and they
are far from prevailing to any great extent among other classes of the
community. The missionaries, as a body, a portion of the special
magistrates, and most of the intelligent free colored people, anticipate
glorious consequences; they hail the approach of 1840, as a deliverance
from the oppressions of the apprenticeship, and its train of
disaffections, complaints and incessant disputes. They say they have
nothing to fear--nor has the island any thing to fear, but every thing
to hope, from entire emancipation. We subjoin a specimen of the
reasoning of the minority of the planters. They represent the idea that
the negroes will abandon the estates, and retire to the woods, as wild
and absurd in the extreme. They say the negroes have a great regard for
the comforts which they enjoy on the estates; they are strongly attached
to their houses and little furniture, and their provision grounds. These
are as much to them as the 'great house' and the estate are to their
master. Besides, they have very _strong local attachments_, and these
would bind them to the properties. These planters also argue, from _the
great willingness_ of the apprentices now to work for money, during
their own time, that they will not be likely to relinquish labor when
they are to get wages for the whole time. There was no doubt much truth
in the remark of a planter in St. Thomas in the East, that if _any_
estates were abandoned by the negroes after 1840, it would be those
which had harsh managers, and those which are so mountainous and
inaccessible, or barren, that they _ought_ to be abandoned. It was the
declaration of a _planter_, that entire emancipation would _regenerate_
the island of Jamaica.

       *       *       *       *       *

We now submit to the candid examination of the American, especially the
Christian public, the results of our inquiries in Antigua, Barbadoes,
and Jamaica. The deficiency of the narrative in ability and interest, we
are sure is neither the fault of the subject nor of the materials. Could
we have thrown into vivid forms a few only of the numberless incidents
of rare beauty which thronged our path--could we have imparted to pages
that freshness and glow, which invested the institutions of freedom,
just bursting into bloom over the late wastes of slavery--could we, in
fine, have carried our readers amid the scenes which we witnessed, and
the sounds which we heard, and the things which we handled, we should
not doubt the power and permanence of the impression produced. It is due
to the cause, and to the society under whose commission we acted,
frankly to state, that we were not selected on account of any peculiar
qualifications for the work. As both of us were invalids, and compelled
to fly from the rigors of an American winter, it was believed that we
might combine the improvement of health, with the prosecution of
important investigations, while abler men could thus be retained in the
field at home; but we found that the unexpected abundance of materials
requires the strongest health and powers of endurance. We regret to add,
that the continued ill health of both of us, since our return, so
serious in the case of one, as to deprive him almost wholly of
participation in the preparation of the work, has necessarily, delayed
its appearance, and rendered its execution more imperfect.

We lay no claim to literary merit. To present as simple narrative of
facts, has been our sole aim. We have not given the results of our
personal observations merely, or chiefly, nor have we made a record of
private impressions or idle speculations. _Well authenticated facts_,
accompanied with the testimony, verbal and documentary, of public men,
planters, and other responsible individuals, make up the body of the
volume, as almost every page will show. That no statements, if
erroneous, might escape detection and exposure, we have, in nearly every
case, given the _names_ of our authorities. By so doing we may have
subjected ourselves to the censure of those respected gentlemen, with
whose names we have taken such liberty. We are assured, however, that
their interest in the cause of freedom will quite reconcile them to what
otherwise might be an unpleasant personal publicity.

Commending our narrative to the blessing of the God of truth, and the
Redeemer of the oppressed, we send it forth to do its part, however
humble, toward the removal of slavery from our beloved but
guilty country.



APPENDIX.

We have in our possession a number of official documents from gentlemen,
officers of the government, and variously connected with its
administration, in the different islands which we visited: some of
these--such as could not be conveniently incorporated into the body of
the work--we insert in the form of an appendix. To insert them _all_,
would unduly increase the size of the present volume. Those not embodied
in this appendix, will be published in the periodicals of the American
Anti-Slavery Society.

       *       *       *       *       *

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION FROM E.B. LYON, ESQ., SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

_Jamaica, Hillingdon, near Falmouth, Trelawney, May 15, 1837_.

TO J.H. KIMBALL., ESQ., and J.A. THOME, ESQ.

DEAR SIRS,--Of the operation of the apprenticeship system in this
district, from the slight opportunity I have had of observing the
conduct of managers and apprentices, I could only speak conjecturally,
and my opinions, wanting the authority of experience, would be of little
service to you; I shall therefore confine the remarks I have to make, to
the operation of the system in the district from which I have
lately removed.

I commenced my duties in August, 1834, and from the paucity of special
magistrates at that eventful era, I had the superintendence of a most
extensive district, comprising nearly one half of the populous parish of
St. Thomas in the East, and the whole of the parish of St. David,
embracing an apprentice population of nearly eighteen thousand,--in
charge of which I continued until December, when I was relieved of St.
David, and in March, 1835, my surveillance was confined to that portion
of St. Thomas in the East, consisting of the coffee plantations in the
Blue Mountains, and the sugar estates of Blue Mountain Valley, over
which I continued to preside until last March, a district containing a
population of four thousand two hundred and twenty-seven apprentices, of
which two thousand eighty-seven were males, and two thousand one hundred
and forty, females. The apprentices of the Blue Mountain Valley were, at
the period of my assumption of the duties of a special magistrate, the
most disorderly in the island. They were greatly excited, and almost
desperate from disappointment, in finding their trammels under the new
law, nearly as burdensome as under the old, and their condition, in many
respects, much more intolerable. They were also extremely irritated at
what they deemed an attempt upon the part of their masters to rob them
of one of the greatest advantages they had been led to believe the new
law secured to them--this was the half of Friday. Special Justice
Everard, who went through the district during the first two weeks of
August, 1834, and who was the first special justice to read and explain
the new law to them, had told them that the law gave to them the extra
four and a half hours on the Friday, and some of the proprietors and
managers, who were desirous of preparing their people for the coming
change, had likewise explained it so; but, most unfortunately, the
governor issued a proclamation, justifying the masters in withholding
the four and a half hours on that day, and substituting any other half
day, or by working them eight hours per day, they might deprive them
altogether of the advantage to be derived from the extra time, which, by
the abolition of Sunday marketing, was almost indispensable to people
whose grounds, in some instances, were many miles from their
habitations, and who were above thirty miles from Kingston market, where
prices were fifty per cent. more than the country markets in their favor
for the articles they had to dispose of, and correspondingly lower for
those they had to purchase. To be in time for which market, it was
necessary to walk all Friday night, so that without the use of the
previous half day, they could not procure their provisions, or prepare
themselves for it. The deprivation of the half of Friday was therefore a
serious hardship to them, and this, coupled to the previous assurance of
their masters, and Special Justice Everard, that they were entitled to
it, made them to suspect a fraud was about being practised on them,
which, if they did not resist, would lead to the destruction of the
remaining few privileges they possessed. The resistance was very
general, but without violence; whole gangs leaving the fields on the
afternoon of Friday; refusing to take any other afternoon, and sometimes
leaving the estates for two or three days together. They fortunately had
confidence in me--and I succeeded in restoring order, and all would have
been well,--but the managers, no longer alarmed by the fear of rebellion
or violence, began a system of retaliation and revenge, by withdrawing
cooks, water-carriers, and nurses, from the field, by refusing medicine
and admittance to the hospital to the apprentice children, and by
compelling old and infirm people, who had been allowed to withdraw from
labor, and mothers of six children, who were exempt by the slave law
from hard labor, to come out and work in the field. All this had a
natural tendency to create irritation, and did do so; though, to the
great credit of the people, in many instances, they submitted with the
most extraordinary patience, to evils which were the more onerous,
because inflicted under the affected sanction of a law, whose advent, as
the herald of liberty, they had expected would have been attended with a
train of blessings. I effected a change in this miserable state of
things; and mutual contract for labor, in crop and out of it, were made
on twenty-five estates in my district, before, I believe, any
arrangement had been made in other parts of the island, between the
managers and the apprentices; so that from being in a more unsettled
state than others, we were soon happily in a more prosperous one, and so
continued.

No peasantry in the most favored country on the globe, can have been
more irreproachable in morals and conduct than the majority of
apprentices in that district, since the beginning of 1835. I have, month
after month, in my despatches to the governor, had to record instances
of excess of labor, compared with the quantity performed during slavery
in some kinds of work; and while I have with pleasure reported the
improving condition, habits, manners, and the industry which
characterized the labors of the peasantry, I have not been an
indifferent or uninterested witness of the improvement in the condition
of many estates, the result of the judicious application of labor, and
of the confidence in the future and sanguine expectations of the
proprietors, evinced in the enlargements of the works, and expensive and
permanent repair of the buildings on various estates, and in the high
prices given for properties and land since the apprenticeship system,
which would scarcely have commanded a purchaser, at any price, during
the existence of slavery.

I have invariably found the apprentice willing to work for an equitable
hire, and on all the sugar estates, and several of the plantations, in
the district I speak of, they worked a considerable portion of their own
time during crop, about the works, for money, or an equivalent in
herrings, sugar, etc., to so great a degree, that less than the time
allotted to them during slavery, was left for appropriation to the
cultivation of their grounds, and for marketing, as the majority, very
much to their credit, scrupulously avoided working on the Sabbath day.

In no community in the world is crime less prevalent. At the quarter
sessions, in January last, for the precinct of St. Thomas in the East,
and St. David, which contains an apprentice population of about thirty
thousand, there was only one apprentice tried. And the offences that
have, in general, for the last eighteen months, been brought before me
on estates, have been of the most trivial description, such as an
individual occasionally turning out late, or some one of an irritable
temper answering impatiently, or for some trifling act of disobedience;
in fact, the majority of apprentices on estates have been untainted with
offence, and have steadily and quietly performed their duty, and
respected the law. The apprentices of St. Thomas in the East, I do not
hesitate to say, are much superior in manners and morals to those who
inhabit the towns.

During the first six or eight months, while the planters were in doubt
how far the endurance of their laborers might be taxed, the utmost
deference and respect was paid by them to the special magistrates; their
suggestions or recommendations were adopted without cavil, and opinions
taken without reference to the letter of the law; but when the obedience
of the apprentice, and his strict deference to the law and its
administrators, had inspired them with a consciousness of perfect
security, I observed with much regret, a great alteration in the
deportment of many of the managers towards myself and the people;
trivial and insignificant complaints were astonishingly increased, and
assaults on apprentices became more frequent, so that in the degree that
the conduct of one party was more in accordance with the obligations
imposed on him by the apprenticeship, was that of the other in
opposition to it; again with the hold and infirm harassed; again were
mothers of six living children attempted to be forced to perform field
labor; and again were mothers with sucking children complained of, and
some attempts made to deprive them of the usual nurses.

Such treatment was not calculated to promote cordiality between master
and apprentice, and the effect will, I fear, have a very unfavorable
influence upon the working of many estates, at the termination of the
system; in fact, when that period arrives, if the feeling of
estrangement be no worse, I am convinced it will be no better than it is
at the present moment, as I have witnessed no pains taking on the part
of the attorneys generally to attach the apprentices to the properties,
or to prepare them in a beneficial manner for the coming change. It was
a very common practice in the district, when an apprentice was about to
purchase his discharge, to attempt to intimidate him by threats of
immediate ejectment from the property, and if in the face of this
threatened separation from family and connections, he persevered and
procured his release, then the sincerity of the previous intimations was
evinced by a peremptory order, to instantly quit the property, under the
penalty of having the trespass act enforced against him; and if my
interference prevented any outrageous violation of law, so many
obstructions and annoyances were placed in the way of his communication
with his family, or enjoyment of his domestic rights, that he would be
compelled for their peace, and his own personal convenience, to submit
to privations, which, as a slave, he would not have been subject to. The
consequence is, that those released from the obligations of the
apprenticeship by purchase, instead of being located, and laboring for
hire upon the estate to which they were attached, and forming a nucleus
around which others would have gathered and settled themselves, they
have been principally driven to find other homes, and in the majority of
instances have purchased land, and become settlers on their own account.
If complete emancipation had taken place in 1834, there would have been
no more excitement, and no more trouble to allay it, than that which was
the consequence of the introduction of the present system of coerced and
uncompensated labor. The relations of society would have been fixed upon
a permanent basis, and the two orders would not have been placed in that
situation of jealousy and suspicion which their present anomalous
condition has been the baneful means of creating.

I am convinced there never was any serious alarm about the consequences
of immediate emancipation among those who were acquainted with the
peasantry of Jamaica. The fears of the morbidly humane were purposely
excited to increase the amount of compensation, or to lengthen the
duration of the apprenticeship; and the daily ridiculous and untruthful
statements that are made by the vitiated portion of the Jamaica press,
of the indolence of the apprentices, their disinclination to work in
their own time, and the great increase of crime, are purposely and
insidiously put forward to prevent the fact of the industry, and
decorum, and deference to the law, of the people, and the prosperous
condition of the estates, appearing in too prominent a light, lest the
friends of humanity, and the advocates for the equal rights of men,
should be encouraged to agitate for the destruction of a system which,
in its general operation, has retained many of the worst features of
slavery, perpetuated many gross infringements of the social and domestic
rights of the working classes; and which, instead of working out the
benevolent intention of the imperial legislature, by aiding and
encouraging the expansion of intellect, and supplying motives for the
permanent good conduct of the apprentices, in its termination, has, I
fear, retarded the rapidity with which civilization would have advanced,
and sown the seeds of a feeling more bitter than that which slavery,
with all its abominations, had engendered.

I am, dear sirs, your very faithful servant,

EDMUND B. LYON, _Special Justice._


Extract from a communication which we received from Wm. Henry Anderson,
Esq., of Kingston, the Solicitor-General for Jamaica.

The staples of the island must be cultivated after 1840 as now, because
if not, the negroes could not obtain the comforts or luxuries, of which
they are undoubtedly very desirous, from cultivation of their grounds.
The fruits and roots necessary for the public markets are already
supplied in profusion at tolerably moderate prices: if the supply were
greatly increased, the prices could not be remunerative. There is no way
in which they can so readily as by labor for wages, _obtain money_, and
therefore I hold that there must ever be an adequate supply of labor in
the market.

The negroes are in my opinion very acute in their perceptions of right
and wrong, justice and injustice, and appreciate fully the benefits of
equitable legislation, and would unreservedly submit to it where they
felt confidence in the purity of its administration.

There is not the slightest likelihood of rebellion on the part of the
negroes after 1840, unless some unrighteous attempts be made to keep up
the helotism of the class by enactments of partial laws. _They_ could
have no interest in rebellion, they could gain nothing by it; and might
lose every thing; nor do I think they dream of such a thing. They are
ardently attached to the British government, and would be so to the
colonial government, were it to indicate by its enactments any purposes
of kindness or protection towards them. Hitherto the scope of its
legislation has been, in reference to them, almost exclusively coercive;
certainly there have been no enactments of a tendency to conciliate
their good will or attachment.

The negroes are much desirous of education and religious instruction: no
one who has attended to the matter can gainsay that. Formerly marriage
was unknown amongst them; they were in fact only regarded by their
masters, and I fear by themselves too, as so many brutes for labor, and
for increase. Now they seek the benefits of the social institution of
marriage and its train of hallowed relationships: concubinage is
becoming quite disreputable; many are seeking to repair their conduct by
marriage to their former partners, and no one in any rank of life would
be hardy enough to express disapprobation of those who have done or
may do so.

WM. HENRY ANDERSON.

_Kingston, Jamaica, 24th April, 1837_.

       *       *       *       *       *

The following communication is the monthly report for March, 1837, of
Major J.B. Colthurst, special justice for District A., Rural Division,
Barbadoes.

The general conduct of the apprentices since my last report has been
excellent, considering that greater demands have been made upon their
labor at this moment to save perhaps the finest crop of canes ever grown
in the island.

Upon the large estates generally the best feeling exists, because they
are in three cases out of four conducted by either the proprietors
themselves, or attorneys and managers of sense and consideration. Here
all things go on well; the people are well provided and comfortable, and
therefore the best possible understanding prevails.

The apprentices in my district _perform their work most willingly_,
whenever the immediate manager is a man of sense and humanity. If this
is not the case, the effect is soon seen, and complaints begin to be
made. Misunderstandings are usually confined to the smaller estates,
particularly in the neighborhood of Bridgetown, where the lots are very
small, and the apprentice population of a less rural description, and
more or less also corrupted by daily intercourse with the town.

The working hours most generally in use in my district are as follows:
On most estates, the apprentices work from six to nine, breakfast; from
ten to one, dinner--rest; from three to six, work.

It is almost the constant practice of the apprentices, particularly the
praedials or rural portion, to work in their own time for money wages,
at the rate of a quarter dollar a day. They sometimes work also during
those periods in their little gardens round their negro houses, and
which they most generally enjoy without charge, or in the land they
obtain in lieu of allowance, they seem ALWAYS well pleased to be fully
employed at _free_ labor, and work, when so employed, exceedingly well.
I know a small estate, worked exclusively on this system. It is in
excellent order, and the proprietor tells me his profits are greater
than they would be under the apprenticeship. He is a sensible and
correct man, and I therefore rely upon his information. During the hurry
always attendant on the saving of the crop, the apprentices are
generally hired in their own time upon their respective estates at the
above rate, and which they seldom refuse. No hesitation generally occurs
in this or any other matter, whenever the employer discharges his duty
by them in a steady and considerate manner.

The attendance at church throughout my district is most respectable; but
the accommodation, either in this respect or as regards schools, is by
no means adequate to the wants of the people. The apprentices conduct
themselves during divine service in the most correct manner, and it is
most gratifying to perceive, that only very little exertion, indeed,
would be required to render them excellent members of society. This fact
is fully proved by the orderly situation of a few estates in my
district, that have had the opportunity of receiving some moral and
religious instruction. There are sixty-four estates in my district over
twenty-five acres. Upon four of those plantations where the apprentices
have been thus taught, there are a greater number of _married_ couples
(which may be considered a fair test) than upon the remaining sixty. I
scarcely ever have a complaint from these four estates, and they are
generally reported to be in a most orderly state.

In the memory of the oldest inhabitant, the island has never produced a
finer crop of canes than that now in the course of manufacture. All
other crops are luxuriant, and the plantations in a high state of
agricultural cleanliness. The season has been very favorable.

Under the head of general inquiry, I beg leave to offer a few remarks. I
have now great pleasure in having it in my power to state, that a
manifest change for the better has taken place _gradually_ in my
district within the last few months. Asperities seem to be giving way to
calm discussion, and the laws are better understood and obeyed.

It is said in other colonies as well as here, that there has been, and
still continues to be, a great want of natural affection among the negro
parents for their children, and that great mortality among the free
children has occurred in consequence. This opinion, I understand, has
been lately expressed in confident terms by the legislature of St.
Vincent's, which has been fully and satisfactorily contradicted by the
reports of the special justices to the lieutenant-governor. The same
assertion has been made by individuals to myself. As regards Barbadoes,
I have spared no pains to discover whether such statements were facts,
and I now am happy to say, that not a _single instance_ of unnatural
conduct on the part of the negro parents to their children has come to
my knowledge--far, perhaps too far, the contrary is the case; _over
indulgence_ and _petting_ them seems in my judgment to be the only
matter the parents can be, with any justice, accused of. They exhibit
their fondness in a thousand ways. Contrasting the actual conduct of the
negro parents with the assertions of the planters, it is impossible not
to infer that _some bitterness is felt by the latter on the score of
their lost authority_. When this is the case, reaction is the natural
consequence, and thus misunderstandings and complaints ensue. The like
assertions are made with respect to the disinclination of the parents to
send their children to school. This certainly does exist to a certain
extent, particularly to schools where the under classes of whites are
taught, who often treat the negro children in a most imperious and
hostile manner. As some proof that no decided objection exists in the
negro to educate his children, a vast number of the apprentices of my
district send them to school, and take pride in paying a bit a week each
for them--a quarter dollar entrance and a quarter dollar for each
vacation. Those schools are almost always conducted by a black man and
his _married_ wife. However, they are well attended, but are very few
in number.

To show that the apprentices fully estimate the blessings of education,
many females _hire their apprentice_ children at a quarter dollar a week
from their masters, for the express purpose of sending them to school.
This proves the possibility of a _voluntary_ system of education
succeeding, provided it was preceded by full and satisfactory
explanation to the parties concerned. I have also little doubt that
labor to the extent I speak of, may be successfully introduced when the
apprentices become assured that nothing but the ultimate welfare of
themselves and children is intended; but so suspicious are they from
habit, and, as I said before, so profoundly ignorant of what may in
truth and sincerity be meant only for their benefit, that it will
require great caution and delicacy on the occasion. Those suspicions
have not been matured in the negroes mind without cause--the whole
history of slavery proves it. Such suspicions are even _now_ only
relinquished under doubts and apprehensions; therefore, all new and
material points, to be carried successfully with them, should be
proposed to them upon the most liberal and open grounds.

J.B. COLTHURST, _Special Justice Peace, District A, Rural Division_.

       *       *       *       *       *

_General return of the imports and exports of the island of Barbadoes,
during a series of years--furnished by the Custom-house officer at
Bridgetown_.

                    £.     s,    d.
1832             481,610   6     3
1833             462,132  14     4
1834             449,169  12     4
1835             595,961  13     2
1836             622,128  19    11


IMPORTS OF LUMBER.

                   Feet.       Shingles.
1833            5,290,086      5,598,958
1834            5,708,494      5,506,646
1835            5,794,596      4,289,025
1836            7,196,189      7,037,462


IMPORTS OF PROVISIONS.

     |      Flour.      |  Corn Meal.  |
Y'rs.| bbls.  |1/2 bbls.|  bush.| bbls.|
-----+--------+---------+-------+------+
1833 | 21,535 |    397  |   629 |  265 |
1834 | 34,191 |    865  |  1675 | 1580 |
1835 | 32,393 |    828  |   160 |  809 |
1836 | 41,975 |    433  |   823 | 1123 |
-----+--------+---------+-------+------+

     |       Bread and  Biscuits.       |Oats & Corn.|
Y'rs.| hds.| bbls.|1/2 bbls.|kegs.|bags.| bags.| qrs.|
-----+-----+------+---------+-----+-----+------+-----+
1833 |   49|  2146|     30  |   " |   " |   430|   50|
1834 |  401|  8561|     99  |  57 |   " |   100| 1025|
1835 | 2024| 10762|      "  |   " |   " |  2913| 3134|
1836 |    4|  4048|      "  |   " | 1058|  8168| 3119|
-----+-----+------+---------+-----+-----+------+-----+

IMPORTS OF CATTLE, ETC.
       Cattle.   Horses.   Mules.
1833     649       462      65
1834     549       728      24
1835     569      1047      43
1836    1013      1345     104


RETURN OF EXPORTS--SUGAR.

        hhds.     trcs.    bbls.
1832   18,804     1278     838
1833   27,015     1505     651
1834   27,593     1464    1083
1835   24,309     1417     938
1836   25,060     1796     804

       *       *       *       *       *

VALUATIONS OF APPRENTICES IN JAMAICA.

"From the 1st of August, 1834, to 31st of May, 1836, 998 apprentices
purchased their freedom by valuation, and paid £33,998. From 31st May,
1836, to 1st November, in the same year, 582 apprentices purchased
themselves, and paid £18,217--making, in all, £52,216--a prodigious sum
to be furnished by the negroes in two years. From the above statement it
appears that the desire to be free is daily becoming more general and
more intense, and that the price of liberty remains the same, although
the term of apprenticeship is decreasing. The amount paid by the
apprentices is a proof of the extent of the exertions and sacrifices
they are willing to make for freedom, which can scarcely be appreciated
by those who are unacquainted with the disadvantages of their previous
condition. The negroes frequently raise the money by loans to purchase
their freedom, and they are scrupulous in repaying money lent them for
that purpose."

The above is extracted from the "West Indies in 1837," an English work
by Messrs. Sturge and Harvey, page 86, Appendix.

       *       *       *       *       *

We insert the following tabular view of the crops in Jamaica for a
series of years preceding 1837.--As the table and "Remarks" appended
were first published in the St. Jago Gazette, a decided "pro-slavery"
paper, we insert, in connection with them, the remarks of the Jamaica
Watchman, published at Kingston, and an article on the present condition
of slavery, from the Telegraph, published at Spanishtown, the seat of
the colonial government.

A GENERAL RETURN OF EXPORTS _From the island of Jamaica, for 53 years,
ending 31st December, 1836--copied from the Journals of the House._


___________________________________________________________________
 .  |                    |                       |   |            |
 d  |                    |                       |MO-|            |
 e  |        SUGAR       |          RUM          |LAS|   GINGER   |
 t  |                    |                       |SES|            |
 r  |____________________|_______________________|___|____________|
 o  |   s   |      |     |   s  |  s  |    |     |   |     |      |
 p  |   d   |      |     |   n  |  d  |    |     |   |     |      |
 x  |   a   |   s  |   s |   o  |  a  |    |  s  |   |     |      |
 E  |   e   |   e  |   l |   e  |  e  |    |  l  |   |     |      |
    |   h   |   c  |   e |   h  |  h  | s  |  e  | s |  s  |      |
 r  |   s   |   r  |   r |   c  |  s  | k  |  r  | k |  k  |   s  |
 a  |   g   |   e  |   r |   n  |  g  | s  |  r  | s |  s  |   g  |
 e  |   o   |   i  |   a |   u  |  o  | a  |  a  | a |  a  |   a  |
 Y  |   H   |   T  |   B |   P  |  H  | C  |  B  | C |  C  |   B  |
___________________________________________________________________
1772| 69,451| 9,936|  270|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |
1773| 72,996|11,453|  849|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |
1774| 69,579| 9,250|  278|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |
1775| 75,291| 9,090|  425|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |
1776|       |      |     |      |     |    |     |   |     |      |
1788| 83,036| 9,256|1,063|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |
1789| 84,167|10,078|1,077|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |
1790| 84,741| 9,284|1,599|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |
1791| 85,447| 8,037|1,718|      |     |    |     |   |     |      |
1792|       |      |     |      |     |    |     |   |     |      |
1793| 77,575| 6,722|  642|34,755|  879|    |     |   |   62| 8,605|
1794| 89,532|11,158|1,224|39,843|1,570|    |     |   |  121|10,305|
1795| 88,851| 9,537|1,225|37,684|1,475|    |     |   |  426|14,861|
1796| 89,219|10,700|  858|40,810|1,364|    |     |   |  690|20,275|
1797| 78,373| 9,963|  753|28,014|1,463|    |     |   |  259|29,098|
1798| 87,896|11,725|1,163|40,823|2,234|    |     |   |  119|18,454|
1799|101,457|13,538|1,321|37,022|1,981|    |     |   |  221|10,358|
1800| 96,347|13,549|1,631|37,166|1,350|    |     |   |  444| 3,586|
1801|123,251|18,704|2,692|48,879|1,514|    |     |   |   12|   239|
1802|129,544|15,403|2,403|45,632|2,073| 473|  205|366|   23| 2,079|
1803|107,387|11,825|1,797|43,298|1,416|    |     |461|   51| 3,287|
1804|103,352|12,802|2,207|42,207|  913|    |     |429|1,094| 1,854|
1805|137,906|17,977|3,689|53,211|1,328| 133|  167|471|  315| 2,128|
1806|133,996|18,237|3,579|58,191|1,178|    |     |499|  485| 1,818|
1807|123,175|17,344|3,716|51,812|1,998|    |     |699|  512| 1,411|
1808|121,444|15,836|2,625|52,409|2,196|    |     |379|  436| 1,470|
1809|104,457|14,596|3,534|43,492|2,717|    |     |230|2,321|   572|
1810|108,703| 4,560|3,719|42,353|1,964|    |     |293|  520| 1,881|
1811|127,751|15,235|3,046|54,093|2,011|    |     |446|1,110| 2,072|
1812|105,283|11,357|2,558|43,346|1,531|    |     |151|  804| 1,235|
1813| 97,548|10,029|2,304|44,618|1,345| 382|  874|208|  816| 1,428|
1814|101,846|10,485|2,575|43,486|1,551| 202|1,146|145|  884| 1,668|
1815|118,767|12,224|2,817|52,996|1,465| 574|1,398|242|1,493| 1,667|
1816| 93,881| 9,332|2,236|35,736|  769| 281|  903|166|2,354| 1,118|
1817|116,012|11,094|2,868|47,949|1,094| 203|  916|254|3,361| 1,195|
1818|113,818|11,388|2,786|50,195|1,108| 121|  191|407|2,526| 1,067|
1819|108,305|11,450|3,244|43,946|1,695| 602|1,558|253|1,714|   718|
1820|115,065|11,322|2,474|45,361|1,783| 106|  460|252|1,159|   316|
1821|111,512|11,703|1,972|46,802|1,793| 153|  534|167|  984|   274|
1822| 88,551| 8,705|1,292|28,728|1,124|   9|  442|144|  891|    72|
1823| 94,905| 9,179|1,947|35,242|1,935|  20|  118|614|1,041|    60|
1824| 99,225| 9,651|2,791|37,121|3,261|   5|   64|910|2,230|    52|
1825| 73,813| 7,380|2,858|27,630|2,077| 101|  215|894|3,947|   348|
1826| 99,978| 9,514|3,126|35,610|3,098|1,852|    |549|5,724|   517|
1827| 82,096| 7,435|2,770|31,840|2,672|1,573|    |204|4,871|   240|
1828| 94,912| 9,428|3,024|36,585|2,793|1,013|    |189|5,382|   279|
1829| 91,364| 9,193|3,204|36,285|2,009|  563|    | 66|4,101|   168|
1830| 93,882| 8,739|3,645|33,355|2,657|1,367|    |154|3,494|    15|
1831| 88,409| 9,053|3,492|34,743|2,846|  982|    |230|3,224|    22|
1832| 91,453| 9,987|4,600|32,060|2,570|1,362|    |799|4,702|    38|
1833| 78,375| 9,325|4,074|33,215|3,034|  977|    |755|4,818|    23|
1834| 77,801| 9,860|3,055|30,495|2,588|1,288|    |486|5,925|   116|
1835| 71,017| 8,840|8,455|26,433|1,820|  747|    |300|3,985|   486|
1836| 61,644| 7,707|2,497|19,938|  874|  646|    |182|5,224|    69|

 .  |             |          |
 d  |             |          |
 e  |   PIMENTO   |  COFFEE  |
 t  |             |          |
 r  |_____________|__________|
 o  |      |      |          |
 p  |      |      |          |
 x  |      |      |          |          REMARKS
 E  |      |      |     s    |
    |   s  |      |     d    |
 r  |   k  |   s  |     n    |
 a  |   s  |   g  |     u    |
 e  |   a  |   a  |     o    |
 Y  |   C  |   B  |     P    |
________________________________________________________________
1772|      |      |   841,558|
1773|      |      |   779,303|
1774|      |      |   739,039|
1775|      |      |   493,981|
1776|      |      |          |
1788|      |      | 1,035,368|
1789|      |      | 1,493,282|
1790|      |      | 1,783,740|
1791|      |      | 2,299,874| August--Destruction of
1792|      |      |          |    Santo Domingo.
1793|   420| 9,108| 3,983,576|
1794|   554|22,153| 4,911,549|
1795|   957|20,451| 6,318,812|
1796|   136| 9,820| 7,203,539|
1797|   328| 2,935| 7,869,133|
1798| 1,181| 8,961| 7,894,306|
1799| 1,766|28,273|11,745,425| Bourbon cane introduced.
1800|   610|12,759|11,116,474|
1801|   648|14,084|13,401,468|
1802|   591| 7,793|17,961,923|
1803|   867|14,875|15,866,291|
1804| 1,417|19,572|22,063,980|
1805|   288| 7,157|21,137,393| Largest sugar crop.
1806| 1,094|19,534|29,298,036|
1807|   525|19,224|26,761,188| March 25th, abolition of
1808|   225| 6,529|29,528,273|    African slave trade.
1809|21,022| 1,177|25,586,668|
1810| 4,276|21,163|25,885,285|
1811|   638|22,074|17,460,068|
1812|   598| 7,778|18,481,986|
1813| 1,124|14,361|24,623,572| Storm in October, 1812
1814|   394|10,711|34,045,585| Largest coffee crop.
1815|   844|27,386|27,362,742|
1816|   851|28,047|17,289,393| Storm in October, 1815
1817|   946|15,817|14,793,706|
1818|   941|21,071|25,329,456|
1819|   882|24,500|14,091,983|
1820|   673|12,880|22,127,444|
1821| 1,224|24,827|16,819,761|
1822|   699|18,672|19,773,912| Extreme drought.
1823| 1,894|21,481|20,326,445| Mr. Canning's resolutions
1824|   599|33,306|27,667,239|    relative to slavery.
1825|   537|20,979|21,254,656|
1826|   522|16,433|20,352,886| Severe drought in 1824, the previous year.
1827| 3,236|26,691|25,741,520|
1828| 4,003|25,352|22,216,780|
1829| 3,733|48,933|22,234,640|
1830| 5,609|37,925|22,256,950|
1831| 2,844|22,170|14,055,350|
1832| 3,736|27,936|19,815,010|
1833| 7,741|58,581| 9,866,060| Emancipation act passed.
1834|   496|29,301|17,725,731| Seasons favorable.
1835| 1,115|59,033|10,593,018|    do.
1836|   227|46,779|13,446,053|    do.

The following are the remarks of the editor of the Jamaica Watchman, on
the foregoing, in his paper of April 8, 1837:--

A general return of exports from the island for fifty-three years,
ending the 31st December last, and purporting to be extracted from the
journals of the assembly, has been published, and as usual, the decrease
in the crops of the respective years has been attributed to the
resolutions passed by the British House of Commons in 1823, and the
abolition of slavery in 1833. It is remarkable that in preparing this
table, a manifest disposition is evinced to account for the falling off
of the crops in certain years anterior, and subsequent to the passing of
Mr. Canning's memorable resolution, whilst opposite to the years 1834
and 1835, is written "seasons favorable." In 1813, the sugar crop fell
off 8,000 hhds. compared with the previous year, and we are told in
reference to this circumstance, that there was a storm in October, 1812.
This remark is evidently made to account for the decrease, and perhaps
the storm at the close of the previous year was the cause of it. But it
is astonishing, and the circumstance is worthy of notice, that whilst
the sugar crop fell off nearly 8,000 hhds. the coffee crop increased
nearly six millions of pounds. We should have supposed that the coffee
trees would have suffered more from the effects of a storm, than the
canes. However, the effect was as we have stated it, whatever might have
been the cause. In 1814, the largest coffee crop was made. Again, in
1816, there was a decrease in the sugar crop compared with the year
immediately preceding it of nearly 25,000 hhds. And here we have the
storm of October, 1815, assigned as a reason. The coffee crop in this
instance also fell off nearly ten millions of pounds. In 1822, the sugar
crop was reduced 23,000 hhds., and the coffee crop increased three
millions of pounds. The reason now assigned is an "extreme drought." The
celebrated resolutions relative to slavery now appear to begin to
exercise their baneful influence on the _seasons_ and the _soil_ of our
island. In the year in which they were passed, 1823, 94,900 hogsheads of
sugar were made, and twenty millions of pounds of coffee gathered. 1824
came, and the crop, instead of being reduced, was increased from nearly
95,000 hogsheads to upwards of 99,000 hogsheads. The coffee crop was
also greater by seven millions of pounds. In 1825, they fall off to
73,860 hogsheads and twenty-one millions. In 1826, the sugar crop rather
exceeded that of 1824, but the coffee crop was seven millions less. In
1827, from causes not known to us, for none were assigned, there was a
difference of 16,000 hhds. of sugar, and an increase of five millions of
pounds of coffee. 1828, 29, and 30, were pretty nearly alike in sugar
and coffee crops, and about equal to 1823. The crops of 1831 fell off
from 93 to 88,000 hogsheads of sugar, and from 22 to 14 millions of
pounds of coffee. No reason is assigned for this reduction. It was
during the continuance of the driving system, and therefore no blame can
attach to the managers. In 1832, the crop rose to 91,000 hogsheads of
sugar, and nearly twenty millions of pounds of coffee. But 1833 comes,
and, with it, fresh troubles for the planters. In that ill-fated year,
there was a decrease of 13,000 hogsheads sugar, and of ten millions of
pounds of coffee. Its sugar crop was the smallest made, with the
exception of that of 1825, since 1793, and its coffee crop since that of
1798. But if this determination be alarming, what must be that of the
succeeding years. Can we be blamed, if, in a strain truly lachrymal, we
allude to the deductions which have annually been made from the
miserable return which 1833 gave to the unfortunate proprietors of
estates? What boots it to tell us that we have fingered thousands of
pounds sterling, in the shape of compensation: and what consolation is
it to know, that a hogshead of sugar will now bring thirty pounds,
which, a short time ago, was only worth twelve. Let any _unprejudiced_
individual look at the return now before us, and say whether our
prospects are not deplorably dull and obscure. If we take the four years
immediately preceding the passing of Mr. Canning's resolutions, say
1819, 20, 21, and 22; we will find the average to be 105,858 hogsheads,
and if from this we even deduct one fourth for the time now lost, there
will be an average crop of 79,394 hhds., being 7,185 hogsheads mere than
the average of 1833, 34, 35, and 36; and no one will deny that this
falling off of one tenth, (supposing that the hogsheads made during the
last four years are _not larger_ than those of 1819 to 1822) is
_nearly_, if not _quite equal_ to the increase of price, from twelve to
thirty pounds, or one hundred and fifty per cent.

It is true some persons may be disposed to take the four years
subsequent to the passing of Mr. Canning's resolutions, say 1823, 4, 5,
and 6, and compare them with the four years ending 31st December last.
Should this be done, it will be found that the average crop of the
previous four years is 91,980 hhds., and if from it is deducted one
fourth, there will remain 68,985 hhds., whilst the average of the other
four years is 72,200 hhds. Such a mode of comparison must, however, be
obviously incorrect; because, in the first place, Mr. Canning's
resolutions had reduced the crops of those years considerably below the
average of the years immediately preceding them, and next, because it
would show the advantage to be on the side of freedom in the ratio of
seventy-two to sixty-nine, which cannot be correct. Besides, in 1824,
there was a severe drought, whereas in 1834 and 35 the seasons are
reported as being favorable. Again, it is necessary, in instituting such
an inquiry, to go back more than fourteen years; nor is it a valid
objection to this to say, that even during that period a number of
estates have been thrown out of cultivation, in consequence of being
worn out and unprofitable. "Deplorable," however, as is the "falling off
in the yearly amounts of our staple productions, which have decreased,"
gentle reader, according to the despatch, "in an accelerated ratio
within the last few years, till in the year 1836, when they do not
average one half the returns of former years preceding that of 1823, the
year that Mr. Canning's resolutions for the ultimate abolition of
slavery in the British colonies passed the House of Commons," still it
is a matter of sincere gratification to know, that the sugar planters
are better off now than they have been for the last fourteen or fifteen
years. With the compensation money a great many of them have been
enabled to pay off their English debts, and the remainder very
considerably to reduce them, whilst the reduction in the quantity of
sugar produced, has occasioned such a rise in the price of that article
as will place the former in easy circumstances, and enable the latter
entirely to free themselves from the trammels of English mortgagees, and
the tender mercies of English mortgagees before the 1st August, 1840,
arrives. And ought these parties not to be thankful? Unquestionably they
ought. Ingratitude, we are told, is as the sin of witchcraft, and
although the table of exports exhibits our fair island as hastening to a
state of ruin, and the despatch tells us that "by the united influence
of mock philanthropy, religious cant, and humbug," a reformed parliament
was _forced_ "to precipitate the _slavery spoliation_ act under the
specious pretext of promoting the industry and improving the condition
of the manumitted slaves," still we maintain, and the reasonable will
agree with us, that we are much better off now than we have been for a
long time, and that Jamaica's brightest and happiest days have not yet
dawned. Let the croakers remember the remarkable words of the Tory Lord,
Belmore, the planter's friend, and be silent--"The resources of this
fine island will never be fully developed until slavery ceases." The
happiness and prosperity of the inhabitants of Jamaica are not
contingent, nor need they be, upon the number of hogsheads of sugar
annually exported from her shores.

       *       *       *       *       *

To the foregoing we add the remarks of the editor of the "Spanishtown
Telegraph," on the present state of the colony, made in his paper of May
9, 1837:--

    "When it was understood that the island of Jamaica and the other
    British West Indian colonies were to undergo the blessed transition
    from slavery to freedom, it was the hourly cry of the pro-slavery
    party and press, that the ruin of Jamaica would, as a natural
    consequence, follow liberty! Commerce, said they, will cease; hordes
    of barbarians will come upon us and drive us from our own
    properties; agriculture will be completely paralyzed; and Jamaica,
    in the space of a few short months, will be seen buried in
    ashes--irretrievably ruined. Such were the awful predictions of an
    unjust, illiberal faction!! Such the first fruits that were to
    follow the incomparable blessings of liberty! The staple productions
    of the island, it was vainly surmised, could never be cultivated
    without the name of slavery; rebellions, massacres, starvation,
    rapine and bloodshed, danced through the columns of the
    liberty-hating papers, in mazes of metaphorical confusion. In short,
    the name of freedom was, according to their assertions, directly
    calculated to overthrow our beautiful island, and involve it in one
    mass of ruin, unequalled in the annals of history!! But what has
    been the result? All their fearful forebodings and horrible
    predictions have been entirely disproved, and instead of liberty
    proving a curse, she has, on the contrary, unfolded her banners,
    and, ere long, is likely to reign triumphant in our land. _Banks,
    steam companies, railroads, charity schools, etc._, seem all to have
    remained dormant until the time arrived when Jamaica was to be
    _enveloped in smoke_! No man thought of hazarding his capital in an
    extensive _banking establishment_ until _Jamaica's ruin_, by the
    introduction of _freedom, had been accomplished_!! No person was
    found possessed of sufficient energy to speak of navigation
    companies in Jamaica's brightest days of slavery; but now that ruin
    stares every one in the face--now that we have no longer the power
    to treat out peasantry as we please, they have taken it into their
    heads to establish so excellent an undertaking. Railroads were not
    dreamt of until _darling_ slavery had (_in a great measure_)
    departed, and now, when we thought of throwing up our estates, and
    flying from the _dangers of emancipation_, the best projects are
    being set on foot, and what is _worst_, are likely to _succeed_!
    This is the way that our Jamaica folks, no doubt, reason with
    themselves. But the reasons for the delay which have taken place in
    the establishment of all these valuable undertakings, are too
    evident to require elucidation. We behold the _Despatch_ and
    _Chronicle_, asserting the ruin of our island; the overthrow of all
    order and society; and with the knowledge of all this, they speak of
    the profits likely to result from steam navigation, banking
    establishments, and railroads! What in the name of conscience, can
    be the use of steam-vessels when Jamaica's ruin is so fast
    approaching? What are the planters and merchants to ship in steamers
    when the apprentices will not work, and there is nothing doing? How
    is the bank expected to advance money to the planters, when their
    total destruction has been accomplished by the abolition of slavery?
    What, in the name of reason, can be the use of railroads, when
    commerce and agriculture have been nipped in the bud, by that
    _baneful weed, Freedom_? Let the unjust panderers of discord, the
    haters of liberty, answer. Let them consider what has all this time
    retarded the development of Jamaica's resources, and they will find
    that it was _slavery_; yes, it was its very name which prevented the
    idea of undertakings such as are being brought about. Had it not
    been for the introduction of freedom in our land; had the cruel
    monster, Slavery, not partially disappeared, when would we have seen
    banks, steamers, or railroads? No man thought of hazarding his
    capital in the days of slavery, but now that a new era has burst
    upon us, a complete change has taken possession of the hearts of all
    just men, and they think of improving the blessing of freedom by the
    introduction of other things which must ever prove beneficial to
    the country.

    The vast improvements that are every day being effected in this
    island, and throughout the other colonies, stamp the assertions of
    the pro-slavery party as the vilest falsehoods. They glory in the
    introduction of banks, steam-vessels, and railroads; with the
    knowledge (as they would have us believe) that the island is fast
    verging into destruction. They speak of the utility and success of
    railroads, when, according to their showing, there is no produce to
    be sent to market, when agriculture has been paralyzed, and Jamaica
    swept to destruction."

*       *       *       *       *

The following copious extracts from a speech of Lord Brougham, on the
workings of the apprenticeship, and on the immediate emancipation
substituted therefor in Antigua and the Bermudas, are specially
commended to the notice of the reader. The speech was delivered in the
House of Lords, Feb. 20, 1838. We take it from the published report of
the speech in the London Times, of Feb. 25:--

    I now must approach that subject which has some time excited almost
    universal anxiety. Allow me, however, first to remind your
    lordships--because that goes to the root of the evil--allow me first
    to remind you of the anxiety that existed previous to the
    Emancipation Act which was passed in January, 1833, coming into
    operation in August, 1834. My lords, there was much to apprehend
    from the character of the masters of the slaves. I know the nature
    of man. * * * * I know that he who has abused power clings to it
    with a yet more convulsive grasp. I know his revenge against those
    who have been rescued from his tyrannous fangs; I know that he never
    forgives those whom he has injured, whether white or black. I have
    never yet met with an unforgiving enemy, except in the person of one
    of whose injustice I had a right to complain. On the part of the
    slaves, my lords, I was not without anxiety; for I know the corrupt
    nature of the degrading system under which they groaned. * * * * It
    was, therefore, I confess, my lords, with some anxiety that I looked
    forward to the 1st of August, 1834; and I yielded, though
    reluctantly, to the plan of an intermediate state before what was
    called the full enjoyment of freedom--the transition condition of
    indentured apprenticeship.

    The first of August arrived--that day so confidently and joyously
    anticipated by the poor slaves, and so sorely dreaded by their hard
    taskmasters--and if ever there was a picture interesting to look
    upon--if ever there was a passage in the history of a people
    redounding to their eternal honor--if ever there was a complete
    refutation of all the scandalous calumnies which had been heaped
    upon them for ages, as if in justification of the wrongs which we
    had done them--(Hear, hear)--that picture and that passage are to be
    found in the uniform and unvarying history of that people throughout
    the whole of the West India islands. Instead of the fires of
    rebellion, lit by a feeling of lawless revenge and resistance to
    oppression, the whole of those islands were, like an Arabian scene,
    illuminated by the light of contentment, joy, peace, and good-will
    towards all men. No civilized people, after gaining an unexpected
    victory, could have shown more delicacy and forbearance than was
    exhibited by the slaves at the great moral consummation which they
    had attained. There was not a look or a gesture which could gall the
    eyes of their masters. Not a sound escaped from negro lips which
    could wound the ears of the most feverish planter in the islands.
    All was joy, mutual congratulation, and hope.

    This peaceful joy, this delicacy towards the feelings of others, was
    all that was to be seen, heard, or felt, on that occasion,
    throughout the West India islands.

    It was held that the day of emancipation would be one of riot and
    debauchery, and that even the lives of the planters would be
    endangered. So far from this proving the case, the whole of the
    negro population kept it as a most sacred festival, and in this
    light I am convinced it will ever be viewed.

    In one island, where the bounty of nature seems to provoke the
    appetite to indulgence, and to scatter with a profuse hand all the
    means of excitement, I state the fact when I say not one drunken
    negro was found during the whole of the day. No less than 800,000
    slaves were liberated in that one day, and their peaceful festivity
    was disturbed only on one estate, in one parish, by an irregularity
    which three or four persons sufficed to put down.

    Well, my lords, baffled in their expectations that the first of
    August would prove a day of disturbance--baffled also in the
    expectation that no voluntary labor would be done--we were then told
    by the "practical men," to look forward to a later period. We have
    done so, and what have we seen? Why, that from the time voluntary
    labor began, there was no want of men to work for hire, and that
    there was no difficulty in getting those who as apprentices had to
    give the planters certain hours of work, to extend, upon emergency,
    their period of labor, by hiring out their services for wages to
    strangers. I have the authority of my noble friend behind me, (the
    Marquis of Sligo,) who very particularly, inquired into the matter,
    when I state that on nine estates out of ten there was no difficulty
    in obtaining as much work as the owners had occasion for, on the
    payment of wages. How does all this contrast with the predictions of
    the "practical men?" "Oh," said they, in 1833, "it is idle talking;
    the cart-whip must be used--without that stimulant no negro will
    work--the nature of the negro is idle and indolent, and without the
    thought of the cartwhip is before his eyes he falls asleep--put the
    cartwhip aside and no labor will be done." Has this proved the case?
    No, my lords, it has not; and while every abundance of voluntary
    labor has been found, in no one instance has the stimulus of the
    cartwhip been found wanting. The apprentices work well without the
    whip, and wages have been found quite as good a stimulus as the
    scourge even to negro industry. "Oh, but" it is said, "this may do
    in cotton planting and cotton picking, and indigo making; but the
    cane will cease to grow, the operation of hoeing will be known no
    more, boiling will cease to be practised, and sugar-making will
    terminate entirely." Many, I know, were appalled by these
    reasonings, and the hopes of many were dissipated by these confident
    predictions of these so-deemed experienced men. But how stands the
    case now? My lords, let these experienced men, come forth with their
    experience. I will plant mine against it, and you will find he will
    talk no more of his experience when I tell him--tell him, too,
    without fear of contradiction--that during the year which followed
    the first of August, 1834, twice as much sugar per hour, and of a
    better quality as compared with the preceding years, was stored
    throughout the sugar districts; and that one man, a large planter,
    has expressly avowed, that with twenty freemen he could do more work
    than with a hundred slaves or fifty indentured apprentices. (Hear,
    hear.) But Antigua!--what has happened there? There has not been
    even the system of indentured apprentices. In Antigua and the
    Bermudas, as would have been the case at Montserrat if the upper
    house had not thrown out the bill which was prepared by the planters
    themselves, there had been no preparatory step. In Antigua and the
    Bermudas, since the first of August, 1834, not a slave or indentured
    apprentice was to be found. Well, had idleness reigned there--had
    indolence supplanted work--had there been any deficiency of crop?
    No. On the contrary, there had been an increase, and not a
    diminution of crop. (Hear.) But, then, it was said that quiet could
    not be expected after slavery in its most complete and abject form
    had so long reigned paramount, and that any sudden emancipation must
    endanger the peace of the islands. The experience of the first of
    August at once scattered to the winds that most fallacious prophecy.
    Then it was said, only wait till Christmas, for that is a period
    when, by all who have any practical knowledge of the negro
    character, a rebellion on their part is most to be apprehended. We
    did wait for this dreaded Christmas; and what was the result? I will
    go for it to Antigua, for it is the strongest case, there being
    there no indentured apprentices--no preparatory state--no
    transition--the chains being at once knocked off, and the negroes
    made at once free. For the first time within the last thirty years,
    at the Christmas of the year 1834, martial law was not proclaimed in
    the island of Antigua. You talk of facts--here is one. You talk of
    experience--here it is. And with these facts and this experience
    before us, I call on those _soi-disant_ men of experience--those men
    who scoffed at us--who laughed to scorn at what they called our
    visionary, theoretical schemes--schemes that never could be carried
    into effect without rebellion and the loss of the colonies--I say,
    my lords, I call on these experienced men to come forward, and, if
    they can, deny one single iota of the statement I am now making. Let
    those who thought that with the use of those phrases, "a planter of
    Jamaica" "the West India interest," "residence in Jamaica and its
    experience," they could make our balance kick the beam--let them, I
    say, hear what I tell, for it is but the fact--that when the chains
    were knocked off there was not a single breach of the peace
    committed either on the day itself, or on the Christmas festival
    which followed.

    Well, my lords, beaten from these two positions, where did the
    experienced men retreat to under what flimsy pretext did they next
    undertake to disparage the poor negro race? Had I not seen it in
    print, and been otherwise informed of the fact, I could not have
    believed it possible that from any reasonable man any such absurdity
    could issue. They actually held out this last fear, which, like the
    others, was fated to be dissipated by the fact. "Wait only," said
    they, "till the anniversary of the first of August, and then you
    will see what the negro character is, and how little these
    indentured apprentices are fit to be entrusted with freedom." Was
    there ever such an absurdity uttered, as if my lords, the man who
    could meet with firm tranquillity and peaceful thankfulness the
    event itself, was likely to be raised to rebellion and rioting by
    the recollection of it a year afterwards. My lords, in considering
    this matter, I ask you, then, to be guided by your own experience,
    and nothing else; profit by it, my lords, and turn it to your own
    account; for it, according to that book which all of us must revere,
    teaches even the most foolish of a foolish race. I do not ask you to
    adopt as your own the experience of others; you have as much as you
    can desire of your own, and by no other test do I wish or desire to
    be judged. But I think my task may be said to be done. I think I
    have proved my case, for I have shown that the negro can work
    without the stimulant of the whip; I have shown that he can labor
    for hire without any other motive than that of industry to inspire
    him. I have demonstrated that all over the West Indies, even when
    fatigued with working the allotted hours for the profit of his
    master, he can work again for wages for him who chooses to hire him
    and has wherewithal to pay him; I have also most distinctly shown
    that the experience of Antigua and the Bermudas is demonstrative to
    show that without any state of preparation, without any indenture of
    apprenticeship at all, he is fit to be intrusted with his freedom,
    and will work voluntarily as a free laborer for hire. But I have
    also demonstrated from the same experience, and by reference to the
    same state of facts, that a more quiet, inoffensive, peaceable,
    innocent people, is not to be found on the face of this earth than
    the negro--not in their own unhappy country, but after they have
    been removed from it and enslaved in your Christian land, made the
    victim of the barbarizing demon of civilized powers, and has all
    this character, if it were possible to corrupt it, and his feelings,
    if it were possible to pervert them, attempted to be corrupted and
    perverted by Christian and civilized men, and that in this state,
    with all incentives to misdemeanor poured around him, and all the
    temptation to misconduct which the arts and artifices and examples
    of civilized man can give hovering over him--that after this
    transition is made from slavery to apprenticeship, and from slavery
    to absolute freedom, a negro's spirit has been found to rival the
    unbroken tranquillity of the Caribbean Seas. (Cheers.) This was not
    the state of things we expected, my lords; and in proof that it was
    not so, I have but to refer you to the statute book itself. On what
    ground did you enact the intermediate state of indenture
    apprenticeship, and on what arguments did you justify it? You felt
    and acknowledged that the negro had a right to be free, and that you
    had no right to detain him in bondage. Every one admitted this, but
    in the prevailing ignorance of their character it was apprehended
    that they could not be made free at once, and that time was
    requisite to train the negro to receive the boon it was intended
    bestowing upon him.

    This was the delusion which prevailed, and which was stated in the
    preamble of the statute--the same delusion which had made the men on
    one side state and the other to believe that it was necessary to pay
    the slave-owners for the loss it was supposed they would sustain.
    But it was found to be a baseless fear, and the only result of the
    phantom so conjured up was a payment of twenty millions to the
    conjurors. (Hear, and a laugh.) Now, I maintain that had we known
    what we now know of the character of the negroes, neither would this
    compensation have been given to the slave-owners, nor we have been
    guilty of proposing to keep the negro in slavery five years, after we
    were decided that he had a right to his freedom. The noble and
    learned lord here proceeded to contend that up to the present time
    the slave-owners, so far from being sufferers, had been gainers by
    the abolition of slavery and the enactment of the system of
    apprenticeship, and that consequently up to the present moment
    nothing had occurred to entitle them to a claim upon the
    compensation allotted by parliament. The slave-owners might be said
    to have pocketed the seven millions without having the least claim
    to them, and therefore, in considering the proposition he was about
    to make, parliament should bear in mind that the slave proprietors
    were, if anything, the debtors to the nation. The money had, in
    fact, been paid to them by mistake, and, were the transaction one
    between man and man, an action for its recovery might lie. But the
    slave-owners alleged that if the apprenticeship were now done away
    there would be a loss, and that to meet that loss they had a right
    to the money. For argument's sake he would suppose this to be true,
    and that there would be loss; but would it not be fair that the
    money should be lodged in the hands of a third party, with authority
    to pay back at the expiration of the two years whatever rateable sum
    the master could prove himself to have lost? His firm belief was,
    that no loss could arise; but, desirous to meet the planter at every
    point, he should have no objection to make terms with him. Let him,
    then, pay the money into court, as it were, and at the end of two
    years he should be fully indemnified for any loss he might prove. He
    called upon their lordships to look to Antigua and the Bermudas for
    proof that the free negro worked well, and that no loss was
    occasioned to the planters or their property by the granting of
    emancipation. But it was said that there was a difference between
    the cases of Antigua and other colonies, such as Jamaica, and it was
    urged that while the negroes of the former, from the smallness and
    barrenness of the place, would be forced into work, that in the
    latter they would run away, and take refuge in the woods. Now, he
    asked, why should the negro run away from his work, on being made
    free, more than during the continuance of his apprenticeship? Why,
    again, should it be supposed that on the 1st of August, 1840, the
    emancipated negroes should have less inclination to betake
    themselves to the woods than in 1838? If there was a risk of the
    slaves running to the woods in 1838, that risk would be increased
    and not diminished during the intermediate period up to 1840, by the
    treatment they were receiving from their masters, and the deferring
    of their hopes.

    My lords, (continued the noble lord,) I have now to say a few words
    upon the treatment which the slaves have received during the past
    three years of their apprenticeship, and which, it is alleged,
    during the next two years is to make them fitted for absolute
    emancipation. My lords, I am prepared to show that in most respects
    the treatment the slaves have received since 1834 is no better, and
    in many others more unjust and worse, than it ever was in the time
    of absolute slavery. It is true that the use of the cartwhip as a
    stimulus to labor has been abolished. This, I admit, is a great and
    most satisfactory improvement; but, in every other particular, the
    state of the slave, I am prepared to show, is not improved, and, in
    many respects, it is materially worse. First, with regard to the
    article of food, I will compare the Jamaica prison allowance with
    that allotted to the apprenticed negroes in other colonies. In the
    Jamaica prison the allowance of rice is 14 pints a week to each
    person. I have no return of the allowance to the indentured
    apprentice in Jamaica, but I believe it is little over this; but in
    Barbadoes and the Leeward Islands, it is much under. In Barbadoes,
    instead of receiving the Jamaica prison allowance of 14 pints a
    week, the apprenticed negro received but 10 pints: while in the
    Leeward Islands he had but 8 pints. In the crown colonies, before
    1834, the slave received 21 pints of rice, now the apprentice gets
    but 10; so that in the material article, food, no improvement in the
    condition of the negro was observable. Then, with regard to time, it
    is obviously of the utmost importance that the apprentice should
    have at least two holidays and a half a week--the Sabbath for
    religious worship and instruction, the Saturday to attend the
    markets, and half of Friday to work in his own garden. The act of
    emancipation specified 45 hours a week as the period the apprentice
    was to work for his master, but the master so contrived matters as
    in most instances to make the 45 hours the law allotted him run into
    the apprentice's half of Friday, and even in some cases into the
    Saturday. The planter invariably counted the time from the moment
    that the slave commenced his work; and as it often occurs that his
    residence was on the border of the estate, he may have to walk five
    or six miles to get to the place he has to work. This was a point
    which he was sure their lordships would agree with him in thinking
    required alteration.

    The next topic to which I shall advert relates to the administration
    of justice; and this large and important subject I cannot pass over
    without a word to remind your lordships how little safe it is, how
    little deserving the name of just, or any thing like just, that
    where you have two classes you should separate them into conflicting
    parties, until they became so exasperated in their resentment as
    scarcely to regard each other as brethren of the same species; and
    that you should place all the administration of justice in the hands
    of one dominant class, whose principles, whose passions whose
    interests, are all likely to be preferred by the judges when they
    presume to sit where you have placed them on the judgment seat. The
    chief and puisne judges are raised to their situations from amongst
    the class which includes the white men and planters. But, worse than
    that, the jurors are taken from the same privileged body: jurors,
    who are to assess civil damages in actions for injuries done to the
    negroes--jurors, who are to try bills of indictment against the
    whites for the maltreatment of the blacks--jurors who are to convict
    or acquit on those bills--jurors who are to try the slaves
    themselves--nay, magistrates, jailors, turnkeys, the whole apparatus
    of justice, both administrative and executive, exclusively in the
    hands of one race! What is the consequence? Why, it is proverbial
    that no bills are found for the blacks. (Hear, hear.) Six bills of
    indictment were preferred, some for murder and some for bad
    manslaughter, and at one assizes every one of these six indictments
    was thrown out. Assizes after assizes the same thing happened, until
    at length wagers were held that no such bill would be found, and no
    one was found to accept them. Well was it for them that they
    declined, for every one of the bills preferred was ignored. Now,
    observe that in proceedings, as your lordships know; before grand
    jurors, not a tittle of evidence is heard for the prisoners; every
    witness is in favor of the indictment, or finding of the bill; but
    in all these instances the bills were flung out on the examination
    of evidence solely against the prisoner. Even in the worst cases of
    murder, as certainly and plainly committed as the sun shines at noon
    day, monstrous to all, the bills were thrown out when half the
    witnesses for the prosecution remained to be examined. (Hear, hear.)
    Some individuals swore against the prisoners, and though others
    tendered their evidence, the jury refused to hear them. (Hear,
    hear.) Besides, the punishments inflicted are monstrous; thirty-nine
    lashes are inflicted for the vague, indefinite--because incapable to
    be defined--offence of insolence. Thirty-nine lashes for the grave
    and the more definite, I admit, offence of an attempt to carry a
    small knife. Three months imprisonment, or fifty lashes for the
    equally grave offence of cutting off the shoot of a cane plant!
    There seems to have prevailed at all times amongst the governors of
    our colonies a feeling, of which, I grieve to say, the governors at
    home have ever and anon largely partaken, that there is something in
    the nature of a slave--something in the habits of the African
    negro--something in the disposition of the unfortunate hapless
    victims of our own crimes and cruelties, which makes what is mercy
    and justice to other men cruelty to society and injustice to the law
    in the case of the negro, and which condemns offences slightly
    visited, if visited at all, with punishment, when committed by other
    men, to the sentence that for his obdurate nature none can be too
    severe. (Hear, hear.) As if we had any one to blame but
    ourselves--as if we had any right to visit on him that character if
    it were obdurate, those habits if they were insubordinate, that
    dishonest disposition if it did corrupt his character, all of which
    I deny, and which experience proves to be contrary to the fact and
    truth; but even if these statements were all truth instead of being
    foully slanderous and absolutely false, we, of all men, have
    ourselves to blame, ourselves to tax, and ourselves to punish, at
    least for the self abasement, for we have been the very causes of
    corrupting the negro character. (Cheers.)

    If some capricious despot, in his career of ordinary tyranny, were
    to tax his imagination to produce something more monstrous and
    unnatural than himself, and were to place a dove amongst vultures,
    or engraft a thorn on the olive tree, much as we should marvel at
    the caprice, we should be still more astounded at the expectation,
    which exceeds even a tyrant's proverbial unreasonableness, that he
    should gather grapes from the thorn, or that the dove should be
    habituated to a thirst for blood. Yet that is the caprice, that is
    the unreasonable, the foul, the gross, the monstrous, the
    outrageous, incredible injustice of which we are hourly guilty
    towards the whole unhappy race of negroes. (Cheers.) My lords, we
    fill up the incasare of injustice by severely executing laws badly
    conceived in a still more atrocious and cruel spirit. The whole
    punishments smell of blood. (Hear, Hear.) If the treadmill stop in
    consequence of the languid limbs and exhausted frames of the
    victims, within a minute the lash resounds through the building--if
    the stones which they are set to break be not broken by limbs
    scarred, and marred, and whaled, they are summoned by the crack of
    the whip to their toilsome task! I myself have heard within the last
    three hours, from a person, who was an eye-witness of the appalling
    and disgusting fact, that a leper was introduced amongst the
    negroes; and in passing let me remark, that in private houses or
    hospitals no more care has been taken to separate those who are
    stricken with infectious diseases from the sound portion, any more
    than to furnish food to those in prison who are compelled, from the
    unheard-of, the paltry, the miserable disposition to treat with
    cruelty the victims of a prison, to go out and gather their own
    food,--a thing which I believe even the tyrant of Siberia does not
    commit. Yet in that prison, where blood flows profusely, and the
    limbs of those human beings are subjected to perpetual torture, the
    frightful, the nauseous, the disgusting--except that all other
    feelings are lost in pity towards the victim and indignation against
    the oppressor--sight was presented of a leper, scarred from the
    eruptions of disease on his legs and previous mistreatment, whaled
    again and again, and his blood again made to flow from the jailer's
    lash. I have told your lordships how bills have been thrown out for
    murdering the negroes. But a man had a bill presented for this
    offence: a petition was preferred, and by a white man. Yes, a white
    man who had dared, under feelings of excited indignation, to
    complain to the regularly constituted authorities, instead of
    receiving for his gallant conduct the thanks of the community, had a
    bill found which was presented against him as a nuisance. I have,
    within the last two hours, amid the new mass of papers laid before
    your lordships within the last forty-eight hours, culled a sample
    which, I believe, represents the whole odious mass.

    Eleven females have been flogged, starved, lashed, attached to the
    treadmill, and compelled to work until nature could no longer endure
    their sufferings. At the moment when the wretched victims were about
    to fall off--when they could no longer bring down the mechanism and
    continue the movement, they were suspended by their arms, and at
    each revolution of the wheel received new wounds on their members,
    until, in the language of that law so grossly outraged in their
    persons, they "languished and died." Ask you if a cringe of this
    murderous nature went unvisited, and if no inquiry was made
    respecting its circumstances? The forms of justice were observed;
    the handmaid was present, but the sacred mistress was far away. A
    coroner's inquest was called; for the laws decreed that no such
    injuries should take place without having an inquiry instituted.
    Eleven inquisitions were held, eleven inquiries were made, eleven
    verdicts were returned. For murder? Manslaughter? Misconduct? No;
    but that "they died by the visitation of God." A lie--a perjury--a
    blasphemy! The visitation of God! Yes, for of the visitations of the
    Divine being by which the inscrutable purposes of his will are
    mysteriously worked out, one of the most mysterious is the power
    which, from time to time, is allowed by him to be exercised by the
    wicked for the torment of the innocent. (Cheers.) But of those
    visitations prescribed by Divine Providence there is one yet more
    inscrutable, for which it is still more difficult to affix a reason,
    and that is, when heaven rolls down on this earth the judgment, not
    of scorpions, or the plague of pestilence, or famine, or war--but
    incomparably the worse plague, the worser judgment, of the injustice
    of judges who become betrayers of the law--perjured, wicked men who
    abuse the law which they are sworn to administer, in order to
    gratify their own foul passions, to take the part of the wrong-doer
    against his victim, and to forswear themselves on God's gospel, in
    order that justice may not be done. * * * * My lords, I entirely
    concur in what was formerly said by Mr. Burke, and afterwards
    repeated by Mr. Canning, that while the making of laws was confined
    to the owners of slaves, nothing they did was ever found real or
    effectual. And when, perchance, any thing was accomplished, it had
    not, as Mr. Burke said, "an executive principle." But, when they
    find you determined to do your duty, it is proved, by the example
    which they have given in passing the Apprenticeship Amendment Act,
    that they will even outstrip you to prevent your interference with
    them. * * * * Place the negroes on the same footing with other men,
    and give them the uncontrolled power over their time and labor, and
    it will become the interest of the planter, as well as the rest of
    the community, to treat the negro well, for their comfort and
    happiness depend on his industry and good behavior. It is a
    consequence perfectly clear, notwithstanding former distinctions,
    notwithstanding the difference of color and the variety of race in
    that population, the negro and the West Indian will in a very few
    generations--when the clank of his chain is no longer heard, when
    the oppression of the master can vex no more, when equal rights are
    enjoyed by all, and all have a common interest in the general
    prosperity--be impressed with a sense of their having an equal share
    in the promotion of the public welfare; nay, that social
    improvement, the progress of knowledge, civility, and even
    refinement itself, will proceed as rapidly and diffuse itself as
    universally in the islands of the Western Ocean as in any part of
    her Majesty's dominions. * * * *

    I see no danger in the immediate emancipation of the negro; I see no
    possible injury in terminating the apprenticeship, (which we now
    have found should never have been adopted,) and in causing it to
    cease for slaves previous to August, 1838, at that date, as those
    subsequent to that date must in that case be exempt. * * * * I
    regard the freedom of the negro as accomplished and sure. Why?
    Because it is his right--because he has shown himself fit for
    it--because a pretext or a shadow of a pretext can no longer be
    devised for withholding that right from its possessor. I know that
    all men now take a part in the question, and that they will no
    longer bear to be imposed upon now they are well informed. My
    reliance is firm and unflinching upon the great change which I have
    witnessed--the education of the people unfettered by party or by
    sect--from the beginning of its progress, I may say from the hour of
    its birth. Yes; it was not for a humble man like me to assist at
    royal births with the illustrious prince who condescended to grace
    the pageant of this opening session, or the great captain and
    statesman in whose presence I now am proud to speak. But with that
    illustrious prince, and with the father of the Queen I assisted at
    that other birth, more conspicuous still. With them and with the
    lord of the house of Russel I watched over its cradle--I marked its
    growth--I rejoiced in its strength--I witnessed its maturity--I have
    been spared to see it ascend the very height of supreme
    power--directing the councils of the state--accelerating every great
    improvement--uniting itself with every good work--propping honorable
    and useful institutions--extirpating abuses in all our
    institutions--passing the bounds of our dominion, and in the new
    world, as in the old, proclaiming that freedom is the birthright of
    man--that distinction of color gives no title to oppression--that
    the chains now loosened must be struck off, and even the marks they
    have left effaced by the same eternal law of our nature which makes
    nations the masters of their own destiny, and which in Europe has
    caused every tyrant's throne to quake. But they need to feel no
    alarm at the progress of right who defend a limited monarchy and
    support their popular institutions--who place their chiefest pride
    not in ruling over slaves, be they white or be they black--not in
    protecting the oppressor, but in wearing a constitutional crown, in
    holding the sword of justice with the hand of mercy, in being the
    first citizen of a country whose air is too pure for slavery to
    breathe, and on whose shores, if the captive's foot but touch, his
    fetters of themselves fall off. (Cheers.) To the resistless progress
    of this great principle I look with a confidence which nothing can
    shake; it makes all improvement certain--it makes all change safe
    which it produces; for none can be brought about, unless all has
    been accomplished in a cautious and salutary spirit. So now the
    fulness of time is come; for our duty being at length discharged to
    the African captive, I have demonstrated to you that every thing is
    ordered--every previous step taken--all safe, by experience shown to
    be safe, for the long-desired consummation. The time has come--the
    trial has been made--the hour is striking: you have no longer a
    pretext for hesitation, or faltering, or delay. The slave has shown,
    by four years' blameless behavior and devotion, unsurpassed by any
    English peasant, to the pursuit of peaceful industry, that he is as
    fit for his freedom as any lord whom I now address. I demand his
    rights--I demand his liberty without stint, in the names of justice
    and of law--in the name of reason--in the name of God, who has given
    you no right to work injustice. I demand that your brother be no
    longer trampled upon as your slave. (Hear, hear.) I make my appeal
    to the Commons, who represent the free people of England; and I
    require at their hands the performance of that condition for which
    they paid so enormous a price--that condition which all their
    constituents are in breathless anxiety to see fulfilled! I appeal to
    his house--the hereditary judges of the first tribunal in the
    world--to you I appeal for justice. Patrons of all the arts that
    humanize mankind, under your protection I place humanity herself! To
    the merciful Sovereign of a free people I call aloud for mercy to
    the hundreds of thousands in whose behalf half a million of her
    Christian sisters have cried aloud, that their cry may not have
    risen in vain. But first I turn my eye to the throne of all justice,
    and devoutly humbling myself before Him who is of purer eyes than to
    behold any longer such vast iniquities--I implore that the curse
    over our heads of unjust oppression be averted from us--that your
    hearts may be turned to mercy--and that over all the earth His will
    may at length be done!

       *       *       *       *       *

INDEX.

ABSCONDING from labor,
Accident in a boiling house,
Aged negro,
Allowance to Apprentices,
"Amalgamation,"
American Consul, (_See Consul_.)
American Prejudice,
Amity Hall Estate,
Anderson, Wm. II. Esq.,
Anguilla,
Annual Meeting of Missionaries,
Antigua, Dimensions of,
  "      Sugar Crop of,
Applewhitte, Mr.
Appraisement of Apprentices,
Apprentice, provisions respecting the,
Apprenticeship compared with slavery,
Apprenticeship System,
      "        Design of,
      "        Good effect of,
      "        No preparation for freedom,
Apprenticeship, Operation of,
Apprenticeship, Opinion of, in Antigua;--in Barbadoes;--in Jamaica,
Apprentices liberated,
Apprentices' work compared with slaves
Archdeacon of Antigua,
     "     of Barbadoes,
Aristocracy of Antigua,
Armstrong, Mr. H.,
Ashby, Colonel,
Athill, Mr.,
Attachment to home,
Attorney General of Jamaica,
Attendance on Church
August, First of

Baijer, Hon. Samuel O.,
Baines, Major,
Banks, Rev. Mr.,
Baptist Chapel
Baptists in Jamaica,
Barbadoes,
Barbuda,
Barber in Bridgetown,
Barclay, Alexander, Esq.,
Barnard, Samuel, Esq.,
Barrow, Colonel,
Bath,
Bazaar,
Bell, Dr.,
Belle Estate,
Bell not tolled for colored person,
"_Belly, 'blige_ 'em to work,"
Belmore, Lord,
Belvidere Estate,
Benevolent institutions of Antigua,
Bible Society,
Bishop of Barbadoes,
Blessings of Abolition, (See _Morals_, &c.)
Blind man,
Boiling House,
Bookkeepers, Slaver of,
"Bornin' Ground,"
Bourne, Mr. London,
Bourne, Mr. S., (of Antigua,)
Bourne, Stephen, Esq., (of Jamaica,)
Breakfast at Mr. Bourne's,
    "     at Mr. Prescod's,
    "     at Mr. Thorne's,
Briant, Mr.,
Bridgetown,
Brown, Colonel,
Brown, Thomas C.,

C., Mr., of Barbadoes,
"Cage,"
Cane cultivated by apprentices on their own ground,
Cane-cutting,
Cane-holing,
Cecil, Mr.,
Cedar Hall,
Chamberlain, R., Esq.,
Change of opinion in regard to slavery,
Chapel erected by apprentices,
Character of colored people,
Cheesborough, Rev. Mr.,
Children, care of, (See _Free_.)
Christmas,
Church, Established,
Civility of negroes,
Clarke, Dr.,
Clarke, Hon. R.B.,
Clarke, Mr.,
Classification of apprentices,
Codrington Estate,
Coddrington, Sir Christopher.
Coffee Estates.
College, Coddrington.
Colliton Estate.
Colored Architect.
  "     Editors.
  "     Lady.
  "     Legislators.
  "     Magistrates.
  "     Merchants.
  "     Policemen.
  "     Population.
  "     Proprietor.
  "     Teachers.
Colthurst, Major.
Complaints to Special Magistrates.
Concubinage.
Condition of the negroes, changed.
Conduct of the Emancipated on the first of August.
Confidence increased.
Conjugal attachment.
Consul, American at Antigua.
  "        "     at Jamaica.
Constabulary force, colored.
Contributions for religious purposes.
Conversation with a negro boatman.
Conversation with negroes on Harvey's estate.
Conversation with apprentices.
Corbett, Mr. Trial of.
Corner stone laid.
Courts in Barbadoes.
Courts in Jamaica.
Cox, Rev. James.
Cranstoun, Mr.
Crimes, Diminution of.
Crimes in Jamaica.
Crookes, Rev. Mr.
Crops in Barbadoes.
Crops in Jamaica.
Cruelty of slavery.
  "     to apprentices.
Cultivation in Barbadoes, (See _Crops_.)
Cultivation in Jamaica.
Cummins, Mr.
Cummins, Rev. Mr.
Cuppage, Captain.
Custom House returns, Barbadoes.

Daily meal Society.
Dangers of slavery.
Daniell, Dr.
Death-bed of a planter.
Deception.
Defect of law.
Demerara, Apprenticeship in.
Desire for instruction.
Dinner at Mr. Harris's.
  "    at the Governor's.
Disabilities of colored people.
Discussion, Effect of.
Distinction between _serving_ and being _property_.
Distressed Females' Friend Society.
Disturbances, Reason of.
Docility of the negroes.
Domestic Apprentices.
Donovan's Estate.
Drax Hall.
Dress in Antigua.
"Driver and overseer."
Drought in Antigua.
Dublin Castle Estate.
Duncan, Mr.
Dungeons in Antigua.
  "      in Barbadoes.

Economy of the negroes.
Edgecomb Estate.
Edmonson, Rev. Jonathan.
Education of Apprentices.
  "       in Antigua.
  "       in Barbadoes. (See _Schools_.)
Education, Queries on, replied to.
  "        Results, in regard to.
Edwards, Colonel.
Eldridge, R. B. Esq..
Elliot, Rev. Edward.
Emancipation, Immediate. (See _Preparation, &c._)
Emancipation, Motives of, in Antigua.
Emigrants from Europe.
Employments of the colored.
English Delegation.
Enrolment of colored militia.
Escape of slaves from French islands.
Expectations in regard to 1838 and 1840.
Expense of free compared with slave labor.
Expense of Apprenticeship compared with slavery.
Explanation of terms.
Exports of Jamaica for 53 years.

Fair of St. John's.
Favey, Mr.
Feeding in Barbadoes.
Feeling, intense, of the negroes.
Females in the field.
Fences wanting in Antigua.
Ferguson, Dr.
Fines upon the planters.
Fire in the canes.
Fitch's Creek Estate.
Flogging.
  "      machine.
Forten, James.
Four and a half per cent tax.
Fraser, Rev. Edward.
  "     Mrs., ----
Free children.
Freedom in Antigua.
Free labor less expensive.
Freeman, Count.
Frey's Estate.
Friendly Societies.
Fright of American vessels.

Galloway, Mr.
Gangs, Division of.
Gardiner, Rev. Mr.
Gilbert, Rev. N.
Girl sold by her mother.
Gitters, Rev. Mr.
Golden Grove Estate.
Gordon, Mr.
Governor of Antigua.
  "      of Barbadoes.
Grace Bay.
Grenada.
"Grandfather Jacob."
Gratitude of the Negroes.
"Grecian Regale."
Green Castle Estate.
Green Wall Estate.
Guadaloupe.
Guarda Costas.
"Gubner poisoned."

H., Mr., an American.
Hamilton, Capt.
Hamilton, Cheny, Esq.
Hamilton, Rev. Mr.
Harrison, Colonel.
Harris, Thomas, Esq.
Harvey, Rev. B.
Hatley, Mr.
Heroism of colored women.
Higginbothom, Ralph, Esq.
Hill, Richard, Esq.
Hinkston, Samuel, Esq.
Holberton, Rev. Robert.
Holidays in Antigua.
Horne, Rev. Mr.
"Horse."
Horton Estate.
Horsford, Hon. Paul.
Hostility to Emancipation. (See also, _Change, &c._)
House of Correction.
Howell, Mr., (of Jamaica).
Howell, James Esq.
Hurricane.

Imports and Exports of Barbadoes.
Improvement since Emancipation. (See _Morals_.)
Indolence of Apprentices.
  "       of Whites.
Industry of Emancipated Slaves.
Industry of Apprentices.
Infanticide.
Insolence.
Insubordination. (See _Subordination_.)
Insurrection in Barbadoes in 1816.
Insurrection not feared in Antigua;
    nor in Barbadoes;
    nor in Jamaica.
Intelligence of blacks, as compared with whites.
Intemperance in Antigua. (See _Temperance_.)
Intermixture. (See also _Amalgamation_.)
Internal Improvement.

Jamaica.
Jarvis, Colonel.
Jobs.
Jocken, Mr.
Jones, Mr.
Jones, Rev. Mr.
Jones, T. Watkins, S. M.
Jordon, Edward, Esq.
Jury on the body of a negro woman.
"Juvenile Association."

Kingdon, Rev. Mr.
Kingston.
Kirkland, Mr.

Law, respect for.
Lear's Estate.
Legislature of Antigua.
Letter to a Special Magistrate.
License to marry.
Licentiousness.
Lighthouse.
Lock-up house at St. John's.
Lyon, E.B., Esq.
Lyon's Estate.

Machinery, Labor-saving.
Managers, Testimony of.
Manchioneal.
Market in St. John's.
Market people.
Maroons.
Marriage.
Marshall, Mr.
Martinique.
Master's power over the apprentice.
McCornock, Thomas, Esq.
McGregor, Sir Evan, J. M.
Megass.
Merchants, Testimony of.
Messages of Sir Lionel Smith.
Mico Charity Infant School.
Miller's Estate.
Missionaries, Wesleyan.
Missionary associations.
  "        Society, Wesleyan.
Mob, Pro-Slavery, in Barbadoes.
Möhne, Mr. and Mrs.
Montserrat.
Morals, improvement of.
Morant Bay.
Moravian Chapel.
    "    Missionary.
Moravians.
Morrish, Rev. Mr.
Mule-traveling.
Murder of a planter.
Musgrave, Dr.

Negro Grounds.
Negro Quarters.
Nevis.
Newby, Mr.
Newfield, visit to.
Noble trait in the apprentices.
Nugent, Hon. Nicholas.

Obstacles to free labor in Antigua.
Old school tyrant.
Opinions in Antigua in regard to Emancipation.
Opinions of the United States.
Opposition to slavery in Jamaica.
O'Reily, Hon. Dowel.
Osburne, Mr.
Overseers.

Packer, Rev. Mr.
Parry, Archdeacon.
Partiality of the Special Magistrates.
Peaceableness of negro villages.
Peaceableness of the change from slavery to freedom.
Peaceableness of the negro character.
Persecution of a Special Justice.
Peter's Rock.
Phillips, Rev. Mr.
Physician, Testimony of.
Pigeot, Mr.
Plantain Garden River Valley.
Planter, a severe one.
Planters, cruelty of.
  "       in Barbadoes.
Plough.
Police Court.
   "   of Antigua.
   "   Officers, Testimony of.
   "   Reports.
Policy of colored people in regard to prejudice.
Port Royal.
Prejudice against color.
"Prejudice Bell."
Preparation for freedom.
Prescod, Mr.
Promiscuous seating in church (See _"Amalgamation," &c._)
Proprietor, testimony of.
Pro-slavery pretences.
Providence of the emancipated, the.
Provost Marshal, Testimony of.
Punishment, cruel.
Punishment in Antigua.

Ramsay, Mr.
Real Estate.
Rebellion, so called.
Rector of St. John's.
"Red Shanks."
Reid, Mr. E.
Religion in Antigua;
  in Barbadoes;
  in Jamaica.
Religious condition of slaves in Antigua.
Religious instruction desired.
Report of a Special Magistrate.
Resolution in regard to Messrs. Thome and Kimball.
Resolutions of Wesleyan Missionaries.
Respect for the aged.
Results in Antigua.
Revengefulness.
Ridge Estate.
Right of suffrage.
Rogers, Mr.
Ross, A., Esq.
Rowe, Rev. Mr.
Rum, use of in Antigua.

Sabbath in Antigua;
  in Barbadoes;
  in Jamaica.
Sabbath school in Bridgetown.
Safety of immediate emancipation. (See _Insurrections_.)
School, adult;
  at Lear's;
  Parochial;
  Wolmer Free.
Schools in Antigua;
  in Bridgetown;
  infant;
  in Kingston;
  in Spanishtown.
Scotland in Barbadoes.
Scotland, James, Esq.
Scotland, J., Jr. Esq.
Security restored.
Self-emancipation.
Self-respect.
Shands, Mr. S.
Shiel, Mr.
Shrewsbury, Rev. Mr.
Sickness, pretended.
Silver Hill.
Sligo, Lord.
Smith, Sir Lionel.
Social intercourse.
Societies, benevolent.
Society among colored people.
  "     for promotion of Christian knowledge.
Soldiers, black.
Solicitor General of Barbadoes.
  "               of Jamaica.
Song sung in the schools.
Spanishtown.
"Speaking," a Moravian custom.
Special Magistrates. (See also _Partiality_.)
Special Magistrates, Testimony of.
St. Andrews.
Station House, A.
St. Christopher's.
St. Lucia.
Stock Keepers.
St. Thomas in the East.
Sturge & Harvey, Messrs.
St. Vincent's.
Subordination.
Sugar Crop.
  "   cultivation hard for the slave.
Sugar Mill.
Sunday Markets.
Superintendent of Police.
Suspension of faithful magistrates.

Task-work.
Teacher, Black.
Teachers.
"Telegraph," Remarks of the.
Temperance in Antigua.
  "        of negroes.
  "        Society.
Testimony of Managers.
Testimony of clergymen and missionaries.
Testimony of Governors.
  "       of magistrates.
  "       of physicians.
Theft, decrease of.
Thibou Jarvis's estate.
Thomas, Mr.
Thompson, George, Bust of.
Thompson, Thomas, Esq.
Thorne, Mr.
Thwaites, Mr. Charles.
Tinson, Rev. Mr.
Toast to Immediate Emancipation.
Tortala.
Traffic in Slaves.
Transition from slavery to freedom.
Treatment of slaves ameliorated by discussion.
Treadmill.
Trinidad.
Trustworthiness.

Unwilling witness.

Vagrancy.
Value of an apprentice. (See _Appraisement_.)
Villa Estate.

Wages.
Walton, Rev. Mr.
Watchman, Jamaica.
  "       Remarks of the.
Watkins, Mr.
Ward, Sir Henry.
Weatherill's Estate.
Wesleyan Chapel, Antigua.
  "        "     New, ".
  "       Missionary Society.
Wesleyans in Antigua.
  "       in Barbadoes.
  "       in Jamaica.
Whip banished.
Whipping Post.
White lady.
Wilberforce, opinion of.
Wickham, Richard S.
Willis, George, Esq.
Willoughby Bay Examination.
Wolmer Free School.
Women abandon the field.
  "   condition of.
Woolridge, Rev. Mr.
Wright, Andrew, Esq.

       *       *       *       *       *




THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER--EXTRA.

       *       *       *       *       *

EMANCIPATION

In The

WEST INDIES, IN 1838.

       *       *       *       *       *

IMPORTANT TO THE UNITED STATES.

False prophets were never stiller about their time-detected impostures
than are the pro-slavery presses of the United States about the results
of West India Emancipation. Now and then, for the sake of appearances,
they obscurely copy into their immense sheets an inch or two of
complaints, from some snarling West India paper, that the emancipated
are lazy and won't work. But they make no parade. They are more taciturn
than grave-stones.

In the following closely printed columns, those who wish to know will
find out precisely how the "_great experiment_" has worked. They
will find,

1. The _safety_ of abolition demonstrated--its safety in the worst
possible case.

2. That the colonies are prospering in their _agriculture_.

3. That the planters conferred freedom because they were _obliged to_ by
public opinion abroad.

4. That freedom, even thus unwillingly conferred, was accepted as a
precious boon by the slaves--they were grateful to God, and ready to
work for their masters for fair pay.

5. That the mass of the planters have endeavoured, from the first, to
get work out of the free laborers for as small wages as possible.

6. That many of the attorneys and managers have refused fair wages and
practiced extortion, _to depreciate the price of property_, that they
might profit thereby.

7. That all the indisposition to labor which has yet been exhibited is
fully accounted for by these causes.

8. That in spite of all, the abolition is working well for the _honest_
of all parties.

       *       *       *       *       *

WEST INDIA EMANCIPATION, IN 1838.

The immediate abolitionists hold that the change from slavery to freedom
cannot be too sudden. They say that the first step in raising the slave
from his degradation should be that of making him a proper subject of
law, by putting him in possession of himself. This position they rest on
the ground both of justice and expediency, which indeed they believe to
be inseparable. With exceptions too trifling to affect the question,
they believe the laborer who feels no stimulus but that of wages and no
restraint but that of law, is the most _profitable_, not only to himself
and society at large, but to any employer other than a brutal tyrant.
The benefit of this role they claim for every man and woman living
within this republic, till on fair trial the proper tribunal shall have
judged them unworthy of it. They deny both the justice and expediency of
permitting any degree of ignorance or debasement to work the forfeiture
of self-ownership, and pronounce slavery continued for such a cause the
worst of all, inasmuch as it is the _robbery of the poor because he
is poor_.

What light was thrown upon this doctrine by the process of abolition in
the British West Indies from the 1st of August 1834 to the 1st of June
1837, may be seen in the work of Messrs. Thome and Kimball entitled,
"Emancipation in the West Indies." That light continues to shine.
Bermuda and Antigua, in which the slaves passed instantaneously out of
absolute slavery into full freedom, are living witnesses of the blessing
of heaven upon immediate emancipation. In Antigua, one of the old sugar
colonies, where slavery had had its full sway there has been especially
a fair test of immediatism, and the increasing prosperity of the island
does the utmost honor to the principle. After the fullest inquiry on the
point, Messrs. Thome and Kimball say of this island:--

"There is not a class, or party, or sect, who do not esteem the
abolition of slavery as a _special blessing to them_. The rich, because
it relieved them of "property" which was fast becoming a disgrace, as it
had always been a vexation and a tax, and because it has emancipated
them from the terrors of insurrection, which kept them all their
life-time subject to bondage. The poor whites--because it lifted from
off them the yoke of civil oppression. The free colored
population--because it gave the death blow to the prejudice that crushed
them, and opened the prospect of social, civil, and political equality
with the whites. The _slaves_--because it broke open their dungeons, led
them out to liberty, and gave them, in one munificent donation, their
wives, their children, their bodies, their souls--everything."

In the emphatic language of the Governor, "It was _universally admitted_
that emancipation had been a great blessing to the island."

In November 1837, Lord Brougham thus summed up the results of the
Antigua experiment in a speech in the House of Lords:--

"It might be known to their lordships that in one most important colony
the experiment of instant and entire emancipation had been tried.
Infinitely to the honor of the island of Antigua was it, that it did not
wait for the period fixed by the Legislature, but had at once converted
the state of slavery into one of perfect liberty. On the 1st of August,
1834, the day fixed by act of Parliament for the commencement of a ten
years' apprenticeship, the Legislature of that colony, to the immortal
honor of their wisdom, their justice, and their humanity, had abolished
the system of apprenticeship, and had absolutely and entirely struck the
fetters off from 30,000 slaves. Their lordships would naturally ask
whether the experiment had succeeded; and whether this sudden
emancipation had been wisely and politically done. He should move for
some returns which he would venture to say would prove that the
experiment had entirely succeeded. He would give their lordships some
proofs: First, property in that island had risen in value; secondly,
with a very few exceptions, and those of not greater importance than
occurred in England during harvest, there was no deficiency in the
number of laborers to be obtained when laborers were wanted; thirdly,
offences of all sorts, from capital offences downwards, had decreased;
and this appeared from returns sent by the inspector of slaves to the
governor of that colony, and by him transmitted to the proper authority
here; and, fourthly, the exports of sugar had increased: during the
three years ending 1834, the average yearly export was 165,000 cwts.,
and for the three subsequent years this average had increased to 189,000
cwts., being an increase of 21,000 cwts, or one clear seventh, produced
by free labor. Nor were the last three years productive seasons; for in
1835 there was a very severe and destructive hurricane, and in the year
1836 there was such a drought that water was obliged to be imported from
Barbados."

Of such sort, with regard to both the colonies that adopted the
principle of immediate emancipation, have been the facts--and all the
facts--up to the latest intelligence.

The rest of the colonies adopted the plan proposed by the British
government, which contrary to the wishes of the great body of British
abolitionists, made the slaves but partially free under the name of
apprentices. In this mongrel condition they were to remain, the house
servants four, and the field laborers six years. This apprenticeship was
the darling child of that expediency, which, holding the transaction
from wrong to right to be dangerous and difficult, illustrates its
wisdom by lingering on the dividing line. Therefore any mischance that
might have occurred in any part of this tardy process would have been
justly attributable to _gradualism_ and not to _immediatism_. The force
of this remark will be better seen by referring to the nature and
working of the apprenticeship as described in the book of Messrs. Thome
and Kimball. We have only room to say that the masters universally
regarded the system as a part of the compensation or bonus to the
slaveholder and not as a preparatory school for the slave. By law they
were granted a property in the uncompensated _labor_ of the slaves for
six years; but the same law, by taking away the sole means of enforcing
this labor, in fact threw the masters and slaves into a six years'
quarrel in which they stood on something like equal terms. It was surely
not to be wondered if the parties should come out of this contest too
hostile ever to maintain to each other the relation of employer and
employed. This six years of vexatious swinging like a pendulum over the
line between bondage and liberty was well calculated to spoil all the
gratitude and glory of getting across.

It was early discovered that the masters generally were disposed to
abuse their power and get from their apprentices all that could by any
means be extorted. The friends of humanity in Great Britain were
aroused, Mr. Sturge, a distinguished philanthropist of Birmingham,
accompanied by Messrs. Scohle, Harvey, and Lloyd, proceeded to the West
Indies on a mission of inquiry, and prosecuted their investigation
contemporaneously with Messrs. Thome and Kimball. Their Report produced
a general conviction in England, that the planters had forfeited all
claim to retain their authority over the apprentices, and the government
was accordingly petitioned immediately to abolish the system. This it
was loth to do. It caused inquiries to be instituted in the colonies,
especially in Jamaica, with the evident hope of overthrowing the charges
of Mr. Sturge. The result more than confirmed those charges. The
government still plead for delay, and brought in a bill for the
_improvement_ of the apprenticeship. In the progress of these
proceedings, urged on as they were by the heaven-high enthusiasm of the
British nation, many of the planters clearly perceived that their chance
of power during the remaining two years of the apprenticeship had become
worth less to them than the good will which they might get by
voluntarily giving it up. Whether it was this motive operating in good
faith, or a hope to escape philanthropic interference for the future by
yielding to its full claim, and thus gain a clear field to oppress under
the new system of wages, one thing is certain the chartered colonies,
suddenly, and to the surprise of many, put the finishing stroke to the
system and made their apprentices free from the 1st of August, 1838. The
crown colonies have mostly imitated their example.

The following table exhibits the extent and population of these
colonies.


Possessions.       Date of    Extent.          Population
                   acquisit.  sq. m.      White Slaves  F. Col.
Anguilla[B],        1650      . . .        365   2,388    327
Antigua[A],         1632       108       1,980  29,537  3,895
Bahamas[B],         1629     4,400       4,240   9,268  2,991
Barbados[B],        1625       166      14,959  82,807  5,146
Bermudas[A],        1611        22       3,905   4,608    738
Dominica[B],        1783       275         840  15,392  3,606
Grenada[B],         1783       125         801  24,145  3,786
Jamaica[B],         1655     6,400      37,000 311,692 55,000
Montserrat[B],      1632        47         330   6,262    814
Nevis[B],           1628        20         700   9,259  2,000
St. Christophers[B],1632        68       1,612  19,310  3,000
St. Lucia[B],       1803        58         972  13,661  3,718
St. Vincent[B],     1783       130       1,301  23,589  2,824
Tobago[B],          1763       187         322  12,556  1,164
Trinidad[B],        1797     2,460       4,201  24,006 15,956
Tortola, or
Virgin Isles[B],    1666      . . .        800   5,399    607

Total, B.W.I       . . .    14,466      74,328 593,879 105,572
Cape of Good Hope, . . .     . . .      43,000  35,500  29,000
       Berbice[B]  . . .     . . .         523  20,645   1,161
Guiana Demarara[B]  1803     . . .      3,006  65,556   6,360
       Essequibo[B], . .     . . .      . . . .  . . .   . . .
Honduras,           1650    62,750         250   2,100   2,300
Mauritius,         . . .     . . .       8,000  76,000  15,000
Total.             . . .     . . .     129,107 793,680 159,393

[Footnote A: Emancipated entirely on the 1st. of August, 1834.]

[Footnote B: Emancipated entirely on the 1st. of August, 1838, by vote
of the local legislatures in the chartered Colonies; and by Governor and
Council, in the Crown Colonies.]

The _unanimity_ with which the apprenticeship was given up is a most
remarkable and instructive fact. In the Council and Assembly of
Montserrat, there was an unanimous decision in favor of Emancipation as
early as February 1838. In the legislature of Tortola, which passed the
bill in April 1838, the opposing party was small. In that of Barbados
the bill was passed on the 15th of May with but _one_ dissenting voice.
In that of Jamaica, the bill seems to have been passed on the 8th of
June, and the _Jamaica Times_ remarks:--"No dissentient voice was heard
within the walls of the Assembly, all joined in the wish so often
expressed, that the remaining term of the apprenticeship should be
cancelled, that the excitement produced by a law which has done
inconceivable harm in Jamaica, in alienating the affections of her
people, and creating discord and disaffection, should at once cease.
Thank God! it is now nearly at an end, and we trust that Jamaica will
enjoy that repose, so eagerly and anxiously sought after, by all who
wish the Island well."

These facts come down upon the question of the safety of an _immediate_
emancipation with an _a fortiori_, a _much more then_. For it is
admitted on all hands that the apprenticeship had "alienated the
affections of the people;" they were in a state less favorable to a
quiet sequel, than they were before the first of August, 1834, yet the
danger was not thought of. The _safety_ was an argument _in favor_ of
emancipation, not _against_ it. The raw head and bloody bones had
vanished. The following is a fair exhibition of the feeling of the most
influential planters, in regard to the _safety_ of the step.

From the Barbadian, May 9, 1838.

AT A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, IN THE NEW COURT
HOUSE, APRIL 24TH, 1838.

The Lord Bishop rose and spoke as follows:

"_Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Council_,

'I was informed yesterday that, during my absence from this island, the
members recorded their opinion as to the expediency of absolutely
abolishing the apprenticeship in August, 1838. I am most anxious to
record my entire concurrence in this resolution, but I wish it to be
understood that I do not consider the measure as called for by any
hardships, under which the laborers in this island are suffering--nor
from the want of any essential comfort--nor from the deprivation of any
thing, which a laborer can fairly claim from his master; still I do
express my concurrence in the resolution of the board, and I do so on
these grounds: that I am satisfied the measure can be safely carried in
this island, and if safely, then I feel justly; for I consider the very
important interests which are involved in the measure. I must confess,
too, that I am unwilling the Barbados should be behind any other island,
especially in a measure which may be carried both safely and justly, and
where its example may be of such beneficial consequence. I am just
returned from visiting the Northern Islands of the Diocese. I have gone
over every part of Tortola, and though it is far more fertile than the
Off Islands, yet even these are sufficiently productive for the laborer
to raise the lesser and necessary provision of life,--and yet with these
islands in their very face, the Legislature of Tortola has passed the
act of abolition. Some of the proprietors were opposed to it, but they
have now given up their opposition; and I heard, whilst in Antigua, not
only that the act had passed, but that on the day of its passing, or the
following day, some of the leading proprietors rode through the island,
and were met by the people with expressions of the utmost gratitude,
regarding the act as a boon granted to them by their masters. At Nevis
the act has passed. At St. Christopher's the council are in favor of its
passing, and with Nevis emancipated in its vicinity, there is little
doubt but the Act must pass. At Montserrat also it has passed. At
Antigua, which I visited last year, I found that every thing was
proceeding quietly and regularly. I found too, the planters in high
spirits, and some estates, which had been given up, restored; and the
small patches and tenements of the free people, commencing last year,
now in a very satisfactory state of cultivation. It is possible, indeed,
that these last mentioned, unless the population is proportionably
increased, may affect the cultivation of the larger estates, but there
they are, and flourishing, as I have described, whilst I was in the
island. A contiguous, though abandoned estate was purchased by Sir Henry
Martin for about 9,500 _l._ currency, being 3,000 _l._ more than he had
offered a few years previously. To compare Barbados with any other
island, either as to population, wealth, or state of agriculture, is
unnecessary. I have seen nothing like the commercial activity which I
saw in the streets yesterday, except at St. Thomas; and I feel,
therefore, on all these grounds, that the act may be passed safely and
justly. At the same time I am not unmindful or insensible to the state
of public opinion in the mother country, nor to the many new and
harassing annoyances to which the proprietors may be exposed during a
protracted continuance of the apprenticeship. I request that my full
concurrence in the resolution of the council, may be accorded on the
minutes of this day's proceedings.'"

Such is the testimony of a witness in no wise warped by prejudice in
favor of the anti-slavery party.

The debates which took place in the legislatures of both Barbados and
Jamaica, are full of similar testimony, uttered by men every way
qualified to bear witness, and under influences which relieve their
testimony from every taint of suspicion.

In the legislature of Jamaica, on the question of a Committee to bring
in a Bill, Mr. GOOD remarked, "He could say that the negroes from their
general good conduct were deserving of the boon. Then why not give in
with a good heart? why exhibit any bad feelings about the matter? There
were many honorable gentlemen who had benefitted by the pressure from
without, who owed their rank in society and their seats in that house to
the industry of the negroes. Why should they now show a bad heart in the
matter?--Nine tenths of the proprietors of this island had determined
upon giving up the apprenticeship. Hundreds of thousands were to be
benefited--were to take their stations as men of society, and he hoped
the boon would not be retarded by a handful of men who owed their all
to slavery."

Mr. Dallas said,--"_The abolition of the remaining term of
apprenticeship must take place; let them then join hand and heart in
doing it well, and with such grace as we now could. Let it have the
appearance of a boon from ourselves, and not in downright submission to
the coercive measures adopted by the British Parliament_."

After a committee had been appointed to prepare and bring in a Bill for
the abolition of the apprenticeship, a member rose and proposed that the
28th of June should be its termination. We give his speech as reported
in the Jamaica papers, to show how fanatical even a slaveholder
may become.

"On the members resuming their seats, Mr. HART proposed that it be an
instruction to the committee appointed to bring in the bill or
abolishing the remainder of the apprenticeship, to insert a clause in
it, that the operation of that bill should commence on the 28th of June,
that being the day appointed for the coronation of the Queen. _He felt
proud in telling the house that he was the representative of the black
population. He was sent there by the blacks and his other friends_. The
white Christians had their representatives, the people of color had
their representatives, and _he hoped shortly to see the day when the
blacks would send in their own representatives_. He wanted the thing
done at once, Sir, said the honorable member waxing warm. It was
nonsense to delay it. It could be done in three lines as he said before,
dele 1840 and put in 1838. That was all that they had to do. If it were
possible, let the thing be done in two words. He went there to do his
duty to his constituents, and he was determined to do so. His black
friends looked up to him to protect them--and he would press his motion
that all the apprentices in the island should be _crowned_ on the 28th
of June. (Thundering roars of laughter.) He was as independent as any
honorable member, and would deliver his sentiment, without caring who
were and who were not pleased. He was possessed of property in
apprentices--_he had an estate with nearly two hundred negroes, that he
was determined to crown on the 28th of June_. (Increased roars of
laughter in the house, and at the bar.) He would not be laughed down.
His properties were not encumbered. He would not owe anything on them
after they were paid for, and that he could do. (Loud laughter.) He was
determined to have his opinion. As he had said before, the 28th day of
June being fixed for the coronation of all the negroes in the island,
that is the day they ought to be released from the apprenticeship.
(Thundering and deafening roars of laughter). (Here the honorable member
was told that the Queen was to be crowned on that day.) Ah, well, he had
made a mistake, but he would tell the house the truth, _he had made up
his mind to give his apprentices freedom on that day, but he did not
wish to do it without his neighbors doing the same, lest they should say
he was setting a bad example_. He would press his motion to a division.
It had been seconded by his honorable friend on his right.--(Aside,
"Good, didn't you promise to second it?") The honorable member then read
his motion, and handed it up to the clerk."

The "mistake" of this liberal descendant of Israel, which excited so
much merriment was, after all, not a very unfortunate one, _if_ the
"crown" of manhood is more important than that of monarchy. The members
objected to so near an approach to _immediatism_, not, however, be it
remarked, on account of the unfitness of the apprentices, (slaves) but
their own convenience. Among those who replied to Mr. Hart, was Mr.
Osborn, of unmingled African blood, born a slave, and who, we are
informed, was a successful competitor for the seat he now occupies
against the very man who formerly claimed him as property. Mr. Osborn
and his partner Mr. Jordon were editors of the Jamaica Watchman, and had
contended manfully for liberty when it was a dangerous word. Mr. Osborn
said:--"He was astonished at the galloping liberality which seemed to
have seized some honorable members, now there was nothing to contend
for. Their liberality seemed to have outrun all prudence. Where were
they and their liberality when it was almost death to breach the
question of slavery? What had become of their philanthropy? But no, it
was not convenient then. The stream was too strong for them to resist.
Now, however, when the question was finally settled, when nothing
remained for them to do, it was the time that some honorable gentlemen
began to clamor their liberality, and began a race who should be the
first, or who should have the honor of first terminating the
apprenticeship. He hoped the motion would be withdrawn, and the
discussion put an end to."

What had become of the visions of blood and slaughter? Could there be
more impressive testimony to the safety of Emancipation in all, even the
worst cases?

We might add to this testimony that of the universal newspaper press of
the British West India colonies. We have room, however, to select only
from a few of the well known opponents of freedom.

"We seriously call upon our representatives to consider well all the
bearings of the question, and if they cannot resist effectually these
encroachments of the Imperial Government, adopt the remaining
alternative of saving themselves from an infliction, by giving up at
once and entirely, the bone of contention between us. Thus only shall we
disarm, if anything in reason or in nature can, our enemies of their
slanderous weapons of offence, and secure in as far as possible, a
speedy and safe return of peace and prosperity to the "distracted"
colony.--Without this sacrifice on our parts, we see no shelter from our
sufferings--no amelioration of present wrongs--no hope for the future;
but on the contrary, a systematic and remorseless train laid for the
ultimate ruin of every proprietor in the country. With this sacrifice
which can only be to any extent to a few and which the wisdom of our
legislature may possibly find out some means or other of compensation,
we have the hope that the sunshine of Jamaica's prosperity shall not
receive any farther diminution; but shall rather dawn again with renewed
vigor; when all shall be alike free under the protection of the same
law, and the same law-givers; and all shall be alike amenable to the
powers that punish without favor and without affection."--_Jamaica
Standard_.

"There is great reason to expect that many Jamaica proprietors will
anticipate the period established by the Slavery Abolition Act for the
termination of the apprenticeship. They will, as an act of grace, and
with a view to their future arrangements with their negroes, terminate
the apprenticeship either of all at once, or by giving immediate freedom
to the most deserving; try the effect of this gift, and of the example
afforded to the apprentices when they see those who have been discharged
from the apprenticeship working on the estates for wages. If such a
course is adopted, it will afford an additional motive for inducing the
Legislature to consider whether the good feeling of the laboring
population, and their future connection with their former employers, may
not be promoted by permitting them to owe to the grace of their own
Legislature the termination of the apprenticeship as soon as the
requisite legislation for the new state of things has been
adopted."--_Jamaica Despatch_.

Of such sort as this is the testimony from all the Colonies, most
abundantly published in the Emancipator and other abolition papers, to
the point of the _safety_ of entire Emancipation. At the time when the
step was taken, it was universally concluded that so far from being
dangerous it promised the greatest safety. It would not only put an end
to the danger apprehended from the foreign interference of the
abolitionists, but it would _conciliate the negroes_! And we are not
able to find any one who professes to be disappointed with the result
thus far. The only evil now complained of, is the new freemen do not in
some instances choose _to work_ on the _terms_ offered by the planters.
They have shed no man's blood. They have committed no depredation. They
peaceably obey the laws. All this, up to the latest date, is universally
admitted. Neither does any one _now_ presume to prophesy anything
different for the future.

INDUSTRY.

On the one topic of the industry of the Emancipated people, the West
Indian papers give the most conflicting accounts. Some represent them as
laboring with alacrity, diligence and effect wherever anything like an
adequate compensation is offered. It is asserted by some, and not denied
by any authorities that we have seen, that the emancipated are
industriously at work on those estates where the masters voluntarily
relinquished the apprenticeship before the first of August and met their
freed people in good faith. But most of the papers, especially in
Jamaica, complain grievously that the freed people will work on no
reasonable terms. We give a fair specimen from one of the Jamaica
papers, on which our political editors choose most to rely for their
information:--

"In referring to the state of the country this week, we have still the
same tale to tell of little work, and that little indifferently done,
but exorbitantly charged for; and wherever resisted, a general "strike"
is the consequence. Now this, whatever more favourable complexion the
interested and sinister motives of others may attempt to throw around
it, is the real state of matters upon nine-tenths of the properties
situated in St. James's, Westmoreland, and Hanover. In Trelawny they
_appear_ to be doing a little better; but that only arises, we are
confident from the longer purses, and patience of endurance under
exorbitant wages, exhibited by the generality of the managers of that
parish. Let them wait till they find they can no longer continue making
sugar at its present expensive rate, and they will then find whether
Trelawny is substantially in a better condition than either of the other
parties."--_Standard, quoted in the Morning Journal of Nov. 2_.

This is the "tale" indeed, of a great part of the West India papers,
sung to the same hum drum tune ever since the first of August; and so
faithfully echoed by our own pro slavery press that many of our
estimable fellow citizens have given it up that the great "experiment"
has turned out unfavorably, and that the colored population of the West
Indies are rapidly _sinking_ from the condition of _slaves_ to that of
idle freemen. Were we all in a position perfectly disinterested and
above the peculiar influence of slavery, we might perhaps consider these
complaints as asking for, rather than against, the character of the
Emancipated and the cause of freedom, inasmuch as they prove the former
slaves to have both the discretion and the spirit which should
characterise freemen. But to the peculiar optics which abound in these
United States it may be necessary to show the entire picture.

To prove in the first place the general falsehood of the complaints
themselves it is only necessary to advert to recent official documents.
For our present purpose it will be sufficient to refer to Jamaica. The
legislature was convened on the 30th of October and addressed by the
Governor Sir Lionel Smith in a speech of which the following extract
pertains to our subject:--

    _"Gentlemen of the Council, Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the House
    of Assembly,_

    The most important event in the annals of colonial history has taken
    place since last I had the pleasure of meeting the legislature of
    this Island; and I am happy in being able to declare that the
    conduct of the laboring population, who were then the objects of
    your liberal and enlightened policy, _entitles them to the highest
    praise, and amply proves how_ WELL THEY HAVE DESERVED _the boon
    of freedom._

    It was not to be expected that the total extinction of the
    apprenticeship law would be followed by an instantaneous return to
    active labor, but feeling as I do the deepest interest in the
    successful result of the great measurement now in progress, I
    sincerely congratulate you and the country at large, on the
    improvement which is daily taking place on the resumption of
    industrious habits, and I TRUST THERE IS EVERY PROSPECT OF
    AGRICULTURAL PROSPERITY."

Such is the testimony of a Governor who is no stranger in the West
Indies and who was put in the place of Lord Sligo as more acceptable to
the planters. But what said the House of Assembly in reply?--a House
made up chiefly of attornies who had more interest than any other men in
the continuance of the old system and who, as will presently be shown,
were not unwilling to have the "experiment" fail? They speak as
follows:--

    _"May it Please your Excellency,_

    We, her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Assembly of
    Jamaica, thank your Excellency for your speech at the opening of
    the session.

    The House join your Excellency in bearing testimony TO THE
    PEACEABLE MANNER in which the laboring population have conducted
    themselves in a state of FREEDOM.

    It certainly was not to be expected that so great a change in the
    condition of the people would be followed by an immediate return to
    active labor. The House, however, are willing to believe that some
    degree of improvement is taking place, and they sincerely join in
    the HOPE expressed by your Excellency, that the agricultural
    interests of the Island may ultimately prosper, by a resumption of
    industrious habits on the part of the peasantry in their new
    condition."

This settles the question. Those who will not be convinced by such
documents as these that the mass of the Emancipated in Jamaica are ready
_to do their part_ in the system of free labor, would not be convinced
if one rose from the deed to prove it.

We are now prepared to investigate the causes of the complaints, and
inquire why in numerous cases the negros have refused to work. Let us
first go back to the debates Jamaica Legislature on the passage of the
Emancipation bill in June, and see whether we can discover the _temper_
in which it was passed, and the prospect of good faith in its execution.
We can hardly doubt that some members, and some especially from whose
speeches on that occasion we have already quoted, designed really to
confer the "boon of freedom." But others spoke very differently. To
understand their language we must commence with the Governor's speech at
the opening of the session:--

    _"Gentlemen of the Council,

    Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the Assembly,_

    I have called you together, at an unusual season, to take it to your
    consideration the state of the Island under the Laws of
    Apprenticeship, for the labouring population.

    I need not refer you to the agitation on this subject throughout the
    British Empire, or to the discussions upon it in Parliament, _where
    the honourable efforts of the ministry_ were barely found sufficient
    to preserve the original duration of the Laws, as an obligation of
    the National faith.

    I shall lay before you some despatches on this subject."

       *       *       *       *       *

    _"Gentlemen,_

    _General agitation and Parliamentary interference have not, I am
    afraid, yet terminated._

    _A corresponding excitement has been long going on among the
    apprentices themselves,_ but still they have rested in sober and
    quiet hopes, relying on your generosity, that you will extend to
    them that boon which has been granted to their class in
    other Colonies."

       *       *       *       *       *

    _"Gentlemen of the Council,

    Mr. Speaker and Gentlemen of the Assembly,_

    In this posture of affairs, it is my duty to declare my sentiments,
    and distinctly to _recommend to you the early and equal abolition of
    the apprenticeship for all classes._ I do so in confidence that the
    apprentices will be found worthy of freedom, and that it will
    operate as a double blessing, by securing also the future interests
    of the planters.

    I am commanded, however, to inform you that her Majesty's ministers
    will not entertain any question of further compensation. But should
    your views be opposed to the policy I recommend, I would entreat you
    to consider well _how impracticable it will become to carry on
    coercive labor_--always difficult, it would in future be in peril of
    constant comparisons with other colonies made free, and with those
    estates in this island made free by individual proprietors.

    As Governor, under these circumstances, and I never shrink from any
    of my responsibilities, _I pronounce it physically impossible to
    maintain the apprenticeship with any hope of successful agriculture._

       *       *       *       *       *

    "_Gentlemen of the Council,

    Mr. Speaker, and gentlemen of the Assembly._

    Jamaica, is in your hands--she requires repose, by the removal of a
    law which has _equally tormented the laborer, and disappointed the
    planter_--a law by which man still constrains man in unnatural
    servitude. This is her first exigency. For her future welfare she
    appeals to your wisdom to legislate in the spirit of the times, with
    liberality and benevolence towards all classes."

       *       *       *       *       *

When such a man as Sir Lionel Smith pronounced it no longer practicable
to carry on coercive labor, he must have been a bold as well as a rash
planter who would venture to hold on to the old system under Lord
Glenelg's improvement Act. Accordingly we find some of the staunchest
advocates of slavery, men who had been fattening on the oppression of
the apprentices up to that moment the first, and the most precipitate,
is their proposals of abolition. Mr. Hyslop, Mr. Gay and others were for
acting at once on the Governor's speech without referring it to a
committee. The former said: "He believed that a proposition would be
made to abandon the apprenticeship from the 1st of August, _but he would
say let it be abandoned from Sunday next_. He would therefore move that
the speech be made the order of the day for tomorrow."

Mr. Guy said:--

"The Governor's speech contained nothing more than what every Gentlemen
expected, _and what every Gentlemen, he believed, was prepared to do. In
short he_ would state that _a bill had already been prepared by him,
which he intended to introduce tomorrow, for the abolition of the
apprenticeship on the 1st of August next_."

Both these gentlemen are well known by the readers of Jamaica papers as
obstinate defenders slavery. The latter was so passionately devoted to
the abuses of the apprenticeship that Lord Sligo was obliged to dismiss
him from the post of Adjutant General of militia. In the ardor of his
attachment to the "peculiar institution" of getting work without pay, he
is reported to have declared on a public occasion, that the British
ministry were a "parcel of reptiles" and that the "English nation was
fast going to the dogs." In another part of the debate:--

"Mr. Guy hoped the house would not _go into a discussion of the nature of
the apprenticeship_, or the terms upon which it was forced us by the
government. All that he knew about the matter was, that it was a part
and parcel of the compensation. Government had so declared it. In short
it was made law. He could not help believing that the Hon. member for
Trelawny, was arguing against the dictates of his own honest heart--that
he came there cut and dry with a speech prepared to _defend the
government_."

Mr. Barclay, to whom, some years ago, the planters gave a _splendid
service of plate_ for his ingenious defence of slavery against the
terrible pen of JAMES STEPHEN, said "it appeared to be the general
feeling of the house that the apprenticeship should be done away with.
Be that as it may, he was free to say that in that part of the island he
was from, and certainly it was a large and wealthy district, the
apprenticeship system _had worked well_, and all parties _appeared_
satisfied with it. He denied that there existed any necessity to disturb
the working of the system, it would have _gradually_ slided into
_absolute freedom if they were permitted to regulate their own affairs_,
but the government, or rather, _the people of England, had forced on the
predicament in which they were placed_. The ministry could not help
themselves--They were driven to violate the national compact, not in
express words, it is true, but in fact. It was, however, the _force of
public opinion that operated_ in producing the change. They were placed
in a situation from which they could hardly extricate themselves.--
_They had no alternative, he was afraid, but to go along with
the stream_."

Mr. Hamilton Brown, who at the commencement of the apprenticeship came
into a Special Magistrate's court and publicly told him that unless he
and his colleagues "_did their duty by having recourse to a frequent and
vigorous application of the lash, there would he rebellion in the Parish
(of St. Ann's!) in less than a month, and all the responsibility of such
a calamity would rest on their shoulders_"! discoursed in the following
manner. "It was always understood, for the apprenticeship _had become
marketable_. Properties had been bought and sold with them, their time
had been bought by others, and by themselves."

"He had no hesitation in saying, that the statements which had been made
in England against the planters _were as false as hell_--they had been
concocted here, and sent home by a parcel of spies in the island. They
were represented as a cruel set of men, as having outraged the feelings
of humanity towards the negroes, or in matters in which they were
concerned. This was false. He did not mean to deny that there were a
_few instances_ of cruelty to the apprentices, but then those were
_isolated cases_, and was it not hard that a hue and cry should be
raised against the whole body of planters, and all made to suffer on
account of those _few_. He would say that there was a greater
disposition to be cruel to the negroes evinced _by young men arriving in
this island from England, than by the planters. There was, indeed, a
great deal of difficulty in restraining them from doing so, but the
longer they lived in the country, the more kind and humane they became_.
The negroes _were better off here than many of the people of Great
Britain_, and they would have been contented, had it not been for the
injudicious _interference of some of the Special Justices_. Who had ever
heard of negroes being starved to death? Had they not read accounts in
the English papers of men destroying their wives, their children, _and
afterwards themselves_, because they could not obtain food. They had
been grossly defrauded of their property; and after doing that, it was
now sought to destroy their constitutional rights. He would repeat, they
had been grossly defrauded of their property." [Here is the true
slaveholder, logic, chivalry and all.]

Mr. Frater said, among other things, "He knew that it might be said the
bill (Lord Glenelg's) did not go to the extent of freeing the
negroes--_that we are about to do ourselves_, but he would ask whether
we were not _driven into the difficulty_ by which we are now surrounded!
Had we not been brought into this _alarming position_, into this
_exigency_, by the conduct of the British Government. _Why do we not
tell the English nation frankly and candidly, that they agreed to give
the planter six years' services of their apprentices, as a part of the
compensation, and if they desired to do away with it, that we must be
paid for it_, otherwise we will NOT ANSWER FOR ANY CHANGE, FOR ANY EVILS
WHICH ARE LIKELY TO ENSUE. Why did the government force such an
obnoxious bill upon us? They had in substance done this, they refused to
annul the apprenticeship themselves, it is true, but said, we will place
them in a situation that will compel them to do it themselves. He must
say that the Government had acted _cowardly and unjustly_, they had in
substance deprived them of the further two years' services of their
apprentices, agreeably to the compact entered into, upon a pretext that
we had not kept faith with them, and now tell us they will give us no
compensation. He hoped the allusion to it in the address would be
retained."

We beg the patient attention of the reader to still more of these
extracts. The present state of things in Jamaica renders them very
important. It is indispensable to a correct judgment of the results of
the experiment to understand in what temper it was entered upon by the
parties. Nothing can show this more clearly or authoritatively than the
quotations we are making. We find another little torrent of eloquence
from the same Mr. Hamilton Brown above quoted. He and several other
gentlemen rose to reply to the statements of Richard Hill, a friend of
freedom, and Secretary of the Special Magistracy.

Mr. Brown--"Mr. Chairman, I am on my legs, Sir. I say that we have to
thank the Special Justices, and the _private instructions_ which they
have acted upon, _for all the evils that have occurred in the country_.
Had they taken _the law_ for their guide, had they acted upon that, Sir,
and not upon their private instructions, _every thing would have gone on
splendidly_, and we should have done well. But they had _destroyed the
negroes with their instructions_, they had _given them bad advice_, and
_encouraged them in disobedience to their masters_. I say it, Sir, in
the face of this committee--I would say it on my death-bed tomorrow,
that if the Stipendiary Magistrates had _done their duty_ all would have
gone on well, _and I told his Excellency that he might then have slept
on a bed of roses_."

Here was one of the abolishers of the apprenticeship who held that more
flogging would have made it work more "splendidly." Mr. Hugh Fraser
Leslie, who the February before had, in his place in the Assembly,
denominated the anti-slavery delegates assembled in London, as "a set of
crawling wretches;" "the scum and refuse of society." "The washings and
scrapings of the manufacturing districts," &c. &c. now delivered himself
of the following:--

"_He would ask any man in the house, nay, in the country, whether the
house had any discretion left to them in the steps they were about to
take_? Could it be denied, that they were driven to the present
alternative? Could they any longer say they were an independent
legislature? It would be preposterous--absolutely absurd to entertain
any such idea. The apprenticeship had been _forced upon the country_ as
a part and parcel of the planters' compensation--it had been working
well, and would insensibly _have slided into a state of absolute
freedom, had the masters been left alone to themselves. It is now
utterly impracticable to continue it_. A most obnoxious measure had been
passed by the British parliament, and sent out to this country to be
promulgated by the Governor as the law of the land. The functions of the
legislature were put in abeyance, and a British act _crammed down their
throats_. It could not be denied that they were now under a military
Government. _He was only sorry that the thing had not been more honestly
done_; in his opinion, it would have been better for all classes, for
then the government would have taken all the responsibilities which
might attend the sudden change they had driven the house to make, and
find the means of conducting the affairs of the country into a peaceable
and successful state. _Let any person look to the excitement which at
present prevailed throughout the country, couple that with the speech
which had been delivered by the Governor, and say if it was any longer
practicable to carry one the system of apprenticeship_. With respect to
the doctrine which had been broached, that the apprenticeship was not a
part and parcel of the compact between the government and the planters;
that they (the planters) did not possess an absolute but an incidental
right to the services of their apprentices, _he confessed he was at a
loss to understand it_, he was incapable of drawing so nice a
distinction. He repeated, the government and nation had made the
apprenticeship a part of the consideration of the abolition of slavery,
and having placed us in a situation to render its continuance
impracticable they were bound in honor and common honesty _to compensate
us_ for the two years."

Once more, and we have done. Mr. Berry said,

"He did not think that because the Governor said they were not entitled
to compensation, that therefore they should give up the claim which they
unquestionably had upon the British nation for further compensation. He
would contend also, that the apprenticeship was one part of the
consideration for the abolition of slavery. He had heard it remarked
that the apprenticeship must cease, but it ought to be added that they
were compelled--they were driven to put an end to it by the Government,
though they were convinced that neither party was at this moment
prepared for immediate abandonment. The Governor, in his opening speech,
had told the house that from the agitation at home, and the
corresponding agitation which at the present moment prevailed here, it
was physically impossible to carry one the apprenticeship with advantage
to masters and labourers. He would take leave to remark, that the
apprenticeship _was working very well_--in some of the parishes had
worked extremely well. Where this was not the case, it was attributable
_to the improper conduct of the Special Justices_. He did not mean to
reflect upon them all; there were some honorable exceptions, but he
would say that a great deal of the ill-feeling which had arisen in the
country between the masters and their apprentices, was to be traced to
the _injudicious advice_ and conduct of the special Justices."

Such were the sentiments of by far the majority of those who spoke in
the Assembly. Such, doubtless, were the sentiments of more than
nine-tenths of the persons invested with the management of estates in
Jamaica. What, then if we had heard that nine-tenths of the emancipated
had refused to be employed? Could that have been counted a failure of
the experiment? Was there any reason to believe that the planters would
not resort to every species of oppression compatible with a system
of wages?

Before proceeding to the question of wages, however, we invite the
reader to scan the temper and disposition of the parties of the other
part, viz., the laboring population. Let us observe more carefully how
_they_ behaved at the important period of

TRANSITION

Two of the sturdiest advocates of slavery, the _Jamaica Standard_ and
the _Cornwall Courier_, speak as follows:--

The _Standard_ says--"On Tuesday evening, (July 31), the Wesleyan, and we
believe, Baptist Chapels, (St. James') were opened for service--the
former being tastefully decorated with branches of the palm, sage, and
other trees, with a variety of appropriate devices, having a portrait of
her Majesty in the center, and a crown above. When we visited the
Chapel, about 10 o'clock, it was completely full, but not crowded, the
generality of the audience well dressed; and all evidently of the better
class of the colored and negro population. Shortly after, we understand,
a very excellent and modern sermon, in all political points, was
delivered by the Rev. Mr. Kerr, the highly respected pastor. The
congregation was dismissed shortly after 12 o'clock; at which hour the
church bell commenced its solemn peal, and a few noisy spirits welcomed
in the morning of Freedom with loud cheers, and planted a huge branch,
which they termed the "Tree of Liberty," in the center of the two roads
crossing the market square."

Again the _Standard_ observes, "The long, and somewhat anxiously
expected jubilee of Emancipation has arrived, and now nearly passed
over, with a remarkable degree of quiet and circumspection. Of St.
James's of course, we speak more particularly,--St. James's, hitherto the
most reviled, and most unwarrantably calumniated parish, of all the
parishes in this unfortunate and distracted colony!"

The _Cornwall Courier_ says, "The first of August, the most important
day ever witnessed in Jamaica, has passed quietly as far as actual
disturbance is concerned."

The _Jamaica Morning Journal_, of whose recent course the planters
should be the last to complain, gives more particular information of the
transition in all parts of the island. We give copious extracts, for to
dwell upon such a scene must soften the heart. It is good sometimes to
behold the joy of mere brute freedom--the boundings of the noble horse
freed from his stable and his halter--the glad homeward flight of the
bird from its cage--but here was besides the rational joy of a
heaven-born nature. Here were 300,000 souls set free; and on wings of
gratitude flying upwards to the throne of God. There were the gatherings
in the public squares, there were the fireworks, the transparencies, the
trees of liberty and the shouts of the jubilee, but the churches and the
schools were the chief scenes, and hymns and prayer the chief language
of this great ovation. There was no giving up to drunken revelry, but a
solemn recognition of God, even by those who had not been wont to
worship him. His temples were never so crowded. His ministers never so
much honored. We give the picture in all its parts, faithfully, and as
completely as our information will enable us to do.

August 2.

"In this city, the day has passed off in the way in which such a day
ought to pass off. With glad hearts and joyful lips, the people have
crowded the temples of the living God, and poured out their praises and
thanksgivings for the great benefits they had received at the hands of a
beneficent Providence. That they will continue to deport themselves as
dutiful subjects, and good men and women, we have no doubt. From the
country we wait with anxious hopes to hear that everything has gone off
with the same peace, and quiet, and order, and regularity which have
prevailed here, and especially that the people have returned to their
labor, and are giving general satisfaction."

From the same.

Among the various ways of interesting the minds of our newly
enfranchised peasantry on the 1st of August, was that of planting a Palm
tree emblematical of liberty, and commemorative of its commencement in
this island. Both in Kingston and in Liguanca, we understand, this
ceremony was performed by the schools and congregations of the "London
Missionary Society." The following hymn, composed by Mr. Wooldridge, for
the purpose, and committed to memory by many of the children, who were
treated with cakes and lemonade.

Appropriate sermons were preached, both morning and evening, by the Rev.
Messrs. Woodbridge and Ingraham, and in the evening a Temperance Society
was formed for the district of Liguanca, when several signed the pledge.

    The thorny bush we'll clear away
    The emblem of old slavery--
    Let every fibre of it die,
    And all its vices cease to be.

    Let indolence, deceit, and theft,
    Be of their nourishment bereft,
    Let cruel wrong now disappear,
    And decent order crown each year.

PROCEEDINGS AT TRELAWNEY.--A correspondent in Trelawney writes. The
first of August was observed by the people so decently and devoutly, and
with such manifestations of subdued, yet grateful feeling, that they
appeared more like a select class of Christians celebrating some holy
day of their church, than a race but recently converted from idolatry,
and who were just emerging from the pollutions and degradation
of slavery.

TREAT TO THE CHILDREN.--The most interesting and truly exciting scene of
all in Trelawny, was the spectacle of some hundreds of happy children
dining. This feast for them, and for all who had hearts that could
sympathise with the happiness of others, was provided by the Rev. Mr.
Knibb. Similar scenes were enacted in the rural districts. The Rev. Mr.
Blyth had, I believe, a meeting of his scholars, and a treat provided
for them. The Rev. Mr. Anderson had a large assemblage of his scholars
at the school-house, who were regaled with meat, bread, and beverage,
and also a large meeting of the adult members of his Church, to every
one of whom, who could, or was attempting to learn to read, he gave a
book.--[HE GAVE A BOOK.]

AT ST. ELIZABETH.--At the hour of 10, A.M., there was about 3000 persons
assembled at Crosmond, when the clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Hylton, proposed
an adjournment from the Chapel to the shade of some wide-spreading trees
in the common pasture, whither the happy multitude immediately
adjourned. The morning service of the church having ended, the Rev.
Gentleman preached a most impressive sermon from the 4th chapter of
Zech. 6th verse--"Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith
the Lord of Hosts"--In his application, he took a brief review of the
history of the island--the conquest by the Spanish--the extermination by
the Indians--and the consequent introduction of the negroes from Africa.
He then adverted to the several insurrections that had taken place
during the period since the conquest by the British, to the last general
rebellion in 1832, in which both himself and many present were deeply
interested. Having shown that all these insurrections had been
suppressed, and had come to nought, he proceeded to point out how
through Divine providence Mr. Wilberforce was raised up to advocate the
cause of the oppressed African, and since that period, step by step,
various privileges had been quietly conceded to the colored race, until
the final consummation by the Legislature, in abolishing the last
vestiges of slavery on the 1st of August, 1838.

The Rev. Gentleman's honorable mention of Mr. Wilberforce appeared to be
deeply felt and acknowledged by all around. After the service was
concluded, the assembled multitude gave three hearty cheers for Queen
Victoria, and three for Lord Mulgrave, the first _free Governor_ that
ever came to Jamaica.

A more decent, orderly, and well-behaved assemblage could not be seen in
any part of the world. The people have indeed proved themselves worthy
of the "_great boon_" conferred upon them.

AT PORT MARIA.--The first of August passed off happily and peaceably.
The people felt deeply the great blessing that had been conferred on
them, and behaved uncommonly well. All the places of worship were
crowded; indeed, thrice the number would not have contained those who
attended, and many of whom could not be accommodated.

From the Cornwall Chronicle of Aug. 4.

Nothing could give a fairer and fuller confidence in the character of
the negroes than their conduct on so joyous and trying an occasion, as
what they have exhibited during the brief period of their political
regeneration. It may be considered as an earnest of their future
peaceable demeanor; the disbelief of the sceptic will thus be put to the
blush, and the apprehensions of the timid allayed. The first of August
has passed, and with it the conduct of the people has been such as to
convince the most jealous, as well as the most sanguine of the evil
prognosticators, that they are a good and trust-worthy people. There is
no doubt but that this day will be held for ever as a sacred
anniversary--a new Pentecost--upon which they will render thanks for the
quiet "possession of their Canaan"--free from all political oppressions,
and that they can suffer only from the acts of their own indiscretion.
If ever they were placed in a favorable situation which they could
improve, it could not have been equal to the present.--The exercise of
moderation, however, is now most required, and will be greatly
appreciated to themselves at a future time.

CUMBERLAND PEN., ST. CATHERINE.--The
conduct of the people in this district generally,
is such as to entitle them to the highest commendation.
Well knowing the inconvenience to
which their masters' customers would be otherwise
reduced from a want of food for their horses
and cattle, they voluntarily went out to work on
the second day, and in some instances on the following,
and supplied the usual demand of the
market, presenting their labor thus voluntarily
given as a free-will offering to their employers.
Comment on such conduct world be superfluous.
The late apprentices of Jamaica have hitherto
acquired honors,

    Above all Greek,
    Above all Roman fame.

So far as they are concerned, the highest expectations
of their friends have been more than
realized. Let the higher classes universally but
exhibit the same dispositions and conduct, and
the peace and prosperity of Jamaica are for ever
secured.

Morning Journal of August 4.

SAINT THOMAS IN THE EAST.

Up to the moment when the post left Morant Bay, the utmost tranquillity
prevailed. In fact, from the quiet of the day and the circumstance of
droves of well-dressed persons going to and from the Church and Chapels,
I was occasionally deluded, says a correspondent, into the belief of the
day being Sunday. The parish Church was crowded, and the Rector
delivered a very able and appropriate address. The Methodist and
Independent Chapels were also filled. At both places suitable sermons
were preached. At the latter, the resident minister provided an ample
second breakfast, which was faithfully discussed under the shade of a
large tent purposely erected for the occasion. The Rev. Mr. Atkins,
Wesleyan Minister, has proceeded from this place to lay the foundation
stone of a chapel this afternoon, (1st August) at Port Morant, in which
important service he will be assisted by Thomas Thomson, Esq., Church
warden, and Alexander Barclay, Esq., Member for the parish. It is
expected that many thousand spectators will be present at the
interesting ceremony. From all I have been able to learn the changes
among the labourers on the estates in this quarter, will be very
limited, these people being apparently satisfied with the arrangement
for their continued domicile on the respective properties.

Another correspondent writes--"we are very quiet here. The day has
arrived and nearly passed off, and thank God the predictions of the
alarmists are not fulfilled. The Chapels were quite full with a great
many persons in the yards. The Independents are just sitting down to a
feast. The Rector delivered a sermon or rather a string of advices and
opinions to the labouring population, the most intolerant I have heard
for a long time. This parish will, I am quite certain, enjoy in peace
and quietness this happy jubilee."

MANCHESTER.

We learn from this parish that the Churches and Chapels were crowded
many hours before the usual time for beginning service. Several thousand
persons remained outside the respective places, which were much too
small to afford the accommodation. Every thing was quiet and orderly
when the post left.

Says the Jamaica Gazette of Aug. 4th, a paper of the Old School--"In
spite of all the endeavours of a _clique_ of self-interested agitators,
clerical humbug and radical rabble, to excite the bad passions of the
sable populace against those who have been the true friends of Colonial
freedom, and the conservators of the public peace and prosperity of the
country, the bonfire, bull-roast, and malignant effigy exhibited to
rouse the rancor of the savage, failed to produce the effect anticipated
by the projectors of the _Saturnalia_, and the negro multitude fully
satisfied with the boon so generously conceded by the Island
Legislature, were in no humor to wreak their wrath on individual
benefactors, whom the envy of party spirit had marked out as the victims
of truth and independence.

We are happy to give our meed of praise to the decent and orderly
conduct of the sable multitude, and to record that it far excelled the
Loco Foco group of bullies and boasters in decency of propriety of
demeanor. A kind of spree or scuffle took place between donkey-driver
Quallo and another. We don't know if they came to close fisti-cuffs, but
it was, we are assured, the most serious affray on the Course."

The following is the testimony borne in regard to Barbados.

_From the Barbados Liberal, Aug. 4th._

FIRST OF AUGUST.

"It gives us great pleasure to state that, so far as our information
from the country extends, this day was observed in a manner highly
creditable to our brethren. We never ourselves anticipated any riotings
or disorder on the part of the emancipated. A little exhilaration
begetting a shout or two, would not have surprised us; but even this, we
are happy to say, made no part of their manifestation of joy. The day
was spent in quiet piety! In heartfelt, soul overflowing gratitude to
their heavenly Father, whose divine agency had raised up friends in
their necessity, and brought their great tribulation to an end, they
crowded at an early hour to the several churches and chapels, in which
their numbers could scarcely find turning room, and then quietly and
devoutly poured forth their souls in prayer and praise and thanksgiving!
No revellings, no riotings, no drunkenness, desecrated this day. We have
heard from five parishes, and in none of the five have we heard of a
single convivial meeting. From church and chapel they went to their
homes, and eat their first free dinner with their families, putting to
shame the intolerant prejudices which had prepared powder and balls, and
held the Riot Act in readiness to correct their insubordinate notions
of liberty!"

From the New Haven, Ct., Herald.

    _"Barbados, Aug. 2, 1838_

    Yesterday's sun rose upon eight hundred thousand freemen, on whom
    and their ancestors the badge of slavery had rested for two hundred
    years. It was a solemn, delightful, most memorable day. I look upon
    it as a matter of exceeding thankfulness, that I have been permitted
    to be a witness to it, and to be able to speak from experience and
    from observation, of the happiness to which that day has given
    birth. The day had previously been set apart by proclamation of the
    Governor, "as a day of devout thanksgiving and praise to Almighty
    God for the happy termination of slavery." The thanksgiving and
    praise were most truly sincere, heartfelt and general. It was an
    emancipation not merely of the slave but of the proprietor. It was
    felt as such; openly acknowledged and rejoiced in as such. Never
    have I witnessed more apparently unfeigned expressions of
    satisfaction than were made on that day by the former owners of
    slaves, at the load of which they had been relieved.

    I do not wish to be understood as asserting that previous to the
    working of emancipation, the slave proprietors wished the abolition
    of slavery. Far from it. But having, though unwillingly, been made
    witnesses of the operations of freedom; and having themselves tasted
    of the previously unknown satisfaction of employing voluntary and
    contented, because _free_ laborers; their minds became enlightened,
    softened, changed: and from being the determined opposers, they
    became themselves the _authors_ of complete emancipation. I know not
    in what terms to describe to you the emotions excited by passing
    through the streets of this populous town on that memorable morning.
    There was a stillness and solemnity that might be felt. It was
    caused by no display of force, for none was to be seen. Here and
    there a policeman going his usual rounds, but not a soldier, nor the
    slightest warlike preparation of any kind to strike the eye, or
    overawe the spirit of disorder.

    The spirit that seemed to fill the entire population was eminently
    the spirit of peace, good will, thankfulness and joy too deep, too
    solemn, to allow of any loud or noisy demonstration of it. Of
    course, all stores, shops and offices of every kind were closed. So
    also were all places of amusement. No sound of revelry, no evidences
    of nightly excess were to be heard or seen. I do not say too much
    when I assert that the reign of order, peace, and sobriety,
    was complete.

    To give eclat to an event of such importance, the Governor had
    ordered one company of militia to attend with him at the cathedral.
    It is an immense building, and was crowded in every part of its
    spacious area, galleries and aisles, with a most attentive
    assemblage of people, of all colors and conditions. Several
    clergymen officiated, and one of them at the opening of the services
    read most appropriately the 58th chapter of Isaiah. Imagine for a
    moment the effect in such an audience, on such an occasion, where
    were many hundreds of emancipated slaves, of words like these:--"Is
    not this the fast that I have chosen, to loose the bonds of
    wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go
    free, and that ye break every yoke?" The sermon by the Bishop was,
    as might have been expected on such an occasion, interesting and
    impressive. He spoke with great effect of the unexpected progress of
    freedom, from island to island, from colony to colony, until, with a
    solitary exception, upon that day the stain of slavery was
    obliterated forever from every British possession. The progress of
    education, the gradual reformation of morals, and the increasing
    thirst for religious instruction, were all dwelt upon with great
    force, and the glory of all ascribed, as was most fit, to the Great
    Giver of every good and perfect gift. It was an occasion rich with
    happy emotions, and long to be remembered as a bright and beautiful
    spot in the pathway of our earthly pilgrimage.

    The close of the day was not less auspicious than its commencement.
    In company with Mrs. H., I drove through several of the principal
    streets, and thence through the most public thoroughfare into the
    country; and no where could aught be seen to mar the decent and
    truly impressive solemnity of the day. There were no dances, no
    merry-making of any sort; not a solitary drunkard, not a gun fired,
    nor even was a shout heard to welcome in the newborn liberty. The
    only groups we saw were going to or returning from the different
    chapels and churches: except in a few instances, where families
    might be seen reading or singing hymns at their own dwellings.

    And now, sir, having arrived at the long looked for consummation of
    all the labors and prayers of the friends of the slave for so many
    years, as I cast my eye around this _land of liberty_, how many
    thoughts crowd my mind? I ask myself--is it indeed finished? And are
    there none to lament the downfall of time-honored, hoary-headed
    slavery? Where are the mourners? Where are the prognosticators of
    ruin, desolation, and woe? Where are the riots and disorders, the
    bloodshed and the burnings? The prophets and their prophecies are
    alike empty, vain, and unfounded, and are alike buried in oblivion.

    And why, in the name of humanity, was not this glorious consummation
    brought about ages ago?--Is it because the slaves of 1838 are better
    fitted for freedom than those of fifty or a hundred years since? No
    one believes it. The only preparation for freedom required in this
    island, or any where else, in order to put a peaceful end to
    slavery, is the preparation of heart in the slaveholder to grant
    deliverance to the captive.

    Yours truly,

    WM. R. HAYES

    P.S. August 9th.--All is quiet, and the utmost good order every
    where prevails."

To complete the picture we will give two extracts of letters from
eminent Jamaica Attornies to their employers in England, with regard to
the turning out to work. It is remarked by the English papers that the
Attornies generally in writing to their employers adopt the same strain.
They are all doing well on _their_ estates, but hear that the rest of
the island is in a woful condition.--These are the men who are the
greatest, if not the only, losers by emancipation; hence their testimony
is doubly valuable.

From the British Emancipator, Nov. 14.

LETTERS FROM ATTORNIES.

_Extract of a Letter from an eminent Estate Attorney, in St. Mary's,
Jamaica, dated August_ 24, 1838.

    "There was nothing whatever done in this parish, or throughout the
    island, for the first two weeks of the month. In this quarter some
    estates did a little last week, and have been making more progress
    since, but the far greater number have not yet done any work; the
    minds of the people are very unsettled, and full of all sorts of
    foolish notions, which will continue more or less till we hear of
    the home government having accepted and approved of our abolition
    bill, and their views with regard to us.

    On several of the estates which have wrought, the people have struck
    once or twice. We have in this parish ministers of every
    denomination, and they are all acting very properly; but they do not
    seem to have as much influence as expected; we must _be as
    considerate and liberal as possible to secure their confidence_
    ourselves. We are in St. Mary's paying the highest rate of wages in
    the island; 1s. 8d. currency per day nett, with allowances, are
    generally offered; I am giving here, from sheer necessity, 2s. 6d.
    currency per day, without charging any rent in the mean time. In the
    present state of things when so few estates are doing anything at
    all, I have much satisfaction in saying that the people here, on
    ----, a good proportion of them were at work last week, and I have
    now the mill about making sugar, with every probability, I think of
    going on satisfactorily; and looking dispassionately at the great
    change which has so suddenly taken place, our present difficulties
    are not much to be wondered at.

    Sunday night, 8th Sept.--The foregoing was written, but too late,
    for the last packet; but as another sails to-morrow, I write you a
    few lines more. There is, up to this moment, but little material
    alteration in the state of affairs generally, certainly none for the
    worse. I have made here twenty hogsheads of sugar since the 1st ult.
    We are altogether in an uncertain state, but there are more mills
    about, and more work doing _in this district than in any other in
    the island_, which might and ought to be a feather in the cap of
    Maitter, our late stipe. I have no time to say more now, excepting
    that, although I am in great hopes that things will soon generally
    improve, and am of opinion that our present difficulties are not to
    be wondered at, yet our situation is still so critical, that I dare
    not venture to hazard an opinion as to the success of the great
    experiment, I repeat, however, again, that we have not seen anything
    to disappoint or surprise us, bad as many things are."

_Extract of a Letter from an Attorney in St. Mary's, Jamaica, 24th
August_, 1838

"The services of the stipes are much wanting here; I am paying 10s. a
week for first class, 6s. 8d. for second, and 4s. 2d. for third, for
five days work; they say they will not work on Fridays. However, I have
got people at ---- to work today; they are behaving better than most
others. I hope things will now improve; and it is my opinion that good
estates will do, and others will fall to the ground. Old Mr. Tytte is
dead, and his son Alexander made stipe for the district. The Governor's
speech respecting women has done a great deal of harm. None of the women
want to work. If Lord Glenelg had made such a mistake, he would have
heard enough of it. I wish the Government would take it on themselves to
settle the rate of wages, otherwise two-thirds of the estates will be
thrown up before next year; of course I can stand this as well as any.
The ---- people have behaved well: they did every thing I told them;
they are working on piece-work, which is the best plan."

Precisely similar is the testimony of private correspondents and of the
public press so far as we have been able to learn, in all the other
colonies where emancipation has taken place. There is certainly nothing
in all this that indicates a disposition on the part of the emancipated
to throw off the employment of their former masters, but much the
reverse. We may safely challenge contradiction to the assertion, that at
the expiration of the jubilee there were not a set of free laborers on
earth from whom the West India planters could have got more work for the
same money. It may be proper in these days, when the maxims of slavery
have so fearfully overshadowed the rights of man, to say that a man has
a _right_ to forbear laboring when he can live honestly without it--or,
at all events, he has a right to choose whether he will employ himself
or be employed by another. Hence it _may_ turn out that the refusal to
labor, so far as there has been any, only serves to prove the more
clearly the fitness of the laborers of freedom.

WAGES

It must have been obvious to every man of reflection that in a change so
vast, involving so many laborers, and in circumstances so various, there
would arise almost infinite disputes about the rate of wages. The
colonies differ widely as to the real value of labor. Some have a rich,
unexhausted, and, perhaps, inexhaustible soil, and a scanty supply of
laborers. Others are more populous and less fertile. The former would of
course offer higher wages than the latter, for so sudden was the step
there could be no common understanding on the point. Again, as we have
seen, the planters came into the measure with different views. Some
anticipated the general change, and either from motives of humanity or
policy, or more probably of both, adopted a course calculated to gain
the gratitude and good will of the laborer.--These would offer wages
which the less liberal would call ruinous. Many, and it would seem the
great body of them in Jamaica, yielded unwillingly to superior power.
They saw the sceptre of despotic authority was to be wrested from their
grasp. They threw it down, as one may easily believe, resolved to seize
the best substitute they could. They would infallibly fall upon the plan
of getting the greatest possible amount of work for the least possible
amount of pay. When we consider that even in the oldest, most civilized,
and most Christianized free-labor communities, employers are wont to
combine to keep down the rate of wages, while on the other hand the
laborers throw up work to raise it, we shall not be surprised that there
should be things of this sort in Jamaica, liberty being in the gristle.
The only help for such an evil is, that there is always a rate of wages
which is advantageous to both parties, and things being left to
themselves, it will at last be found.

To the planters and freed-men in settling the question what wages they
should offer and receive, two standards or guides presented
themselves,--1. The rate of wages which had been given in Antigua since
1834. 2. The compensation that had been demanded by the Jamaica planters
themselves, and adjudged by the magistrates, in case of apprentices
buying their own time. Hundreds of planters had declared upon oath what
the time of the apprentice was worth to them. Possibly as sellers, in
the elasticity of their consciences, they may have set a higher price
than they would be willing to give as buyers. In strict honesty,
however, it is difficult to see why labor should not be worth to them as
much in the one case as the other. The rate of wages fixed upon in
Antigua may be seen by a reference to the Journal of Thome and Kimball
to be very inadequate to the wants of the laborer. Free labor is there
screwed down to the lowest possible point. The wonder is that the
laborers should have submitted to such a scale for a moment. But they
had no precedent to guide them, no advisers free from the yoke of the
proprietary, no valuations given by their own masters, and there was
every facility for successful combination on the part of the masters.
They must work for such wages as the masters pleased to offer,
or starve.

Say Messrs. Thome and Kimball--"_By a general understanding among the
planters_, the rate is at present fixed at a _shilling_ per day, or a
little more than fifty cents per week, counting five working days." This
Antigua scale, and not the one they themselves had sold labor by during
the apprenticeship, became at once the favorite with a great part of the
Jamaica and Barbados planters. If they in any cases offered higher
wages, they made it up by charging higher rent for the houses and
grounds, which the negroes had built and brought under culture on their
properties. It was before the first of August that this procedure was
resolved upon by the planters, as we gather from numerous communications
in the papers recommending a variety of modes of getting labor for less
than its natural market value. We select a single one of these as a
specimen, by the application to which of a little arithmetic, it will be
perceived that the employer would _bring the laborer in debt_ to him at
the end of the year, though not a moment should be lost by sickness or
other casualty. The humanity of the document is perfectly of a piece
with that of the system which would civilize mankind by making
merchandize of them.

To the Editor of the Morning journal.

SIR,--Let meetings be held, not only in every parish, but in every
district of a parish, and let all land-owners, &c., agree not to rent
land under £8[A] per acre, and not to sell it for less than double that
sum. Should a few be found regardless of the _general weal_, let the
proprietary, &c. join and purchase such lands, and if otherwise, it is
presumed the dissentients to the measure would be so small as not to
affect in any material degree the _general_ interest, inasmuch as those
who dissented, from the consequent scarcity of land arising from the
measure, would demand a high rental for their land. The _maximum_ system
appears to be preferable to the _minimum_. I have therefore made choice
of it as a stimulus to the laborers to work _at least_ four days or
thirty-six hours in the week to pay for their rent, &c. &c., _or pay 2s.
1d. for every day's absence_; or, if sick, pay up the labor by working
on the Friday, &c., _and Saturday, if needful_. Weekly settlements with
both parties, or _immediate summary ejectment_, if deemed necessary.

[Footnote A: The sums are in the currency of the islands when not
otherwise specified, that is 7s 6d to the dollar.]

                                                £   s.  d.
Rent of 2 acres of land as a ground for
    each able adult, at £5 per acre            10   0   0
Do. of house and garden, from £4 to
    £10 per annum, say                          6   0   0
_Medical attendance, medicine, &c. &c.,
    worth £4 per annum_                         4   0   0
Clothing and Christmas allowance per
    annum                                       1  13   4
                                               ----------
                                               21  13   4
                                               ----------

Four days' or 36 hours' labor in each
    week, at 2s. 1d. per day, or 208
    days, at 2s. 1d.                           21  13   4
If task-work were adopted, or the day's
    labor prolonged to 10-1/2 or 12 hours'
    labor, 3 days' or 3-1/2 days' labor
    _would suffice_, consequently, the
    laborer would have 2 or 3 days
    in each week to work for extra
    wages.
In addition to the above, say pasturage
    for a horse, at 4s. 2d. per week per
    annum                                      10  16   8
Pasturage for an ass, at 2s. 1d. per week
    per annum                                   5   6   4
_Run of pasturage and fruit, for a sow,
    barrow, or sholt_; IF RUNG IN THE
    NOSE, 10_d. per week_; IF NOT RUNG,
    1_s._ 8_d. per week; per annum, at
    10d. per week_                              2   3   4

The above charges for pasturage might be paid for either _by additional
labor_ or in money, and to a good head-man they might be granted as a
gratuity, and perhaps an additional acre of land allowed him to
cultivate. It would be desirable that the negroes should, when quite
free, work 11 hours per day in the short days, and 12 hours in the
longer ones. I believe the shortest day's labor in England in the winter
months in 10 hours' actual labor, and 12 hours' in the summer, for which
2 hours they are paid extra wages.

_St. Mary's, 8th June, 1838_. S.R.

The date should not escape notice. By this plan, for a few petty
indulgences, _all of which were professedly granted in the time of
slavery itself_, the master could get the entire labor of the negro, and
_seven or eight pounds per annum besides_! Some may be disposed to
regard this as a mere joke, but we can assure them it was a serious
proposal, and not more monstrous than many things that the planters are
now attempting to put in practice. The idea of actually paying money
wages was horrifying and intolerable to many of the planters; they seem
to have exercised their utmost ingenuity to provide against so dreadful
a result. One who signed himself an "Old Planter" in the _Despatch_,
before the abolition of the apprenticeship, in view of the emancipation
of the non-praedials which was to take place on the first of August,
gravely wrote as follows:--

"It is my intention, therefore, when the period arrives for any
arrangement with them, to offer them in return for such services, _the
same time as the praedials now have_, with of course the same allowances
generally, putting out of the question, however, any relaxation from
labor during the day, usually allowed field laborers, and understood as
shell-blow--house people being considered at all times capable of
enjoying that indulgence at their pleasure, besides the impossibility of
their master submitting to such an inconvenience.--This appears to me to
be the only mode of arrangement that would be feasible, unless we resort
to money wages, and I should regret to find that such a precedent was
established in this instance, for it would only be a forerunner to
similar demands at the coming period, when the praedials became free."

There were more reasons than one why "money wages" were feared by the
Jamaica planters. A great many estates are managed by attorneys for
absentee proprietors. These gentlemen pocket certain commissions, for
which reason they keep in cultivation estates which cannot possibly
yield a profit under a system of paid labor. They deem it for their
interest to retain their occupation even at the expense of their
employers. Not a few conceive it for their interest to depreciate the
value of property that they may purchase low, hence they deem it good
policy to refuse wages, let the crops perish, and get up a panic. The
documents we shall furnish will be clear on these points. The great
diversity of practice in the planters in regard to wages, as well as the
reasonable disposition of the laborers, is shown by the following
paragraphs culled from the _Morning Journal_ of August 10:--

"ST. DAVIDS.--A gentleman in the management of a property in this parish,
writes in the following strain to his employer--"I have an accession of
strength this morning. The people are civil and industrious. I have
received letters assuring me that the example of the Cocoa Walt estate
people, has been the means of inducing those on other estates to enter
into the terms proposed"--that is 5s. per week, with houses, grounds,
medicines, &c, &c."

"St. Thomas in the East.--The apprentices on Golden Grove Estate, turned
out to work on Monday, but we have not learnt on what terms. At Mount
Vernon, the property of Kenneth McPherson Esq., they turned out on
Tuesday morning to work for five days in the week, at 10d. per day with
houses, grounds, &c."

"Trelawny--A correspondent writes, every thing is quiet, and the people
would go to work if any bargains were made, but I believe throughout the
parish the people were directed to go to work on Monday morning, without
any previous arrangement, or being even told how much they would be
paid, or asked what they expected. On one estate 1s. 8d. with houses and
grounds was offered and refused. Some of the masters are determined, it
is said, to hold out, and will not consent to give more than 1s. 3d. or
1s. 8d. per day."

"St. Johns.--The people in this parish are at work on most of the
estates without any agreement. They refuse the offer of 1s. 01-2d. per
day, but continue to labor, relying on the honor and liberality of the
planters for fair and reasonable pay. If they do not get these in two
weeks, our correspondent writes, there will be a dead stop. The laborers
fix the quantity of work to be done in a day, agreeable to the scale of
labor approved of by the Governor during the apprenticeship. For any
thing beyond that, they demand extra pay, as was usual under
that system."

"St. Thomas in the Vale--No work, we understand, is being done in this
parish as yet. A correspondent states that some of the overseers and
attorneys wish the people to turn out to work without entering into any
arrangements, which they refuse to do. The attorney for Rose Hall,
Knollis, New Works, and Wallace Estates has offered 1s. 3d. per day, out
of which £5 per annum is to be deducted for houses and grounds. The
offer has been refused. The overseer of Byndloss estate required his
people to work without agreeing as to the rate of wages they were to
receive, but they refused to do any thing without a proper agreement."

"St. Mary's--On some estates in this parish we are informed, and
particularly those under the charge of Richard Lewis, Esq. such as
Ballard's Valley, Timperon's estates, Ellis' estates, &c. and of Charles
Stewart, Esq. Trinity, Royal, Roslin Bremer Hall, &c., and also of James
Geddes, Esq., the laborers are getting from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 4d. per day.
The same rates are paid upon many outer properties. On many estates the
people have refused to labor, and urge objections against the managers,
as a reason for so acting. They remain and will engage to labor,
provided the obnoxious parties are removed."

How could the people be blamed for refusing 10d. per day, while on "many
properties" they were getting from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 4d.? Such being also
the valuation which the masters had uniformly placed upon their time
during the apprenticeship?

When the planters found that the free laborers could neither be
prevailed upon to labor for half-price nor be driven to excesses by such
paltry persecution, they turned their wrath, as had been long their
custom, upon the Baptist Missionaries. Upon Mr. Knibb especially they
laid the blame of giving mischievous advice to the peasantry. And for
the obvious purpose of exciting the thousands of people warmly devoted
to him, to acts of violence, they attempted to burn him in effigy and
actually circulated the report that he had been murdered. Thousands of
his people flocked into Spanish Town, threatening to destroy the town if
the report proved true. But on learning its falsity were easily
persuaded to retire, and did so without being guilty of any excess
whatever. Unmeasured and unceasing have been the attacks of the Jamaica
press upon the missionaries. Upon their shoulders has been laid "the
ruin of that fine island."--They have corrupted the peasantry and put it
in their heads to ask more wages than the estate can possibly give. To
determine the value of the testimony of the missionaries in this case it
is important to know the nature of their influence upon the laborers
touching the question of wages. We are happily furnished with the
required information from their own lips and pens in the Jamaica papers.

_From the Falmouth Post._

REV. W. KNIBB'S ADVICE TO THE NEGROES.

MEETING AT THE "SUFFIELD SCHOOL-ROOM."

On Friday evening last we attended the suffield School-room, in this
town, which, at an early hour was crowded with apprentices and head
people, from upwards of twenty properties, who had met for the purpose
of receiving advice from the Rev. Wm. Knibb, and Special Justice Lyon,
respecting the course of conduct it will be necessary for them to adopt,
on taking their stand in society as freemen. Several gentlemen connected
with the commercial and agricultural interests of the parish were
present on the occasion.

The Rev. W. Knibb commenced by saying, that he attended a meeting of a
similar nature at Wilberforce Chapel, on the preceding evening. He had
thought it better to request the attendance this evening of the head
people, who being the more intelligent would be able to explain to
others, the advice which they would now receive themselves. "I am glad,"
said the Rev. Gentleman, "to see so many persons present, among whom I
notice a few gentlemen who are not connected with my church: I am glad
of the attendance of these gentlemen, for what I do, I do openly, and
any one is at liberty to express his opinion at this meeting if he
desires to do so.

You will shortly, my friends, be released from your present state of
bondage; in the course of a very few weeks you will receive the boon of
freedom, and I would therefore impress deeply on your minds the
necessity of your continuing the cultivation of the soil on the receipt
of fair and equitable wages. I am not aware myself of any complete scale
of wages having been drawn up, but I have been on 10 or 12 different
properties, I have conversed with several proprietors, and I am glad to
say that with some of them there appears to be a disposition to meet the
charge fairly and honorably. Those who are more conversant with figures
than I am, will be enabled to show what the owner can afford to give for
the cultivation of his property. In the mean time I would say to you, do
not make any hasty bargain: take time and consider the subject, for it
is one of vital interest and importance to all! If you demand too high a
rate of wages, the proprietors will be ruined; if you consent to take
too low a sum, you will not be able to provide for the wants of
yourselves and families. In making your arrangement, if there be an
attempt to grind you down, resist the attempt by all legal means; for
you must consider that you are not acting for yourselves alone, but for
posterity. I desire to see every vestige of slavery completely rooted
out. You must work for money; you must pay money to your employers for
all you receive at their hands: a fair scale of wages must be
established, and you must be entirely independent of any one. If you
continue to receive those allowances which have been given during
slavery and apprenticeship, it will go abroad that you are not able to
take care of yourselves; that your employers are obliged to provide you
with these allowances to keep you from starvation; in such a case you
will be nothing more than slaves.--To be free, you must be independent;
you must receive money for your work; come to market with money;
purchase from whom you please, and be accountable to no one but that
Being above, who I hope will watch over and protect you!--I sincerely
trust that proper arrangements will be made before the 1st of August.--I
have spoken to nearly four thousand persons connected with my church,
and I have not yet learnt that there is any disposition among them to
leave their present employers, provided they receive equitable wages.
Your employer will expect from you good crops of sugar and rum; and
while you labour to give him these, he must pay you such wages as will
enable you to provide yourselves with wholesome food, good clothing,
comfortable houses, and every other necessity of life. Your wages must
be such as to enable you to do this; to contribute to the support of
your church; the relief of the distressed; the education of your
children, and to put by something for sickness and old age. I hail the
coming of the 1st August with feelings of joy and gratitude. Oh, it will
be a blessed day; a day which gives liberty to all; and my friends, I
hope that the liberty which it will bring to you will by duly
appreciated. I trust I may live to see the black man in the full
enjoyment of every privilege with his white brethren, and that you may
all so conduct yourselves as to give the lie direct to those who have
affirmed that the only idea you have of liberty is that it will enable
you to indulge in idle habits and licentious pursuits. When liberty
casts her benignant smiles on this beautiful island, I trust that the
employer and the laborer will endeavour to live on terms of friendship
and good will with one another.--When the labourer receives a proper
remuneration for his services--when the employer contemplates the
luxuriance of his well-cultivated fields, may they both return thanks to
a merciful God, for permitting the sun of liberty to shine with bright
effulgence! I need scarcely assure you, my friends, that I will be at
all times ready to protect your rights. I care not about the abuse with
which I may probably be assailed; I am ready to meet all the obloquy and
scorn of those who have been accustomed to place the most unfavourable
constructions on my actions. I am willing to meet the proprietors in a
spirit of candour and conciliation. I desire to see you fairly
compensated for your labor; I desire also to you performing your work
with cheerful industry: but I would warn you _not to be too hasty in
entering into contracts_. Think seriously before you act, and remember,
as I have already old you, that you have now to act not only for
yourselves, but for posterity."

We give numerous documents from these gentlemen, as among the best if
not the greatest part of our fellow citizens; we trust their testimony
will be deemed the best that could be offered.

LETTER OF EIGHT BAPTIST MISSIONARIES.

_To the Right Hon. Lord_ GLENELG, &c.

My Lord--We feel assured that no apology is necessary, in requesting
your attention to the subject of this letter. The official connection
which you hold with the colony, together with the peculiar circumstances
in which its newly-emancipated population are placed, render it an
imperative duty we owe to ourselves to lay before you our sentiments.

Having labored in the island for many years, and having been in daily
intercourse with the objects of our solicitude, we do feel devoutly
thankful to ALMIGHTY GOD, that he has spared us to see the
disenthralment of our beloved flocks; while it gives us increased
pleasure to assure your lordship that they received the boon with holy
joy, and that the hour which made them men beheld them in thousands
humbly prostrate at the footstool of mercy, imploring the blessing of
HEAVEN upon themselves and their country, while, during the night and
joyful day, not a single case of intoxication was seen.

To us, as their pastors, they naturally looked for advice, both as to
the labor they should perform and the wages they should receive. The
importance of this subject was deeply felt by us, and we were prepared
to meet it with a full sense of the responsibility it involved, and
happily succeeded in inducing them to accept of a sum lower than that
which the representatives of the landowners had formerly asserted was
fair and just.

We regret to state, that a deep combination was formed by many of these
_middlemen_ to grind the peasantry to the dust, and to induce, if
possible, the acceptance of remuneration which, by affording no
inducement to the peasant cheerfully to labor, would have entailed
pauperism on him and his family, and ruin on the absentee proprietor. It
was to this circumstance, and not in the least to any unwillingness in
the free negro to work, or to demand more for his labor than it was
fairly worth, that for one or two weeks, in some places, the cultivation
of the soil was not resumed. Upon the planting attorneys, so long
accustomed to tyranny and oppression, and armed with a power over the
land which must prove inimical to the full development of the resources
of this valuable colony, the blame entirely rests.

We suppose that your lordship is fully aware, that the laws under which
the laborer is now placed are tyrannical and unjust in the extreme;
laws, we hesitate not to affirm, which are a disgrace to those who
framed them, and which, if acted upon by a local magistracy, will entail
upon the oft-cheated, over-patient negro some of the worst features of
that degrading state of vassalage from which he has just escaped. We
particularly refer to "An Act to enlarge the Powers of Justices in
determining complaints between Masters and Servants, and between
Masters, and Apprentices, Artificers, and others," which passed the
Assembly the 3rd day of July, 1834, while by police acts, especially one
regulating the town of Falmouth, our people will be daily harassed
and annoyed.

We think it right to inform your lordship, that the greater part of
those who hold the commission of magistrates are the very persons who,
by their connection with the soil, are the most unfit, because the most
interested, honestly to discharge their important duties; while their
ignorance of the law is, in too many cases, equalled only by their love
of tyranny and misrule. Time must work a mighty change in the views of
numbers who hold this office, ere they believe there is any dereliction
of duty in daily defrauding the humble African. We cannot but entreat
your lordship to use those means which are in your power to obtain for
the laborer, who imploringly looks to the Queen for protection, justice
at the hands of those by whom the law is administered. We must, indeed,
be blind to all passing events, did we not see that, without the
watchful care of the home government, the country district courts, held
sometimes in the very habitations of those who will have to make the
complaints, will be dens of injustice and cruelty, and that our hearts
will again be lacerated by the oppressions under which our beloved
people will groan.

We beg to apprise your lordship, that we have every reason to believe
that an early attempt will be made to deprive the peasantry of their
provision grounds--that they will not be permitted, even to rent them;
so that, by producing starvation and rendering the population entirely
dependent upon foreign-supplies for the daily necessaries of life, a
lower rate of wages may be enforced. Cruel as this may appear to your
lordship, and unlikely as it may seem, long experience has taught us
that there is no possible baseness of which a slave-owner will not be
guilty, and no means of accomplishing his purposes, however fraught with
ruin to those around him, which he will not employ.

Should the peasantry be thus treated, we shall feel it our duty humbly
to implore that the lands belonging to the crown may be made available
for their use. Your lordship will remember that these ill-treated people
became not the subjects of her Majesty by choice, though they are now
devotedly attached to her government. Their fathers were stolen and
brought hither. On their native shores they had lands and possessions
capable of supplying all their wants. If, then, after having toiled
without remuneration, they are prevented even renting a portion of land
which has hitherto been esteemed as their own, we shall ask, and shall
feel assured that the boon will not be withheld, that her Most Gracious
Majesty will throw open the lands belonging to the crown, where we may
retire from the tyranny of man, and with our people find a peaceful and
quiet home.

Though still surrounded by obloquy and reproach, though the most abusive
epithets and language disgracefully vulgar has been employed to assail
us, especially by a newspaper known to be under the patronage of a
bishop, and in which all official accounts of his diocese are given to
the world, yet we assure your lordship that, in endeavouring to promote
the general interests and welfare of this colony, we shall still pursue
that line of conduct which is the result of our judgment, and in
accordance with the dictates of our conscience.

In no part of the island are arrangements made so fully or so fairly, as
in those districts where our congregations reside, and in no part are
the laborers more faithfully performing their duty. We deeply feel our
responsibility at the present crisis, and pledging ourselves to your
lordship and the British Government by the sacred office we hold, we
assure you that ceaseless efforts shall still be exerted, as they have
ever been, to promote the peace and happiness of those around us.

In the name and on the behalf of our churches, for the sacred cause of
freedom throughout the world, we unitedly implore your lordship to throw
the shield of Britain's protection over those who are just made her
loyal subjects. All they want, and all they ask, is, that, as they are
raised to the dignity, so they may receive all the rights of man, and
that the nation who purchased them from bondage may fully secure to them
that civil and religious liberty, to which both their unparalleled
sufferings and their unexampled patience so richly entitle them.

We cannot conclude this letter, without expressing the high sense we
entertain of the noble and disinterested conduct pursued by his
excellency Sir Lionel Smith, the Governor of this colony. But for his
firmness, Jamaica would have presented all the horrors of a civil war.

Feeling assured that your lordship will give that attention to this
letter which the subject demands, and with earnest prayer that this
colony, now blest with liberty, may exhibit increasing prosperity, we
are, my lord, your most obedient servants, Signed by

THOMAS BURCHELL
WILLIAM KNIBB
THOMAS ABBOTT
WALTER DENDY
JOHN CLARK
B.B. DEXTER
SAMUEL OUGHTON
J. HUTCHINS

Baptist Missionaries, North Side Union.

[On the foregoing letter the _London Sun_ has the following
observations.]

"Every arrival from the West Indies but strengthens our conviction, that
there never will be happiness, security, or peace for the emancipated
negroes, so long as the administration of the laws, and the management
of the plantations, are continued in the hands of those white officials
whose occupation, previous to the passing of the emancipation act,
consisted in torturing and tormenting them with impunity. They cannot
endure to witness the elevation to the rank of free, intelligent, and
well-behaved fellow-citizens, of a class of beings whom they were
accustomed to treat a myriad of times worse than they did the "beasts
that perish." Having pronounced them incapable of civilization, and
strangers to all the better feelings of our nature, they deem it a sort
of duty to themselves to employ every artifice to neutralize or retard
every measure calculated to ameliorate the moral and social condition of
the negro race. Several of the colonial agents have powerful inducements
to the provocation of some insurrectionary outbreak, on the part of the
colored population. In the first place, such an _emute_ would fulfil
their predictions with regard to the passing the Emancipation Act, and
so establish their reputation as seers; and in the next, it would lead
to the sale of many of the plantations at one-sixth their real value,
and so transform them from agents to principles, as they would not fail
to be the purchasers. That such is their policy cannot, we think, be
doubted for a moment by those who will take the trouble to peruse a
letter addressed by eight Baptist missionaries, long resident in
Jamaica, to Lord Glenelg, which will be found in another part of _The
Sun_. These missionaries, we are assured, are men of irreproachable
lives, of indefatigable Christian zeal, and of conversation becoming
persons whose sacred office it is to preach the gospel of peace. That
their representation will produce a powerful effect upon the minds of
the people of this country, we feel as confident as we do that our
gracious Queen will concede any boon in her royal gift, necessary to the
welfare of her colored subjects."

The following are a series of letters to Mr. Sturge, published in the
British Emancipator for Nov. 28, 1838. The one from a Special Justice
clearly developes the principal causes of the backwardness of the
laborers. The testimony of this letter to some important facts will be
fully confirmed by that of the Governor of Jamaica. The evidence of
extortion submitted by the missionaries is so explicit, that we beg the
attention of the reader to all the details. Remember the experiment
involves the claims of millions to that without which life is little
better than a curse. Every thing hangs on the inquiry whether the
emancipated or their former masters are chargeable with whatever there
is of _ruin_ in the "fine island" of Jamaica. Says Mr. Sturge, in laying
these letters before the public, "it should be clearly understood that
the fee simple of all negro houses in Jamaica is not worth £10 each on
an average, and that their provision grounds have been brought into
cultivation by the negroes themselves in their _own_ time."

Extract of a letter from a Missionary:--

Savannah-la-Mar, Sept. 8, 1838.

MY DEAR SIR,--You are probably aware that the following question has
been submitted by the Governor to the Attorney-General for his opinion:

(copy.)

(No. 844.) King' House, Aug. 27, 1838.

SIR,--I am desired by the Governor to request you will give your opinion
for general publication. 1st. Whether in instances of notices to quit
their houses and grounds, having been served upon the late apprentices,
they are liable to be made to pay rent for the occupation of such house,
during the three months allowed by law?

(OPINION.)

They are.

(Signed,)

D O'REILL.

We shall soon see the evil effects of this opinion, it being generally
previously understood that the late apprenticed population would not be
liable for rent until the three months had expired, after receiving
notice to quit.

As a specimen of this being made an instrument of great oppression in
the hands of managers of estates, I would state that two notices were
yesterday brought to brother Hutchins for his inspection; one was served
upon David Clarke, a labourer, on King's Valley estate, in this parish.
On the back of the notice to quit was written as under;--

"The rent of your house and grounds is twenty-one pounds six shillings
and eight pence, per annum, commencing 1st of August, 1838, if legal."

(Signed) J. H. JONES.

Mr. Sturge appends the following West India accounts, which be says are
in his possession by which it is evident that the planters are bringing
their laborers in debt to them, by a spirit of shameless extortion.

Charles Duncan to John Dixon, Dr.
1838. Sept. 15. To rent of house
and ground, from 1st of August to
date, 6s. 8d. per week.                   2  3  9-1/2
Cr. By balance, five days, 1s.8d. per day 0  8  4
                                         -------------
                                          1 15  5-1/2
Charles Brown, to John Dixon, Dr.
1838. Sept. 13. To rent of house
and ground, 6s. 8d. per week,
from 1st Aug, to date.                    2  1 10
Charge for running a sow and pigs,
from 1st Aug. to date, 2s. 6d. per
week                                      0 15  8-1/2
                                         -------------
                                          2 17  6-1/2

John Alfred Bullock to John Dixon, Dr.
1838. Sept. 15. To rent of house
and garden, from 1st of Aug.
to date, 6s. 8d. per week,                2  3  9-1/2
Rent of provision ground, 5s. per
week,                                     1 12  6
Pasturage, two weeks, for an ass,
6s. 3d, per month,                        0  3  4
Two hogs, 1s. 8d. per week,               1  1 10-3/4
                                         -------------
                                          5  1  6-1/4
Cr. By two days' labour, 1s.
8d. per day                               0  3  4
                                         -------------
                                          4 18  2-1/3

LETTER TO MR. STURGE, FROM A SPECIAL JUSTICE.

_Jamaica, Oct. 12th, 1838._

Freedom has brought with it the blessings we anticipated; and as we
progress in civilization we shall all be happier. I have ever been
sanguine as to its beneficial results, and I am not in the least
disappointed. I cannot find language sufficiently strong to express the
commendation due to the negroes for their steady and good conduct since
the 1st of August. Amidst the most trying circumstance, they have
exhibited the greatest forbearance, and placed their whole reliance on
the laws for protection. I am satisfied that no other nation of free men
could conduct themselves so temperately and well, under similar
circumstances; and in my opinion, they have proved themselves infinitely
superior to many of those who so lately exercised almost unlimited
control over them. I declare to you, to see such a mass of persons,
whose morals have been little regarded by those who held them in
slavery, and without education, rise all at once, and express and
conduct themselves so admirably, is wonderful. When seeking redress
before the magistrates for wrongs committed by there former owners they
have maintained more coolness and temper than their more fortunate
brethren, when maters are decided against them. There is a hard struggle
on the part of the pro-slavery faction to compel the negro to work for
little or nothing, in order that the attorneys and overseers may keep
their places as before; and I am informed, by a gentleman whose veracity
is not to be doubted, and who is himself an attorney, that he can still
keep his overseer and merchant as in former days, draw his own
commissions, and send home to his employer a very handsome surplus.
Under such circumstances, well may the friends of freedom cry shame at
the opposition which has for so long a time been thrown in the way of
liberty, by these West Indians of practical knowledge. The facts are,
that the absent proprietors have been led by the advice they have
received from their attorneys; and these have had so many ways of making
more than an honest commission, and have so speedily made their
fortunes, that as long as they could continue slavery, they have exerted
every influence. The overseer was paid, housed, fed, and waited upon,
all at the expense of master and slave, beside; keeping a fine stud of
horses, and as many brood mares at pasture on the property as would
enable him to dispose of seven or eight prime mules annually; and so
long as he drove and tormented the poor negro, and made good crops for
the attorney's commissions, and supplied his horses with corn, these
_little perquisites_ were never discovered. Now the proprietor will
hardly pay for more labor than is absolutely necessary to grow and
manufacture the produce of his estate; and these gentlemen must
henceforth look to their own resources, for the payment of servants to
attend and take care of their own interests and comforts. An overseer's
situation on an estate making 300 hogsheads, was calculated in slavery
to be equal to 2000l. a year. Indeed no man in any town could have lived
in such luxury for that sum. If the proprietor would only come out, and
live prudently, he would save all this by residing on his property,
which he could easily manage by employing, for extra wages, his former
steady head people. _They_, from long residence, know the best manner of
working the land; and, as to the manufacture of sugar, they are the
persons who have _all their lives_ been working at it. The most
important part of an overseer and book-keeper's business was to make use
of their _eyes_. The negro had to make use of his legs, arms and
strength; and, in nine cases out of ten, his brains kept the white
people in their situations, by preventing matters from going wrong.

I perfectly coincide with you, as to the propriety of the negro speedily
becoming possessed of the elective franchise. In Antigua there is very
little more land than is in cultivation for the estates, but here it is
widely different; and they are beginning to settle themselves by
purchasing small lots very fast. At Sligoville there are nearly fifty
new freeholders. The negroes are taught to do this by the perpetual
worry of their employers, threatening to oust them on every trifling
occasion, and withholding part of their wages on the plea of
non-performance of work.--The root of all evil is the Assembly and the
Juries. Nothing requires greater alteration; and I shall never rest,
until I see the black man stand the same chance at the bar of his
country as the white man.--The negroes will not work under their former
hard task-masters. They determinedly resist all solicitations to labor
with those who treated them ill. They say that the pain is gone, but the
mark remains, and I respect them for this proud feeling.

       *       *       *       *       *

I have come under his displeasure for taking the opinion of Middleton
and McDougal, as to the legality of charging the negro hire for his
house and grounds, for the three months during which the notices to quit
are running.--Had we not taken these opinions, what a fearful state
things might we have been brought to in this country! I am quite
satisfied that no rent could be recovered until the expiration of the
three months, from which time it would commence to run, and the
plaintiff would in law be considered in possession of his lands again,
which, in slavery, he was compelled to give to his slave for his support
and maintenance. He must re-enter before he could demand rent, for it is
impossible for him to prove a contract, or imply one. The negro did not
willingly come from Africa, and occupy his land; he was torn from his
native land, and compelled by his owner, under laws that took his life,
not to quit the land; how therefore can he be considered to have made a
contract, or consented to one?

FROM THE REV. J. KINGDON

_Manchioneal, Oct. 9, 1838._

In passing through Hector's River great house yard, in my way to my
preaching spot, I have the most sensible demonstration of the reality of
the political change happily brought about; for that hot-house, in which
I have seen one of my own members in irons for having a bad sore leg,
and in which I have been grossly insulted for daring to go to see my
poor people--that house is _shut up_! Delightful, I assure you, are my
feelings, whenever I go by that place, attached to which, too, was the
old-time prison, a perfect charnel-house.

FROM THE REV. S. OUGHTON.

_Lucea, October 2, 1838._

Unused to acts of justice and humanity, the Planters, in a moment of mad
excitement passed an act to abolish the accursed system of Slavery. The
debates on that occasion proved with what an ill grace they performed
that scanty act of justice, and all experience since that period proves
how bitterly they repent it. It is true, we are not now, as before,
distressed by hearing recitals of barbarous corporeal punishments, and
we are no longer pained by seeing human beings chained to each other by
the neck; but, although cruelty has, to a certain extent, ceased,
oppression has become ten thousand times more rampant than ever. Every
act which ingenuity or malice can invent, is employed to harass the poor
negroes. Prior to August 1st, the planter studiously avoided every thing
like an arrangement with the laborer, and when, on the following Monday,
they turned out to work, the paltry pittance of 12-1/2d. (7-1/2d.
sterl.) was all that in the majority of cases was offered for the
services of an able-bodied negro, although 2s. 6d. per day (currency),
had before been invariably exacted from them, when they were desirous of
purchasing the remaining term of their apprenticeship. Of course, the
people refused to receive so paltry a remuneration for their labour, and
this has laid the foundation for a course of systematic oppression
scarcely conceivable. Notices to quit were served indiscriminately on
every one, old and young, sick and healthy. Medical attendance was
refused, and even a dose of physic from the Estates' hospitals. Cattle
were turned into the provision-grounds of the negroes, thus destroying
their only means of support; and assaults of the most wanton and brutal
description were committed on many of the peasantry. On one estate the
proprietor and his brother assaulted a young man in the most unprovoked
manner. One presented a pistol to his breast, and threatened to shoot
him; while the other levelled a gun at his head for the same purpose.
They were bound over to take their trial at the Quarter Sessions; but
what hope is there in such a tribunal as that, composed principally of
men engaged in the same reckless course, and banded together by mutual
interests? On another estate (_Content_), the attorney ordered the
cattle of a poor man (a member of my Chapel) to be taken up and
impounded. It was done, and the man was obliged to pay 6l. to redeem
them; when, as soon as he carried them back, they were again taken and
impounded. The man has been to my house with his case of oppression, on
my return from Kingston. He states that he exhausted his last farthing
to redeem the cattle the first time, and was also obliged to borrow of
his friends; they have now been impounded five weeks, and unless he can
raise the money to redeem them (upwards of 10l.), they will be sold to
pay the expenses. Thus is an honest and worthy man, in a few weeks,
stripped of every thing which, by years of industry and care, he had
accumulated for the comfort of his old age, or the benefit of his
family. Yesterday a negro came and informed me that the owner of a
property had told him last year, that he must cultivate more ground, so
as to be able to continue possession as a tenant; and now that he has
done so, another person, saying that he had purchased the property, came
a few days ago, and told him that in three weeks he would drive him from
the place. He then ordered a man whom he had with him to climb a
bread-fruit tree, and pull the fruit, which he forcibly carried away to
give to his hogs. But I must forbear: were I to state half the cases of
oppression which have occurred in Hanover since August 1st; I should
require a volume instead of a sheet. I think, however, I have said
enough to prove the bitter and rancorous spirit which at present
animates the planters. Enclosed I send a specimen of another artifice
adopted to harass and distress the negroes. They have adopted the notion
(sanctioned by the opinion of the old Planters' Jackall, Batty, and the
Attorney General), that the people are liable to pay rent for houses and
grounds during the three months' possession to which the Abolition Act
entitled them, and notices have been served on the people, demanding the
most extravagant amounts for the miserable sheds which the people
inhabited. You will perceive that in once case 21l. 6s. 9d. has been
demanded. This conscientious demand was made by John Houghton James,
Executor and Attorney for Sir Simon Clark. Another is from a Mr. Bowen,
of _Orchard_ Estate; and the third from Mr. Brockett, of _Hopewell_ and
_Content_ Estates, the property of Mr. Miles, M.P. for Bristol. Let it
be borne in mind that these shameful and exorbitant demands are not
made, as in England, on the head of the family only, but on _every
member who is able to do the least work_, and even little children have
papers demanding 2s. 4d. per week for ground, although unable to do the
least thing: one of these I also enclose.

Jamaica, ss. Notice is hereby Given, That the sum of eight shillings and
four pence, weekly, will be exacted from you and each of you
respectively, for the houses and grounds at Orchard Estate, in the
parish of Hanover, from August of the present year, until the expiration
of the three months' notice, from its period of service to quit; or to
the period of surrendering to me the peaceable possession of the
aforesaid house and provision grounds.

J. R. BOWEN.

Dated this 17th day of Sep. 1838.

TO JAMES DARLING and SARAH DARLING, of the parish of HANOVER.

Here then, my dear Sir, you may perceive something of the atrocious
proceedings in the island of Jamaica. Pray insert these documents in the
_Emancipator_. Let the Anti-slavery friends know the state of things,
and urge them to redoubled diligence. The House of Assembly will meet on
the 30th instant, and then, I fear, dreadful measures will be taken. A
letter from Mr. Harker, of the Jamaica Royal Gazette, about a fortnight
since, addressed to Mr. Abbott, shows what absolute and cruel statutes
they would wish either to act upon, or to make the models of new laws.
Every act must be watched with the most jealous scrutiny. Experience
shows that the planters possess an ingenuity truly diabolical, in
twisting and distorting the laws to suit their own selfish purpose. Our
hope is in British Christians; and we confidently hope every one of them
will feel the importance of increased diligence, lest the great, and
long prayed-for boon of freedom, should become a curse, instead of a
blessing. The papers will inform you of the odium I have drawn on myself
in defending the people's rights. That contained in the great mass, only
provokes a smile. I know that every friend in England will interpret it
inversely. I did feel Mr. ----'s letter in the Falmouth Post, but he
knows his error, and is sorry for it. I could have answered it, but did
not choose to cause a division amongst the few friends of the negro,
when they had quite enough to do to withstand the attacks of
their enemies.

FROM THE REV. J. M. PHILIPPO.

_Spanish Town, Oct. 13, 1838._

The following is one of the seven of the same tenor now in my
possession, which will, in addition to those I forwarded by last mail,
inform you of the cause of the late disinclination of the people in some
districts to labour--which, with so much effrontery, has been proclaimed
through the public Journals here:--

Charles Michael Kelly and Wife, to J.S. Benbow, Dr.

   1830: July 14th to Sept. 9th.
1. To the rent of house and
   ground on Castle Kelly
   plantation, for eight weeks,
   at 6s. 8d. per week.         3l. 13 4
2. Richard Kelly and Wife. Same.
3. Elenor Mercer. Same.
4. John Ried and Wife. Same.
5. Mary Ann Christie. Same.
6. Venus Owen (or such like name). Same.


FROM THE REV. J. HUTCHINS.

_Savanna-la-Mar, Sept. 17, 1838._

I now, according to promise in my last, send you a few out of the many
cases I am almost hourly troubled with. Some of our would-be great men
are, I am sorry to say, harassing the poor free labourers shamefully;
and should it prove, as I think in some cases it must, of serious injury
to the absentee proprietors, I shall publish the cases of grievance
brought me, together with the names of the estates, owners, attorneys,
overseers, &c., and leave all parties to form their own opinion on
the subject.

   Amelia Martin, to Retrieve Estate, Dr.
      1838: August 29.
To house and ground, rent at
  5s. per week, from 1st August
  to date                   4_l._  0    0
[A]Alliac Davis, ground
  rent at
  10d. per week                    3    0
[A]William Davis; ditto
   ditto                    0      3    4
                            -------------
                            4_l._  6    4
                            -------------

Thos. Tats, Esq. is Attorney, and Mr. Comry
        Overseer,

[Footnote A: Boys from 9 to 11, her sons.]

       *       *       *       *       *

   Louisa Patter, to Retrieve Estate, Dr.
      1838: Aug. 28.
To house and ground from 1st
  Aug. to date              1_l._  0    0

She states she has been sickly so long, that she has no ground in
cultivation, and cannot help herself, and has only what yams her
friends give her.

       *       *       *       *       *

   Susan James, to Albany Estate, Dr.
      1838: Aug. 28.
To house and ground rent at
  5s. per week, from 1st August,
  to date                   1l.    0    0
Thos. Hewett, ground rent   0     13    4
Elizabeth James, ditto      0     13    4
Mary Dunn, ditto            0     10    0
Letitia, ditto[A]           0      6    8
                            -------------
                            3l.    3    4
                            -------------

[Footnote A: These are a mother and four children in
one house, and with but one ground, they tell
me.]
       *       *       *       *       *

Richard Warren, to Albany Estate, Dr.
1838: Aug. 28.
To house and ground rent to
   date                     1l.    0    0
   Wife                     0     15    4
   Child[B]                 0     10    0
                            -------------
                            2l.    5    4
                            -------------

[Footnote B: The child is quite young, and in daily attendance
at one of my schools.]

       *       *       *       *       *

On this property, under the same managers as Retrieve, the people state
that they are going on shamefully. "The last Sabbath but one, when we
were at service, Stephen Campbell, the book-keeper, and Edward Pulsey,
old-time constable, come round and mark all for we house, and charge for
ebery one of we family. We don't know what kind of fee dis we hab at
all; for we attorney, Mr. Tate, neber come on we property, leave all to
Mr. Comeoy. We peak to him for make bargain, him say him can't make law,
and him no make bargain till him heare what law come out in packet. Him
say dem who make bargain are fools; beside him no call up a parcel of
niggers to hold service wid me; should only get laughed at. So we know
not what for do. You are for we minister, and for we only friend; and if
you did not advise we to go on work till things settle down, we no lift
another hoe. We would left the property." Unless an arrangement is soon
entered into, I shall advise them to do so.

James Greenheld, to New Galloway Estate, Dr.
To one week's rent of house, garden, and
   ground, and to 5 ditto for his wife, Margaret
   Greenfield, at 5s. per week.           £1 10 0

J.G. states, "I come for massa. When we make bargain with Mr. McNeal, it
was a maccaroni (1s. 8d.) a day, and for we house and ground. Me is able
and willing for work, so let my wife stop home; so him charge me de same
sum for my wife, as for me own house and ground. And den last week me
sick and get no money, and they charge me over again, (as above) one
week me sick. Me no able for say what to call dat massa, me sure."

I leave with you to make your own comments, and to do what you please
with the above. Although my chapel is £700 in debt, and my schools, one
of 180 and one of 160 scholars, are heavy, very heavy on me, I cannot do
other than advise my people to save every mite, buy an acre of land, and
by that means be independent, and job about wherever they may be wanted.

FROM THE REV. T. BURCHELL.

_Montego Bay, October_ 2, 1838.

The reason why I have not written to you so long, is the intensely
anxious time we have had. I feel, however, that it is high time now to
address you; for, if our friends in England relax their efforts, my
conviction is, that freedom will be more in name than in reality, in
this slave-holding Island. There is nothing to be feared, if the noble
band of friends who have so long and so successfully struggled, will but
continue their assistance a short time longer. The planters have made a
desperate struggle, and so, I have no doubt, will the House of Assembly,
against the emancipated negroes. My firm conviction has been, and still
is, that the planters have endeavored, by the offer of the most paltry
wages, to reduce the condition of the laborer, and make him as badly off
as he was when an apprentice or a slave, that he may curse the day that
made him free.

Though unable to conduct the usual services on Sunday the 5th August, at
the close I addressed the congregation, urging upon them the necessity
of commencing their work on the following day, whether arrangements were
made between themselves and their masters or not; as by so doing they
would put it out of the power of their opponents to say anything evil of
them. They assembled, and on Monday the 6th thousands turned out to
work, and continued to labor, unless prevented by the Manager, until
arrangements were made.

You will remember, that prior to the 1st of August, a white man who
hired out a gang of apprentices to an estate was paid at the rate of 1s.
6d. sterling per diem for each able laborer. The apprentice received the
same when he worked for the estate on his own days, Friday and Saturday;
and whenever they were valued for the purpose of purchasing the
remaining time of their apprenticeship, the planter upon oath stated
that their services were worth at least 1s. 6. per diem to the estate,
and the apprentice had to redeem himself at that rate.

After the 1st of August, the planters discovered, that, whilst the
properties would well afford to continue the lavish and extravagant
expenditure in managing the estates, "it would be certain ruin to the
properties, if the labourer was paid more than 71/2d. per diem. for the
1st class of labourers, 6d. the 2nd class, and 41/2d. for the 3rd
class:" and why? I know not why, unless it was because the long
oppressed negro was to put the money into his own pocket, and not his
white oppressors. This seems to have made all the difference. The above
wages were accordingly offered, and rejected with scorn; the people
feeling the greatest indignation at the atrocious attempt of their old
oppressors to grind them down now they are free, and keep them in a
state of degradation. The greatest confusion and disorder ensued; the
labourers indignant at the conduct of their masters, and the planters
enraged against the people, for presuming to think and act for
themselves. As a matter of course, the fury of the planters was directed
against half a dozen Baptist missionaries, and as many more friends and
stipendiary Magistrates; and I can assure you that the Jamaica press
equalled its most vituperative days, and came forth worthy of itself.
The Despatch, or the Old Jamaica Courant, so well known in 1832 for
advocating the burning of chapels, and the hanging of missionaries; was
quite in the shade. The pious Polypheme, the Bishop's paper, with the
Jamaica Standard of infamy and falsehood, published in this town, took
the lead, and a pretty standard it is. Let foreigners judge of Jamaica
by the Jamaica Standard of August last, and they must suppose it is an
island of savages, or a little hell. The press teemed with abuse of the
most savage nature against us, and published the most barefaced lies.
That, however, you who know the generality of the Jamaica Press, will
say is nothing new or strange; well, it is not, nor do we regard any
statements they make; for no one believes what they publish, and it is a
source of gratification to us that we have never forfeited our character
or principles in the estimation of the reflecting, the philanthropist,
or the Christian public, by meriting their approbation.

In the mulct of this seemingly general conspiracy to defraud the laborer
of his wages by exorbitant rents, &c. Sir Lionel Smith, the Governor,
proceeds from district to district, giving advice to both of the
contending parties, and striving to promote a mutual understanding. His
testimony to the designs of the planters given to their faces, and not
denied, is very important; we give therefore one of his meetings, as the
find it reported in the Jamaica papers. Here is a rather familiar
conversation among some of the chief men of that island--where can we
expect to find more authoritative testimony?

SIR LIONEL SMITH'S VISIT TO DUNSINANE.

His Excellency, Sir Lionel Smith, visited Dunsinane on Thursday last,
agreeably to arrangements previously entered into, for the purpose of
addressing the late apprenticed population in that neighborhood, on the
propriety of resuming the cultivation of the soil. About two miles from
Dunsinane, his Excellency was met by a cavalcade composed of the late
apprentices, who were preceded by Messrs. Bourne, Hamilton, and Kent,
late Special Justices. On the arrival of his Excellency at Dunsinane, he
was met by the Hon. Joseph Gordon, Custos, the Lord Bishop attended by
his Secretary, and the Rev. Alexander Campbell; the Hon. Hector Mitchel,
Mayor of Kingston, and a large number of highly respectable planters,
proprietors, and attorneys. His Excellency, on being seated in the
dwelling, said, that from information which he had received from other
parishes, and facts gathered from personal observation, he believed that
the same bone of contention existed there as elsewhere--a source of
discontent brought about by the planters serving the people with notices
to quit their houses and grounds. He did not question their right to do
so, or the legality of such a proceeding, but he questioned the prudence
of the step. The great change from slavery to unrestricted freedom
surely deserved some consideration. Things cannot so soon be quiet and
calm. Depend upon it, nothing will be done by force. Much may be by
conciliation and prudence. Do away with every emblem of slavery; throw
off the Kilmarnock cap, and adopt in its stead, like rational men,
Britannia's cap of liberty. He (Sir Lionel) doubted not the right of the
planters to rent their houses and grounds; in order to be more certain
on that head, he had procured the opinion of the Attorney General; but
the exercise of the right by the planter, and getting the people to
work, were very different matters. Much difficulty must be felt in
getting rid of slavery. Even in the little island of Antigua, it had
taken six months to get matters into a quiet state; but here, in a large
country like Jamaica, could it be expected to be done in a day, and was
it because it was not done, that the planters were to be opposed to him?
You are all in arms against me (said his Excellency,) but all I ask of
you is to exercise patience, and all will be right. I have done, and am
doing all in my power for the good of my country. If you have served the
people with notices to quit, with a view to compel them to work, or
thinking to force them to work for a certain rate of wages, you have
done wrong. Coercive measures will never succeed. In Vere, which I
lately visited, the planters have agreed to give the people 1s. 8d. per
day, and to let them have their houses and grounds for three months free
of charge. His Excellency, on seeing some symptoms of disapprobation
manifested, said, Well, if you cannot afford to pay so much, pay what
you can afford; but above all, use conciliatory measures, and I have not
a doubt on my mind but that the people will go to their work. Seeing so
many planters present, he should be happy if they would come to an
arrangement among themselves, before he addressed the people outside.

Mr. WELLWOOD HYSLOP remarked, that Vere and other rich sugar parishes
might be able to pay high rates of wages, because the land yielded
profitable crops, but in this district it was impossible to follow the
example of those parishes. He thought that two bits a day might do very
well, but that was as much as could be afforded.

His EXCELLENCY said that in Manchester, where he believed he had more
enemies than in any other parish, he had advised them to work by the
piece, and it had been found to answer well.

Mr. HINTON EAST said that he would submit a measure which he thought
would be approved of. He proposed that the people should be paid 5s. for
four days' labor; that if they cleaned more than 130 trees per day,
either themselves or by bringing out their wives and children, they
should be paid extra wages in the same proportion.

Mr. ANDREW SIMPSON said that he could not afford to pay the rates named
by his Excellency. It was entirely out of the question; that a good deal
depended upon the state the fields are in--that his people, for
instance, could, with much ease, if they chose, clean 170 trees by
half-past three o'clock.

Mr. MASON, of St. George's, said he was willing to pay his people 1s.
8d. per day, if they would but work; but the fact was that they refused
to do so, on account of the stories that had been told them by Special
Justice Fishbourne; willingly too would I have given them their houses
and grounds for three months, free of charge, had they shown a desire to
labor; but what was the lamentable fact? the people would not work,
because Mr. Fishbourne had influenced them not to do so, and he (Mr.
Mason) had been a loser of one thousand pounds in consequence. He had
been compelled in self-defence to issue summonses against two of his
people. He had purchased his property--it was his all--he had sacrificed
twenty of the best years of his life as a planter, he had a wife and
family to support, and what was the prospect before him and them? He
admitted having served notices on his people to quit their houses--in
truth he did not now care whether they were or were not located on the
property--he was willing to pay fair, nay, high wages, but the demand
was exorbitant. He had a servant, a trustworthy white man, who laboured
from day-dawn to sunset for 2s. 1d. per day, and he was quite satisfied.
All the mischief in his district had been owing to the poisonous stories
poured into the ears of the people by Special Justice Fishbourne. If he
were removed, the parish might probably assume a healthy state; if
allowed to remain, no improvement could possibly take place.

His EXCELLENCY said that the Assembly had passed a law preventing the
special magistrates from going on the estates; they could not, however,
prevent the people from going to them, and taking their advice if they
wished it. He had understood that the people had gone to the special
magistrates, informing them that the planters demanded 3s. 4d. per week
rent for the houses and grounds, and that they had been advised, if such
were the case, that they ought to be paid higher wages. He understood
that to be a fact.

Mr. ANDREW SIMPSON said that the people would, he had no doubt, have
worked, but for the pernicious advice of Mr. Fishbourne. He had heard
that the people had been told that the Governor did not wish them to
work, and that he would be vexed with them if they did.

Sir LIONEL replied that he was aware that white men were going about the
country disguised as policemen, pretending to have his (Sir Lionel's)
authority, telling the people not to work. He knew well their intention
and design, he understood the trick. You are anxious (said his
Excellency) to produce a panic, to reduce the value of property, to
create dismay, in order that you may speculate, by reducing the present
value of property; but you will be disappointed, notwithstanding a press
sends forth daily abuse against me, and black-guard and contemptible
remarks against my acts. I assure you I am up to your tricks.

Mr. ANDREW SIMPSON would be glad if his Excellency would speak
individually. There was a paper called the West Indian, and another the
Colonial Freeman. He wished to know whether his Excellency meant either
of those papers. [Some slight interruption here took place, several
gentlemen speaking at the same time.]

His EXCELLENCY said he had not come to discuss politics, but to
endeavour to get the people to work, and it would be well for them to
turn their attention to that subject.

Mr. SIMPSON said he had a gang who had jobbed by the acre, and had done
well, but it was unfortunate in other respects to observe the
disinclination shown by the laborers to work. He wished them to know
that they must work, and trusted that his Excellency would endeavour to
force them to labor.

Sir LIONEL--I can't compel them to do as you would wish, nor have I the
power of forcing them to labor. The people will not suffer themselves to
be driven by means of the cart-whip. It is the policy of every man to
make the best bargain he can. I can say nothing to the people about
houses and grounds, and price of wages. I can only ask them to work.

Mr. WILES said that the planters were anxious to come to amicable
arrangements with the people, but they were unreasonable in their
demands. The planters could not consent to be injured--they must profit
by their properties.

Mr. MASON said, that the only bone of contention was the subject of
rent. His people were outside waiting to be satisfied on that head. He
hesitated not to say, that the proprietors were entitled to rent in
every instance where the laborer was unwilling to labor, and unless that
subject was at once settled, it would involve both parties in endless
disagreement. He was not one of those persons alluded to by his
Excellency, who circulated misrepresentations for private benefit, nor
was he aware that any one in the parish in which he lived had done so.
All that he desired was the good of the country, with which his
interests were identified.

Sir LIONEL--I could not possibly be personal towards any gentleman
present, for I have not the honour of knowing most of you. My
observations were not confined to any particular parish, but to the
Island of Jamaica, in which the occurrences named have taken place.

Dr. RAPKY, of St. George's--If your Excellency will only do away with a
curtain magistrate, things will go on smoothly in the parish of St.
George. This gentleman has told the people that they are entitled to the
lands occupied by them, in consequence of which the parish is now in an
unsettled state.

Sir LIONEL--Who is the magistrate!

Dr. RAPKY--Mr. Fishbourne.

Sir LIONEL--I am afraid I cannot please you. The question of possession
of lands and houses has for the present been settled by the opinion of
the Attorney-General, but it is still an undetermined question at law.
There are many persons in the island who are of opinion that the
legislature had not so intended; he (Sir Lionel) was at a loss to know
what they meant; seeing, however, some members of the assembly present,
perhaps they would be disposed to give some information.

Mr. S.J. DALLAS said, that it was the intention of the legislature that
rent should be paid. He thought it fair that 1s. 8d. per day should be
offered the people to work five days in the week, they returning one
day's labor for the houses and grounds.

Mr. SPECIAL JUSTICE HAMILTON said that complaints had been made to him,
that in many instances where the husband and wife lived in the same
house, rent had been demanded of both. The laborers had, in consequence,
been thrown into a state of consternation and alarm, which accounted for
the unsettled state of several properties--a serious bone of contention
had in consequence been produced. He held a notice in his hand demanding
of a laborer the enormous sum of 10s. per week for house and ground. He
had seen other notices in which 6s, 8d. and 5s. had been demanded for
the same. He did not consider that the parties issuing those notices had
acted with prudence.

Mr. HYSLOP explained--He admitted the charge, but said that the sum was
never intended to be exacted.

Sir LIONEL said he was aware of what was going on; he had heard of it.
"It was a policy which ought no longer to be pursued."

We have given the foregoing documents, full and ungarbled, that our
readers might fairly judge for themselves. We have not picked here a
sentence and there a sentence, but let the Governor, the Assembly, the
Missionaries, and the press tell their whole story. Let them be read,
compared, and weighed.

We might indefinitely prolong our extracts from the West India papers to
show, not only in regard to the important island of Jamaica, but
Barbados and several other colonies, that the former masters are alone
guilty of the non-working of the emancipated, so far as they refuse to
work. But we think we have already produced proof enough to establish
the following points:--

1. That there was a strong predisposition on the part of the Jamaica
planters to defraud their labourers of their wages. They hoped that by
yielding, before they were driven quite to the last extremity, by the
tide of public sentiment in England, they should escape from all
philanthropic interference and surveillance, and be able to bring the
faces of their unyoked peasantry to the grindstone of inadequate wages.

2. That the emancipated were not only peaceful in their new freedom, but
ready to grant an amnesty of all post abuses, and enter cheerfully into
the employ of their former masters for reasonable wages. That in cases
where disagreement has arisen as to the rate of daily or weekly wages,
the labourers have been ready to engage in task work, to be paid by the
piece, and have laboured so efficiently and profitably--proving a strong
disposition for industry and the acquisition of property.

3. That in the face of this good disposition of the laborers, the
planters have, in many cases, refused to give adequate wages.

4. That in still more numerous cases, including many in which the wages
have been apparently liberal, enormous extortion has been practiced upon
the laborer, in the form of rent demanded for his hovel and provision
patch--£20 per annum being demanded for a shanty not worth half that
money, and rent being frequently demanded from _every member_ of a
family more than should have been taken from the whole.

5. That the negroes are able to look out for their own interest, and
have very distinct ideas of their own about the value of money and the
worth of their labour, as well as the best methods of bringing their
employers to reasonable terms. On this point we might have made a still
stronger case by quoting from the Despatch and Standard, which assert
numerous instances in which the labourers have refused to work for wages
recommended to them by the Governor, Special Magistrates, or
Missionaries, though they offered to work for 3s. 4d., 5s., or a dollar
a day. They are shown to be rare bargain-makers and not easily trapped.

6. That the attorneys and managers have deliberately endeavoured to
raise a panic, whereby property might be depreciated to their own
advantage; showing clearly thereby, that they consider Jamaica property,
even with the laborers, irreclaimably free, a desirable investment.

7. That in spite of all their efforts, the great body of the laborers
continue industrious, doing more work in the same time than in slavery.
_The testimony to his very important point, of the Governor and House of
Assembly, is perfectly conclusive_, as we have already said. A house
that represents the very men who, in 1832, burnt the missionary chapels,
and defied the British Parliament with the threat, that in case it
proceeded to legislate Abolition, Jamaica would attach herself to the
United States, now HOPES for the agricultural prosperity of the island!
Indeed no one in Jamaica expresses a doubt on this subject, who does not
obviously do so _for the sake of buying land to better advantage_! Were
the colony a shade _worse_ off than before Emancipation, either in fact
or in the opinion of its landholders, or of any considerable portion of
persons acquainted with it, the inevitable consequence would be a
depreciation of _real estate_. But what is the fact? said Rev. John
Clark, a Jamaica Baptist Missionary, who has visited this country since
the first of August, in a letter published in the Journal of Commerce:--

"The Island of Jamaica is not in the deplorable state set forth by your
correspondent.--Land is rising in value so rapidly, that what was
bought five years ago at 3 dollars per acre, is now selling for 15
dollars; and this in the interior of the Island, in a parish not
reckoned the most healthy, and sixteen miles distant from the nearest
town. Crops are better than in the days of slavery--extra labour is
easily obtained where kindness and justice are exercised towards the
people. The hopes of proprietors are great, and larger sums are being
offered for estates than were offered previous to August, 1834, when
estates, and negroes upon them, were disposed of together."

Again, as in Jamaica commerce rests wholly upon agriculture, _its_
institutions can only flourish in a flourishing condition of the
latter.--What then are we to infer from an imposing prospectus which
appears in the island papers, commencing thus:--

   "Kingston, October 26, 1838

    Jamaica Marine, Fire, and Life Assurance Company.

    Capital £100,000,

    In 5000 shares of £20 each.

    It has been long a matter of astonishment that, in a community so
    essentially mercantile as Jamaica, no Company should have been
    formed for the purpose of effecting Insurance on Life and Property;
    although it cannot be doubted for an instant, that not only would
    such an establishment be highly useful to all classes of the
    community, but that it must yield a handsome return to such persons
    as may be inclined to invest their money in it," &c.

Farther down in the prospectus we are told--"It may here be stated,
that the scheme for the formation of this Company has been mentioned to
some of the principal Merchants and _Gentlemen of the Country_, and has
met with decidedly favourable notice: and it is expected that the
shares, a large number of which have been already taken, will be rapidly
disposed of."

The same paper, the Morning Journal, from which we make this extract,
informs us: Nov. 2d--

"The shares subscribed for yesterday, in the Marine Fire and Life
Insurance Company, we understand, amount to the almost unprecedented
number of One Thousand Six Hundred, with a number of applicants whose
names have not been added to the list."

The Morning Journal of October 20th in remarking upon this project
says:--

"Jamaica is now happily a free country; she contains within herself the
means of becoming prosperous. Let her sons develope those resources
which Lord Belmore with so much truth declared never would be developed
_until slavery had ceased_. She has her Banks.--Give her, in addition,
her Loan Society, her Marine, Fire, and life Assurance Company, and some
others that will shortly be proposed, and capital will flow in from
other countries--property will acquire a value in the market, that will
increase with the increase of wealth, and she will yet be a flourishing
island, and her inhabitants a happy and contented people."

Now men desperately in debt _might_ invite in foreign capital for
temporary relief, but, since the _compensation_, this is understood not
to be the case with the Jamaica planters; and if they are rushing into
speculation, it must be because they have strong _hope_ of the safety
and prosperity of their country--in other words, because they confide in
the system of free labor. This one prospectus, coupled with its prompt
success, is sufficient to prove the falsehood of all the stories so
industriously retailed among us from the Standard and the Despatch. But
speculators and large capitalists are not the only men who confide in
the success of the "great experiment."

The following editorial notice in the Morning Journal of a recent date
speaks volumes:--

SAVINGS BANK.

"We were asked not many days ago how the Savings Bank in this City was
getting on. We answered well, very well indeed. By a notification
published in our paper of Saturday, it will be seen that £1600 has been
placed in the hands of the Receiver-General. By the establishment of
these Banks, a great deal of the money now locked up, and which yields
no return whatever to the possessors, and is liable to be stolen, will
be brought into circulation. This circumstance of itself ought to
operate as a powerful inducement to those parishes in which no Banks are
yet established to be up and doing. We have got some _five_ or _six_ of
them fairly underweigh, as Jack would say, and hope the remainder will
speedily trip their anchors and follow."

We believe banks were not known in the West Indies before the 1st of
August 1834. Says the Spanishtown Telegraph of May 1st, 1837, "_Banks,
Steam-Companies, Rail-Roads, Charity Schools_, etc., seem all to have
remained dormant until the time arrived when Jamaica was to be
_enveloped in smoke_! No man thought of hazarding his capital in an
extensive banking establishment until Jamaica's ruin, by the
introduction of freedom, had been accomplished!" And it was not till
after the 1st of August, 1838, that Jamaica had either savings banks or
savings. These institutions for the industrious classes came only with
their manhood. But why came they at all, if Emancipated industry is, or
is likely to be, unsuccessful?--In Barbados we notice the same
forwardness in founding monied institutions. A Bank is there proposed,
with a capital of £200,000. More than this, the all absorbing subject in
all the West India papers at the present moment is that of the
_currency_. Why such anxiety to provide the means of paying for labor
which is to become valueless? Why such keenness for a good circulating
medium if they are to have nothing to sell? The complaints about the old
fashioned coinage we venture to assort have since the first of August
occupied five times as much space in the colonial papers, we might
probably say in each and every one of them, as those of the non-working
of the freemen. The inference is irresistible. _The white colonists take
it for granted that industry is to thrive_.

It may be proper to remark that the late refusal of the Jamaica
legislature to fulfil its appropriate functions has no connection with
the working of freedom, any further than it may have been a struggle to
get rid in some measure of the surveillance of the mother country in
order to coerce the labourer so far as possible by vagrant laws, &c. The
immediate pretext was the passing of a law by the imperial Parliament
for the regulation of prisons, which the House of Assembly declared a
violation of that principle of their charter which forbids the
mother-country to lay a tax on them without their consent, in as much as
it authorized a crown officer to impose a fine, in a certain case, of
£20. A large majority considered this an infringement of their
prerogatives, and among them were some members who have nobly stood up
for the slave in times of danger. The remarks of Mr. Osborn especially,
on this subject, (he is the full blooded, slave-born, African man to
whom we have already referred) are worthy of consideration in several
points of view. Although he had always been a staunch advocate of the
home government on the floor of the Assembly are now contended for the
rights of the Jamaica legislature with arguments which to us republicans
are certainly quite forcible. In a speech of some length, which appears
very creditable to him throughout, he said--

"Government could not be acting fair towards them to assume that the
mass of the people of this island would remain in the state of political
indifference to which poverty and slavery had reduced them. They were
now free, every man to rise as rapidly as he could; and the day was not
very distant when it would be demonstrated by the change of
representatives that would be seen in that house. It did appear to him,
that under the pretext of extending the privileges of freemen to the
mass of the people of this country, the government was about to deprive
them of those privileges, by curtailing the power of the representative
Assembly of those very people. He could not bring himself to admit, with
any regard for truth, that the late apprentices could now be oppressed;
they were quite alive to their own interests, and were now capable of
taking care of themselves. So long as labor was marketable, so long they
could resist oppression, while on the other hand, the proprietor, for
his own interest's sake, would be compelled to deal fairly with them."

Though it is evidently all important that the same public opinion which
has wrested the whip from the master should continue to watch his
proceedings as an employer of freemen, there is much truth in the speech
of this black representative and alderman of Kingston. The brutalized
and reckless attorneys and managers, _may_ possibly succeed in driving
the negroes from the estates by exorbitant rent and low wages. They
_may_ succeed in their effort to buy in property at half its value. But
when they have effected that, they will be totally dependent for the
profits of their ill-gotten gains upon the _free laboring people_. They
may produce what they call idleness now, and a great deal of vexation
and suffering. But land is plenty, and the laborers, if thrust from the
estates, will take it up, and become still more independent. Reasonable
wages they will be able to command, and for such they are willing to
labor. The few thousand whites of Jamaica will never be able to
establish slavery, or any thing like it, over its 300,000 blacks.

Already they are fain to swallow their prejudice against color. Mr.
Jordon, member for Kingston and "free nigger," was listened to with
respect. Nay more, his argument was copied into the "Protest" which the
legislature proudly flung back in the face of Parliament, along with the
abolition of the apprenticeship, in return for Lord Glenelg's Bill. Let
all in the United States read and ponder it who assert that "the two
races cannot live together on term of equality."

Legislative independence of Jamaica has ever been the pride of her
English conquerors. They have received with joy the colored fellow
colonists into an equal participation of their valued liberty, and they
were prepared to rejoice at the extension of the constitution to the
emancipated blacks. But the British Government, by a great fault, if not
a crime, has, at the moment when all should have been free, torn from
the lately ascendant class, the privileges which were their birthright,
another class, now the equals of the former, the rights they had long
and fortunately struggled for, and from the emancipated blacks the
rights which they fondly expected to enjoy with their personal freedom.
The boon of earlier freedom will not compensate this most numerous part
of our population for the injustice and wrong done to the whole
Jamaica people.

The documents already adduced are confined almost exclusively to
Jamaica. We will refer briefly to one of the other colonies. The next in
importance is

BARBADOS

Here has been played nearly the same game in regard to wages, and with
the same results. We are now furnished with advices from the island down
to the 19th of December 1838. At the latter date the panic making papers
had tapered down their complainings to a very faint whisper, and withal
expressing more hope than fears. As the fruit of what they had already
done we are told by one of them, _the Barbadian_, that the unfavourable
news carried home by the packets after the emancipation had served to
raise the price of sugar in England, which object being accomplished, it
is hoped that they will intermit the manufacture of such news. The first
and most important document, and indeed of itself sufficient to save the
trouble of giving more, is the comparison of crime during two and a half
months of freedom, and the corresponding two and a half months of
slavery or apprenticeship last year, submitted to the legislature at the
opening of its session in the latter part of October. Here it is. We
hope it will be held up before every slave holder.

From the Barbadian of Dec. 1.

Barbados.--Comparative Table, exhibiting the number of Complaints
preferred against the Apprentice population of this Colony, in the
months of August, September and to the 15th of October, 1838; together
with the Complaints charged against Free Labourers of the same Colony,
during the months of August, September and to the 15th of October, 1838.
The former compiled from the Monthly Journals of the Special Justice of
the Peace and the latter from the Returns of the Local Magistracy
transmitted to his excellency the Governor

    APPRENTICESHIP.

    Total of Complaints vs. Apprentices from the
    1st to 31st August 1837.                  1708
    Ditto from the 1st to 30th September      1464
    Ditto from the 1st to 15th October         574

    Grand Total                               3746

    Total number of Apprentices punished from the
    1st to 31st August                        1608
    Ditto from 1st to 31st September          1321
    Ditto from the 1st to 15th October         561

    Grand Total                               3490

    Total compromised, admonished and dismissed
    from 1st to 31st August                    105
    Ditto from the 1st to 30th September       113
    Ditto from 1st to 15th October              38

    Total                                      256

    Deficiency in compromised cases in 1837 comparatively
    with those of 1838                         158

    Grand Total                                414

    FREEDOM.

    Total of Complaints vs. Labourers from the
    1st to the 31st August 1838                582
    Ditto from the 1st to the 30th September   386
    Ditto from the 1st to the 15th October     103

    Total                                     1071

    Comparative Surplus of Complaints in 1838 2675

    Grand Total                               3746

    Total of Laborers punished from the 1st to
    the 31st August, 1838,                     334
    Ditto from the 1st to 30th September       270
    Ditto from the 1st to 15th October          53

    Total                                      657

    Comparative surplus of punishment in 1837 2833

    Grand total                               3490

    Total compromised, admonished and dismissed
    from the 1st to the 31st August            248
    Ditto from the 1st to 30th September       116
    Ditto from the 1st to 15th October          50

    Grand Total                                414


    NOTE.

    It may be proper to remark that the accompanying General Abstract
    for August, September, and to the 15th October, 1837, does not
    include complaints preferred and heard before the Local Magistrates
    during those months for such offences--viz. for misdemeanors, petty
    debts, assaults and petty thefts--as were not cognizable by the
    Special Justices; so that estimating these offences--the number of
    which does not appear in the Abstract for 1837--at a similar number
    as that enumerated in the Abstract for 1838, the actual relative
    difference of punishments between the two and a half months in 1837
    and these in 1838, would thus appear:


    Surplus of Apprentices punished in 1837, as
    above                                          2833

    Offences in August, September, and to the
    15th, October, 1837 heard before the General
    Justices of the Peace, and estimated as follows:

    Petty thefts                                75
    Assaults                                   143
    Misdemeanors                                98
    Petty Debts                                 19--835

    Actual surplus of punishment in 1837,     3168


From the Journal of Commerce.

_Letter from W.R. Hays, Esq. Barbados, W.I. to Rev. H.G. Ludlow, of New
Haven_.

    BARBADOS, Dec. 26, 1838.

    I gave you in my last, some account of the manner in which the first
    day of emancipation came and went in this island. We very soon
    afterwards received similar accounts from all the neighboring
    islands. In all of them the day was celebrated as an occasion "of
    devout thanksgiving and praise to God, for the happy termination of
    slavery." In all of them, the change took place in a manner highly
    creditable to the emancipated, and intensely gratifying to the
    friends of liberty. The quiet, good order, and solemnity of the day,
    were every where remarkable. Indeed, is it not a fact worth
    remembering, that whereas in former years, a single day's relaxation
    from labor was met by the slaves with shouting and revelry, and
    merry-making, yet now, when the last link of slavery was broken
    forever, sobriety and decorum were especially the order of the day.
    The perfect order and subordination to the laws, which marked the
    first day of August, are yet unbroken. We have now nearly five
    months' experience of entire emancipation; and I venture to say,
    that a period of more profound peace never existed in the West
    Indies. There have been disputes about wages, as in New England and
    in other free countries; but no concert, no combination even, here;
    and the only attempt at a combination was among the planters, to
    keep down wages--and that but for a short time only. I will not
    enter particularly into the questions, whether or not the people
    will continue to work for wages, whether they will remain quiet,--or
    on the other hand, whether the Island will be suffered to become
    desolate, and the freed slaves relapse into barbarism, &c. These
    things have been speculated about, and gloomy predictions have had
    their day; the time has now come for the proof. People do not buy
    land and houses, and rent property for long terms of years, in
    countries where life is insecure, or where labor cannot be had, and
    the tendency of things is to ruin and decay. In short, men, in their
    senses, do not embark on board a sinking ship. Confidence is the
    very soul of prosperity; of the existence of this confidence in this
    Island, the immense operations in real estate, since the first of
    August, are abundant proof. There are multitudes of instances in
    which estates have sold for $20,000 _more_ than was asked for them
    six months ago; and yet at the time they were considered very
    high. A proprietor who was persuaded a few weeks since to part with
    his estate for a very large sum of money, went and bought _it back
    again_ at an _advance_ of $9600. A great many long leases of
    property have been entered into. An estate called "Edgecombe,"
    mentioned by Thome and Kimball, has been rented for 21 years at
    $7500 per annum. Another called the "hope" has been rented for 10
    years at £2000 sterling, equal to $9600 per annum. Another, after
    being rented at a high price, was relet, by the lessee, who became
    entirely absolved from the contract, and took $16,000 for his
    bargain. If required, I could give you a host of similar cases, with
    the names of the parties. But it seems unnecessary. The mere impulse
    given to the value of property in this island by emancipation, is a
    thing as notorious _here_, as the _fact_ of emancipation.

    But, are not crimes more frequent than before? I have now before me
    a Barbados newspaper, printed two weeks since, in which the fact is
    stated, that in _all_ the county prisons, among a population of
    80,000, only _two_ prisoners were confined for any cause whatever!

    "But," says a believer in the necessity of Colonization, "how will
    you _get rid_ of the negroes?" I answer by adverting to the
    spectacle which is now witnessed in _all_ the Islands of the former
    proprietors of slaves, now _employers_ of _free_ laborers, using
    every endeavor to _prevent_ emigration. Trinidad, Demerara, and
    Berbice, _want_ laborers. The former has passed a law to pay the
    passage money of any laborer who comes to the Island, leaving him
    free to choose him employment. Demerara and Berbize have sent
    Emigration agents to this and other islands, to induce the laborers
    to join those colonies, offering high wages, good treatment, &c. On
    the other hand, Barbados, Grenada, St. Vincent, and all the old and
    populous islands, individually and collectively, by legislative
    resolves, legal enactments, &c. &c.--loudly protest that they have
    _not a man to spare_! What is still better, the old island
    proprietors are on every hand building new houses for the peasantry,
    and with great forethought adding to their comfort; knowing that
    they will thereby secure their contentment on their native soil. As
    a pleasing instance of the good understanding which now exists
    between proprietors and laborers, I will mention, that great numbers
    of the former were in town on the 24th, buying up pork, hams, rice,
    &c. as presents for their people on the ensuing Christmas; a day
    which has this year passed by amid scenes of quiet Sabbath
    devotions, a striking contrast to the tumult and drunkenness of
    former times. I cannot close this subject, without beating my
    testimony to the correctness of the statements made by our
    countrymen, Thome and Kimball. They were highly esteemed here by all
    classes, and had free access to every source of valuable
    information. If they have not done justice to the subject of their
    book, it is because the manifold blessings of a deliverance from
    slavery are beyond the powers of language to represent. When I
    attempt, as I have done in this letter, to enumerate a few of the, I
    know not where to begin, or where to end. One must _see_, in order
    to know and feel how unspeakable a boon these islands have
    received,--a boon, which is by no means confined to the emancipated
    slaves; but, like the dew and rains of heaven, it fell upon all the
    inhabitants of the land, bond and free, rich and poor, together.

    It is a common thing here, when you hear one speak of the benefits
    of emancipation--the remark--that it ought to have taken place long
    ago. Some say fifty years ago, some twenty, and some, that at any
    rate it ought to have taken place all at once, without any
    apprenticeship. The noon-day sun is not clearer than the fact, that
    no preparation was required on the part of the slaves. It was the
    dictate of an accusing conscience, that foretold of bloodshed, and
    burning, and devastation. Can it be supposed to be an accidental
    circumstance, that peace and good-will have _uniformly_, in _all_
    the colonies, followed the steps of emancipation. Is it not rather
    the broad seal of attestation to that heaven born principle, "It is
    safe to do right." Dear brother, if you or any other friend to down
    trodden humanity, have any lingering fear that the blaze of light
    which is now going forth from the islands will ever be quenched,
    even for a moment, dismiss that fear. The light, instead of growing
    dim, will continue to brighten. Your prayers for the safe and happy
    introduction of freedom, upon a soil long trodden by the foot of
    slavery, may be turned into praises--for the event has come to pass.
    When shall we be able to rejoice in such a consummation in our
    beloved America? How I long to see a deputation of slaveholders
    making the tour of these islands. It would only be necessary for
    them to use their eyes and ears. Argument would be quite out of
    place. Even an appeal to principle--to compassion--to the fear of
    God--would not be needed. Self-interest alone would decide them in
    favor of immediate emancipation.

    Ever yours,

    W.R. HAYES.

DEMERARA.

SPEECH OF THE GOVERNOR, ON OPENING THE SESSION OF THE COURT OF POLICY,
SEPT. 17, 1838.

From the Guiana Royal Gazette.

    "I should fail in my duty to the public, and perhaps no respond to
    the expectations of yourselves, Gentlemen of the Colonial Section of
    this Honorable Court, did I not say a few words on the state of the
    Colony, at this our first meeting after the memorable first
    of August.

    We are now approaching the close of the second month since that
    date--a sufficient time to enable us to judge of the good
    disposition of the new race of Freemen, but not perhaps of the
    prosperity of the Colony. It is a proud thing for the
    Colonist--Proprietors and Employers--that nothing has occurred to
    indicate a want of good feeling in the great body of the laborers.
    It is creditable to them, satisfactory to their employers, and
    confounding to those who anticipated a contrary state of affairs.

    That partial changes of location should have taken place, cannot
    surprise any reasonable mind--that men who have all their lives been
    subject to compulsory labor should, on having this labor left to
    their discretion, be disposed at first to relax, and, in some
    instances, totally abstain from it, was equally to be expected. But
    we have no reason to despond, nor to imagine that, because such has
    occurred in some districts, it will continue.

    It is sufficient that the ignorant have been undeceived in their
    exaggerated notions of their rights as Freemen: it was the first
    step towards resumption of labor in every part of the Colony. The
    patient forbearance of the Employers has produced great changes. If
    some Estates have been disappointed in the amount of labor
    performed, others again, and I have reason to believe a great
    number, are doing well. It is well known that the Peasantry have not
    taken to a wandering life: they are not lost to the cultivated parts
    of the Colony: for the reports hitherto received from the
    Superintendents of Rivers and Creeks make no mention of an augmented
    population in the distant parts of their respective districts.

    I hear of few commitments, except in this town, where, of course,
    many of the idle have flocked from the country. On the East Coast,
    there has been only one case brought before the High Sheriff's Court
    since the 1st of August. In the last Circuit, not one!

    With these facts before us, we may, I trust, anticipate the
    continued prosperity of the Colony; and though it be possible there
    may be a diminution in the exports of the staple commodities in this
    and the succeeding quarter, yet we must take into consideration that
    the season had been unfavorable, in some districts, previous to the
    1st August, therefore a larger proportion of the crops remained
    uncut; and we may ask, whether a continuance of compulsory labor
    would have produced a more favorable result? Our united efforts
    will, I trust, not be wanting to base individual prosperity on the
    welfare of all."

The Governor of Demerara is HENRY LIGHT, Esq., a gentlemen who seems
strongly inclined to court the old slavery party and determined to shew
his want of affinity to the abolitionists. In another speech delivered
on a similar occasion, he says:

"Many of the new freemen may still be said to be in their infancy of
freedom, and like children are wayward. On _many of the estates_ they
have repaid the kindness and forbearance of their masters; on others
they have continued to take advantage of (what? the kindness and
forbearance of their masters? No.) their new condition, are idle or
irregular in their work. The good sense of the mass gives me reason to
hope that idleness will be the exception, not the rule."

The Barbadian of NOV. 28, remarks, that of six districts in Demerara
whose condition had been reported, _five_ were working favorably. In the
sixth the laborers were standing out for higher wages.

TRINIDAD.

In the _Jamaica Morning Journal_ of Oct. 2d and 15th, we find the
following paragraphs in relation to this colony:

"Trinidad.--The reports from the various districts as to the conduct of
our laboring population, are as various and opposite, the Standard says,
to each other as it is possible for them to be. There are many of the
Estates on which the laborers had at first gone on steadily to work
which now have scarcely a hand upon them, whilst upon others they muster
a greater force than they could before command. We hear also that the
people have already in many instances exhibited that propensity common
to the habits of common life, which we call squatting, and to which we
have always looked forward as one of the evils likely to accompany their
emancipation, and calling for the earliest and most serious attention of
our Legislature. We must confess, however, that it is a subject not easy
to deal with safely and effectually."

TRINIDAD,--The Standard says: "The state of the cultivation at present
is said to be as far advanced as could have been anticipated under the
new circumstances in which the Island stands. The weather throughout the
month has been more than usually favorable to weeding, whilst there has
also been sufficient rain to bring out the plants; and many planters
having, before the 1st of Augus, pushed on their weeding by free labor
and (paid) extra tasks, the derangement in their customary labor which
has been experienced since that period, does not leave them much below
an average progress."

"Of the laborers, although they are far from being settled, we believe
we may say, that they are not working badly; indeed, compared with those
of the sister colonies, they are both more industrious and more disposed
to be on good terms with their late masters. Some few estates continue
short of their usual compliment of hands; but many of the laborers who
had left the proprietors, have returned to them, whilst many others have
changed their locality either to join their relations, or to return to
their haunts of former days. So far as we can learn, nothing like
insubordination or combination exists. We are also happy to say, that on
some estates, the laborers have turned their attention to their
provision grounds. There is one point, however, which few seem to
comprehend, which is, that although free, they cannot work one day and
be idle the next, _ad libitum_."

Later accounts mention that some thousands more of laborers were wanted
to take off the crop, and that a committee of immigration had been
appointed to obtain them. [See Amos Townsend's letter on the last page.]
So it seems the free laborers are so good they want more of them. The
same is notoriously true of Demerara, and Berbice. Instead of a
colonization spirit to get rid of the free blacks, the quarrel among the
colonies is, which shall get the most. It is no wonder that the poor
negroes in Trinidad should betake themselves to squatting. The island is
thinly peopled and the administration or justice is horribly corrupt,
under the governorship and judgeship of Sir George Hill, the well known
defaulter as Vice Treasurer of Ireland, on whose appointment Mr.
O'Connell remarked that "delinquents might excuse themselves by
referring to the case of their judge."

GRENADA.

"GRENADA--The Gazette expresses its gratification at being able to
record, that the accounts which have been received from several parts of
the country, are of a satisfactory nature. On many of the properties the
peasantry have, during the week, evinced a disposition to resume their
several accustomed avocations, at the rates, and on the terms proposed
by the directors of the respective estates, to which they were formerly
belonging; and very little desire to change their residence has been
manifested. One of our correspondents writes, that 'already, by a
conciliatory method, and holding out the stimulus of extra pay, in
proportion to the quantity of work performed beyond that allowed to
them, he had, 'succeeded in obtaining, for three days, double the former
average of work, rendered by the labors during the days of slavery; and
this, too, by four o'clock, at which hour it seems, they are now wishful
of ceasing to work, and to enable them to do so, they work continuously
from the time they return from their breakfast.'"

"It is one decided opinion, the paper named says, that in a very short
time the cultivation of the cane still be generally resumed, and all
things continue to progress to the mutual satisfaction of both employer
and laborer. We shall feel indebted to our friends for such information,
as it may be in their power to afford us on this important subject, as
it will tend to their advantage equally with that of their laborers,
from the same being made public. We would wish also that permission be
given as to mention the names of the properties on which matters have
assumed a favorable aspect."

_Jamaica Morning Journal of Oct. 2_.

GRENADA.--According to the _Free Press_, it would appear that 'the
proprietors and managers of several estates in Duquesne Valley, and
elsewhere, their patience being worn out, and seeing the cultivation of
their estates going to ruin, determined to put the law into operation,
by compelling, after allowing twenty-three or twenty-four days of
idleness, the people either to work or to leave the estates. They
resisted; the aid of the magistrates and of the constabulary force was
called in, but without effect, and actual violence was, we learn, used
towards those who came to enforce the law. Advices were immediately sent
down to the Executive, despatched by a gentleman of the Troop, who
reached town about half past five o'clock on Saturday morning last. We
believe a Privy Council was summoned, and during the day, Capt. Clarke
of the 1st West-India Regiment, and Government Secretary, Lieut. Mould
of the Royal Engineers, and Lieut. Costabodie of the 70th, together with
twenty men of the 70th, and 20 of the 1st West India, embarked, to be
conveyed by water to the scene of insubordination.'

"'We have not learnt the reception this force met with, from the
laborers, but the results of the visit paid them were, that yesterday,
there were at work, on four estates, none: on eleven others, 287 in all,
and on another all except three, who are in the hands of the
magistrates. On one of the above properties, the great gang was, on
Friday last, represented in the cane-piece by one old woman!'"

"'The presence of the soldiers has had, it will be seen, some effect,
yet still the prospects are far from encouraging; a system of stock
plundering, &c. is prevalent to a fearful degree, some gentlemen and the
industrious laborers having had their fowls, &c. entirely carried off by
the worthless criminals; it is consolatory, however, to be able to quote
the following written, to us by a gentleman: "Although there are a good
many people on the different estates, still obstinate and resisting
either to work or to leave the properties, yet I hope that if the
military are posted at Samaritan for some time longer, they will come
round, several of the very obstinate having done so already." Two
negroes were sent down to goal on Monday last, to have their trial for
assaulting the magistrates.'"

"'Such are the facts, as far as we have been able to ascertain them,
which have attended a rebellious demonstration among a portion of the
laboring population, calculated to excite well-founded apprehension in
the whole community. Had earlier preventive measures been adopted, this
open manifestation of a spirit of resistance to, and defiance of the
law, might have been avoided. On this point, we have, in contempt of the
time-serving reflections it has drawn upon us, freely and fearlessly
expressed our opinion, and we shall now only remark, that matters having
come to the pass we have stated, the Executive has adopted the only
effective means to bring affairs again to a healthy state; fortunate is
it for the colony, that this has been done, and we trust that the
effects will be most beneficial.'"

TOBAGO.

The following testifies well for the ability of the emancipated to take
care of themselves.

"'Tobago.--The Gazette of this Island informs us that up to the period
of its going to press, the accounts from the country, as to the
disinclination of the laborers to turn out to work are much the same as
we have given of last week. Early this morning parties of them were seen
passing through town in various directions, accompanied by their
children, and carrying along with them their ground provisions, stock,
&c. indicating a change of location. Whilst on many estates where
peremptory demands have been made that work be resumed, or the laborers
should leave the estate, downright refusal to do either the one or the
other has been the reply; and that reply has been accompanied by threat
and menace of personal violence against any attempts to turn them out of
their houses and grounds. In the transition of the laborers from a state
of bondage to freedom, much that in their manners and deportment would
have brought them summarily under the coercion of the stipendiary
magistrate, formerly, may now be practised with impunity; and the fear
is lest that nice discrimination betwixt restraints just terminated and
rights newly acquired, will not be clouded for some time, even in the
minds of the authorities, before whom laborers are likely to be brought
for their transgression. Thus, although it may appear like an alarming
confederacy, the system of sending delegates, or head men, around the
estates, which the laborers have adopted, as advisers, or agents, to
promote general unanimity; it must be borne in mind that this is
perfectly justifiable; and it is only where actual violence has been
threatened by those delegates against those who choose to work at under
wages, that the authorities can merely assure them of their protection
from violence.'--_Morning Jour., Oct. 2._"

The _Barbadian_ of November 21, says, "An agricultural report has been
lately made of the windward district of the Island, which is favorable
as to the general working of the negroes." The same paper of November
28, says, "It is satisfactory to learn that _many_ laborers in Tobago
are engaging more readily in agricultural operations."

ST. VINCENT.

"Saint Vincent.--Our intelligence this week, observes the Gazette of
25th August, from the country districts, is considerably more favorable
than for the previous fortnight. In most of the leeward quarter, the
people have, more or less, returned to work, with the exception of very
few estates, which we decline naming, as we trust that on these also
they will resume their labor in a few days. The same may be said
generally of the properties in St. George's parish; and in the more
extensive district of Charlotte, there is every prospect that the same
example will be followed next week particularly in the Caraib country,
where a few laborers on some properties have been at work during the
present week, and the explanation and advice given them by Mr. Special
Justice Ross has been attended with the best effect, and we doubt not
will so continue. In the Biabou quarter the laborers have resumed work
in greater numbers than in other parts of the parish, and the exceptions
in this, as in ether districts, we hope will continue but a short time."

The Barbadian of November 21, speaks of a "megass house" set on fire in
this island which the peasantry refused to extinguish, and adds that but
half work is performed by the laborer in that parish. "Those of the
adjoining parish," its says, "are said to be working satisfactorily." In
a subsequent paper we notice a report from the Chief of Police to the
Lieutenant Governor, which speaks favorably of the general working of
the negroes, as far as he had been able to ascertain by inquiry into a
district comprising one-third of the laborers.

The New York Commercial Advertiser of February 25, has a communication
from Amos Townsend, Esq., Cashier of the New Haven Bank; dated New
Haven, February 21, 1839, from which we make the following extract. He
says he obtained his information from one of the most extensive shipping
houses in that city connected with the West India trade.

    "A Mr. Jackson, a planter from St. Vincents, has been in this city
    within a few day, and says that the emancipation of the slaves on
    that island works extremely well; and that his plantation produces
    more and yields a larger profit than it has ever done before. The
    emancipated slaves now do in eight hours what was before considered
    a two-days' task, and he pays the laborers a dollar a day.

    Mr. Jackson further states that he, and Mr. Nelson, of Trinidad,
    with another gentleman from the same islands, have been to
    Washington, and conferred with Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay, _to
    endeavour to concert some plan to get colored laborers from this
    country to emigrate to these islands, as there is a great want of
    hands._ They offer one dollar a day for able bodied hands. The
    gentlemen at Washington were pleased with the idea of thus disposing
    of the free blacks at the South, and would encourage their efforts
    to induce that class of the colored people to emigrate. Mr. Calhoun
    remarked that it was the most feasible plan of colonizing the free
    blacks that had ever been suggested.

    This is the amount of my information, and comes in so direct a
    channel as leaves no room to doubt its correctness. What our
    southern champions will now say to this direct testimony from their
    brother planters of the West Indies, of the practicability and
    safety of immediate emancipation, remains to be seen. Truly yours."
    AMOS TOWNSEND, JUN.

ST. LUCIA.

Saint Lucia.--The Palladium states that affairs are becoming worse every
day with the planters. Their properties are left without labourers to
work them; their buildings broken into, stores and produce stolen,
ground provisions destroyed, stock robbed, and they themselves insulted
and laughed at.

On Saturday night, the Commissary of Police arrived in town from the
third and fourth districts, with some twenty or thirty prisoners, who
had been convicted before the Chief Justice of having assaulted the
police in the execution of their duty, and sent to gaol.

"It has been deemed necessary to call for military aid with a view of
humbling the high and extravagant ideas entertained by the
ex-apprentices upon the independence of their present condition;
thirty-six men of the first West India regiment, and twelve of the
seventy-fourth have been accordingly despatched; the detachment embarked
yesterday on board Mr. Muter's schooner, the Louisa, to land at
Soufriere, and march into the interior."

In both the above cases where the military was called out, the
provocation was given by the white. And in both cases it was afterwards
granted to be needless. Indeed, in the quelling of one of these
factitious rebellions, the prisoners taken were two white men, and one
of them a manager.

       *       *       *       *       *




THE
CHATTEL PRINCIPLE

THE ABHORRENCE OF
JESUS CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES;
OR
NO REFUGE FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY

IN

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

NEW YORK
PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.
NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.
1839

_Please read and circulate._

The

NEW TESTAMENT AGAINST SLAVERY.

       *       *       *       *       *

"THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST."

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? In 1776 THOMAS JEFFERSON,
supported by a noble band of patriots and surrounded by the American
people, opened his lips in the authoritative declaration: "We hold these
truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, _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._" And from the
inmost heart of the multitudes around, and in a strong and clear voice,
broke forth the unanimous and decisive answer: Amen--such truths we do
indeed hold to be self-evident. And animated and sustained by a
declaration, so inspiring and sublime, they rushed to arms, and as the
result of agonizing efforts and dreadful sufferings, achieved under God
the independence of their country. The great truth, whence they derived
light and strength to assert and defend their rights, they made the
foundation of their republic. And in the midst of _this republic_, must
we prove, that He, who was the Truth, did not contradict "the truths"
which He Himself, as their Creator, had made self-evident to mankind?

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, according to those
laws which make it what it is, is American slavery? In the Statute-Book
of South Carolina thus it is written:[A] "Slaves shall be deemed, sold,
taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be _chattels personal_ in the
hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors,
administrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and purposes
whatever." The very root of American slavery consists in the assumption,
that _law has reduced men to chattels_. But this assumption is, and must
be, a gross falsehood. Men and cattle are separated from each other by
the Creator, immutably, eternally, and by an impassable gulf. To
confound or identify men and cattle must be to _lie_ most wantonly,
impudently, and maliciously. And must we prove, that Jesus Christ is not
in favor of palpable, monstrous falsehood?

[Footnote A: Stroud's Slave Laws, p. 23.]

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? How can a system, built
upon a stout and impudent denial of self-evident truth--a system of
treating men like cattle--operate? Thomas Jefferson shall answer. Hear
him.[B] "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual
exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most unremitting despotism
on the one part, and degrading submission on the other. The parent
storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the
same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives loose to his worst
passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, can
not but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a
prodigy, who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such
circumstances." Such is the practical operation of a system, which puts
men and cattle into the same family and treats them alike. And must we
prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of a school where the worst
vices in their most hateful forms are systematically and efficiently
taught and practiced?

[Footnote B: Notes on Virginia.]

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, in 1818, did the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian church affirm respecting its nature
and operation?[C] "Slavery creates a paradox in the moral system--it
exhibits rational, accountable, and immortal beings, in such
circumstances as scarcely to leave them the power of moral action. It
exhibits them as dependent on the will of others, whether they shall
receive religious instruction; whether they shall know and worship the
true God; whether they shall enjoy the ordinances of the gospel; whether
they shall perform the duties and cherish the endearments of husbands
and wives, parents and children, neighbors and friends; whether they
shall preserve their chastity and purity, or regard the dictates of
justice and humanity. Such are some of the consequences of slavery;
consequences not imaginary, but which connect themselves with its very
existence. The evils to which the slave is _always_ exposed, _often take
place_ in their very worst degree and form; and where all of them do not
take place, still the slave is deprived of his natural rights, degraded
as a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into the hands of
a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships and injuries which
inhumanity and avarice may suggest." Must we prove, that Jesus Christ is
not in favor of such things?

[Footnote C: Minutes of the General Assembly for 1818, p. 29.]

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? It is already widely felt
and openly acknowledged at the South, that they can not support slavery
without sustaining the opposition of universal christendom. And Thomas
Jefferson declared, that "he trembled for his country when he reflected,
that God is just; that his justice can not sleep forever; that
considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the
wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events;
that it may become practicable by supernatural influences! The Almighty
has no attribute which can take sides with us in such a contest."[A] And
must we prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of what universal
christendom is impelled to abhor, denounce, and oppose;--is not in favor
of what every attribute of Almighty God is armed against?

[Footnote A: Notes on Virginia]

"YE HAVE DESPISED THE POOR."

It is no man of straw, with whom in making out such proof we are called
to contend. Would to God we had no other antagonist! Would to God that
our labor of love could be regarded as a work of supererogation! But we
may well be ashamed and grieved; to find it necessary to "stop the
mouths" of grave and learned ecclesiastics, who from the heights of Zion
have undertaken to defend the institution of slavery. We speak not now
of those, who amidst the monuments of oppression are engaged in the
sacred vocation; who as ministers of the Gospel can "prophesy smooth
things" to such as pollute the altar of Jehovah with human sacrifices;
nay, who themselves bind the victim and kindle the sacrifice. That
_they_ should put their Savior to the torture, to wring from his lips
something in favor of slavery, is not to be wondered at. They consent to
the murder of the children; can they respect the rights of the Father?
But what shall we say of theological professors at the North--professors
of sacred literature at our oldest divinity schools--who stand up to
defend, both by argument and authority, southern slavery! And from the
Bible! Who, Balaam-like, try a thousand expedients to force from the
mouth of Jehovah a sentence which they know the heart of Jehovah abhors!
Surely we have here something more mischievous and formidable than a man
of straw. More than two years ago, and just before the meeting of the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, appeared an article in the
Biblical Repertory,[A] understood to be from the pen of the Professor of
Sacred Literature at Princeton, in which an effort is made to show, that
slavery, whatever may be said of _any abuses_ of it, is _not a violation
of the precepts of the Gospel_. This article, we are informed, was
industriously and extensively distributed among the members of the
General Assembly--a body of men, who by a frightful majority seemed
already too much disposed to wink at the horrors of slavery. The effect
of the Princeton Apology on the southern mind, we have high authority
for saying, has been most decisive and injurious. It has contributed
greatly to turn the public eye off from the sin--from the inherent and
necessary _evils of slavery_ to incidental evils, which the _abuse_ of
it might be expected to occasion. And how few can be brought to admit,
that whatever abuses may prevail nobody knows where or how, any such
thing is chargeable upon them! Thus our Princeton prophet has done what
he could to lay the southern conscience asleep upon ingenious
perversions of the sacred volume!

[Footnote A: For April, 1836. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church met in the following May, at Pittsburgh, where, in pamphlet form,
this article was distributed. The following appeared upon the
title page:

           PITTSBURGH:
              1836.
_For gratuitous distribution_.
]

About a year after this, an effort in the same direction was jointly
made by Dr. Fisk and Prof. Stuart. In a letter to a Methodist clergyman,
Mr. Merritt, published in Zion's Herald, Dr. Fisk gives utterance to
such things as the following:--"But that you and the public may see and
_feel_, that you have the ablest and those who are among the honestest
men of this age, arrayed against you, be pleased to notice the following
letter from Prof. Stuart." I wrote to him, knowing as I did his integrity
of purpose, his unflinching regard for truth, as well as his deserved
reputation as a scholar and biblical critic, proposing the following
questions:--

1. Does the New Testament directly or indirectly teach, that slavery
existed in the primitive church?

2. In 1 Tim. vi. 2, And they that have believing masters, &c., what is
the relation expressed or implied between "they" (servants) and
"_believing masters_?" And what are your reasons for the construction of
the passage?

3. What was the character of ancient and eastern slavery?--Especially
what (legal) power did this relation give the master over the slave?

PROFESSOR STUART'S REPLY.

    ANDOVER, 10th April, 1837.

    REV. AND DEAR SIR,--Yours is before me. A sickness of three months'
    standing (typhus fever,) in which I have just escaped death, and
    which still confines me to my house, renders it impossible for me to
    answer your letter at large.

    1. The precepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor of
    slaves and of their masters, beyond all question, recognize the
    existence of slavery. The masters are in part "believing masters,"
    so that a precept to them, how they are to behave as _masters_,
    recognizes that the relation may still exist, _salva fide et salva
    ecclesia_, ("without violating the Christian faith or the church.")
    Otherwise, Paul had nothing to do but to cut the band asunder at
    once. He could not lawfully and properly temporize with a _malum in
    se_, ("that which is in itself sin.")

    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. The relation did exist, may
    exist. The _abuse_ of it is the essential and fundamental wrong. Not
    that the theory of slavery is in itself right. No; "Love thy
    neighbor as thyself," "Do unto others that which ye would that
    others should do unto you," decide against this. But the relation
    once constituted and continued, is not such a _malum in se_ as calls
    for immediate and violent disruption at all hazards. So Paul did
    not counsel.

    2. 1 Tim. vi. 2, expresses the sentiment, that slaves, who are
    Christians and have Christian masters, are not, on that account, and
    because _as Christians they are brethren_, to forego the reverence
    due to them as masters. That is, the relation of master and slave is
    not, as a matter of course, abrogated between all Christians. Nay,
    servants should in such a case, a _fortiori_, do their duty
    cheerfully. This sentiment lies on the very face of the case. What
    the master's duty in such a case may be in respect to _liberation_,
    is another question, and one which the apostle does not here
    treat of.

    3. Every one knows, who is acquainted with Greek or Latin
    antiquities, that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more
    unqualified and at looser ends than among Christian nations. Slaves
    were _property_ in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about
    their _relation_. Their treatment depended, as it does now, on the
    temper of their masters. The power of the master over the slave was,
    for a long time, that of _life and death_. Horrible cruelties at
    length mitigated it. In the apostle's day, it was at least as great
    as among us.

    After all the spouting and vehemence on this subject, which have
    been exhibited, the _good old Book_ remains the same. Paul's conduct
    and advice are still safe guides. Paul knew well that Christianity
    would ultimately destroy slavery, as it certainly will. He knew too,
    that it would destroy monarchy and aristocracy from the earth; for
    it is fundamentally a doctrine of _true liberty and equality_. Yet
    Paul did not expect slavery or anarchy to be ousted in a day; and
    gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor _ad interim_.

    With sincere and paternal regard,

    Your friend and brother,

    M. STUART.

       *       *       *       *       *

    --This, sir, is doctrine that will stand, because it is _Bible
    doctrine_. The abolitionists, then, are on a wrong course. They have
    traveled out of the record; and if they would succeed, they must
    take a different position, and approach the subject in a different
    manner. Respectfully yours,

    W. FISK

"SO THEY WRAP [SNARL] IT UP."

What are we taught here? That in the ecclesiastical organizations which
grew up under the hands of the apostles, slavery was admitted as a
relation, that did not violate the Christian faith; that the relation
may now in like manner exist; that "the abuse of it is the essential and
fundamental wrong;" and, of course, that American Christians may hold
their own brethren in slavery without incurring guilt or inflicting
injury. Thus according to Prof. Stuart, Jesus Christ has not a word to
say against "the peculiar institutions" of the South. If our brethren
there do not "abuse" the privilege of exacting unpaid labor, they may
multiply their slaves to their hearts' content, without exposing
themselves to the frown of the Savior or laying their Christian
character open to the least suspicion. Could any trafficker in human
flesh ask for greater latitude? And to such doctrines, Dr. Fisk eagerly
aid earnestly subscribes. He goes further. He urges it on the attention
of his brethren, as containing important truth, which they ought to
embrace. According to him, it is "_Bible doctrine_," showing, that "the
abolitionists are on a wrong course," and must, "if they would succeed,
take a different position."

We now refer to such distinguished names, to show, that in attempting to
prove that Jeans Christ is not in favor of American slavery, we contend
with something else than a man of straw. The ungrateful task, which a
particular examination of Prof. Stuart's letter lays upon us, we hope
fairly to dispose of in due season.--Enough has now been said, to make
it clear and certain, that American slavery has its apologists and
advocates in the northern pulpit; advocates and apologists, who fall
behind few if any of their brethren in the reputation they have
acquired, the stations they occupy, and the general influence they are
supposed to exert.

Is it so? Did slavery exist in Judea, and among the Jews, in its worst
form, during the Savior's incarnation? If the Jews held slaves, they
must have done so in open and flagrant violation of the letter and the
spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Whoever has any doubts of this may
well resolve his doubts in the light of the Argument entitled "The Bible
against Slavery." If, after a careful and thorough examination of that
article, he can believe that slaveholding prevailed during the ministry
of Jesus Christ among the Jews and in accordance with the authority of
Moses, he would do the reading public an important service to record the
grounds of his belief--especially in a fair and full refutation of that
Argument. Till that is done, we hold ourselves excused from attempting
to prove what we now repeat, that if the Jews during our Savior's
incarnation held slaves, they must have done so in open and flagrant
violation of the letter and the spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Could
Christ and the Apostles every where among their countrymen come in
contact with slaveholding, being as it was a gross violation of that law
which their office and their profession required them to honor and
enforce, without exposing and condemning it.

In its worst forms, we are told, slavery prevailed over the whole world,
not excepting Judea. As, according to such ecclesiastics as Stuart,
Hodge, and Fisk, slavery in itself is not bad at all, the term "_worst_"
could be applied only to "_abuses_" of this innocent relation. Slavery
accordingly existed among the Jews, disfigured and disgraced by the
"worst abuses" to which it is liable. These abuses in the ancient world,
Prof. Stuart describes as "horrible cruelties." And in our own country,
such abuses have grown so rank, as to lead a distinguished
eye-witness--no less a philosopher and statesman than Thomas
Jefferson--to say, that they had armed against us every attribute of the
Almighty. With these things the Savior every where came in contact,
among the people to whose improvement and salvation he devoted his
living powers, and yet not a word, not a syllable, in exposure and
condemnation of such "horrible cruelties," escaped his lips! He
saw--among the "covenant people" of Jehovah he saw, the babe plucked
from the bosom of its mother; the wife torn from the embrace of her
husband; the daughter driven to the market by the scourge of her own
father;--he saw the word of God sealed up from those who, of all men,
were especially entitled to its enlightening, quickening
influence;--nay, he saw men beaten for kneeling before the throne of
heavenly mercy;--such things he saw without a word of admonition or
reproof! No sympathy with them who suffered wrong--no indignation at
them who inflicted wrong, moved his heart!

From the alledged silence of the Savior, when in contact with slavery
among the Jews, our divines infer, that it is quite consistent with
Christianity. And they affirm, that he saw it in its worst forms; that
is, he witnessed what Prof. Stuart ventures to call "horrible
cruelties." But what right have these interpreters of the sacred volume
to regard any form of slavery which the Savior found, as "worst," or
even bad? According to their inference--which they would thrust gag-wise
into the mouths of abolitionists--his silence should seal up their lips.
They ought to hold their tongues. They have no right to call any form of
slavery bad--an abuse; much less, horribly cruel! Their inference is
broad enough to protect the most brutal driver amidst his deadliest
inflictions!

"THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS; I AM NOT
COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFILL."

And did the Head of the new dispensation, then, fall so far behind the
prophets of the old in a hearty and effective regard for suffering
humanity? The forms of oppression which they witnessed, excited their
compassion and aroused their indignation. In terms the most pointed and
powerful, they exposed, denounced, threatened. They could not endure the
creatures, who "used their neighbors' service without wages, and gave
him not for his work;"[A] who imposed "heavy burdens"[B] upon their
fellows, and loaded them with "the bands of wickedness;" who, "hiding
themselves from their own flesh," disowned their own mothers' children.
Professions of piety, joined with the oppression of the poor, they held
up to universal scorn and execration, as the dregs of hypocrisy. They
warned the creature of such professions, that he could escape the wrath
of Jehovah only by heartfelt repentance. And yet, according to the
ecclesiastics with whom we have to do, the Lord of these prophets passed
by in silence just such enormities as he commanded them to expose and
denounce! Every where, he came in contact with slavery in its worst
forms--"horrible cruelties" forced themselves upon his notice; but not a
word of rebuke or warning did he utter. He saw "a boy given for a
harlot, and a girl sold for wine, that they might drink,"[C] without the
slightest feeling of displeasure, or any mark of disapprobation! To such
disgusting and horrible conclusions, do the arguings which, from the
haunts of sacred literature, are inflictcd on our churches, lead us!
According to them, Jesus Christ, instead of shining as the light of the
world, extinguished the torches which his own prophets had kindled, and
plunged mankind into the palpable darkness of a starless midnight! O
Savior, in pity to thy suffering people, let thy temple be no longer
used as a "den of thieves!"

[Footnote A: Jeremiah xxii. 13.]

[Footnote B: Isaiah lviii. 6,7.]

[Footnote C: Joel iii. 3.]

"THOU THOUGHTEST THAT I WAS ALTOGETHER SUCH AN ONE AS THYSELF."

In passing by the worst forms of slavery, with which he every where came
in contact among the Jews, the Savior must have been inconsistent with
himself. He was commissioned to preach glad tidings to the poor; to heal
the broken-hearted; to preach deliverance to the captives; to set at
liberty them that are bruised; to preach the year of Jubilee. In
accordance with this commission, he bound himself, from the earliest
date of his incarnation, to the poor, by the strongest ties; himself
"had not where to lay his head;" he exposed himself to misrepresentation
and abuse for his affectionate intercourse with the outcasts of society;
he stood up as the advocate of the widow, denouncing and dooming the
heartless ecclesiastics, who had made her bereavement a source of gain;
and in describing the scenes of the final judgment, he selected the very
personification of poverty, disease, and oppression, as the test by
which our regard for him should be determined. To the poor and wretched;
to the degraded and despised, his arms were ever open. They had his
tenderest sympathies. They had his warmest love. His heart's blood he
poured out upon the ground for the human family, reduced to the deepest
degradation, and exposed to the heaviest inflictions, as the slaves of
the grand usurper. And yet, according to our ecclesiastics, that class
of sufferers who had been reduced immeasurably below every other shape
and form of degradation and distress; who had been most rudely thrust
out of the family of Adam, and forced to herd with swine; who, without
the slightest offense, had been made the foot-stool of the worst
criminals; whose "tears were their meat night and day," while, under
nameless insults and killing injuries, they were continually crying, O
Lord, O Lord:--this class of sufferers, and this alone, our biblical
expositors, occupying the high places of sacred literature, would make
us believe the compassionate Savior coldly overlooked. Not an emotion of
pity; not a look of sympathy; not a word of consolation, did his
gracious heart prompt him to bestow upon them! He denounces damnation
upon the devourer of the widow's house. But the monster, whose trade it
is to make widows and devour them and their babes, he can calmly endure!
O Savior, when wilt thou stop the mouths of such blasphemers!

IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH.

It seems, that though, according to our Princeton professor, "the
subject" of slavery "is hardly alluded to by Christ in any of his
personal instructions[A]," he had a way of "treating it." What was that?
Why, "he taught the true nature, DIGNITY, EQUALITY, and destiny of men,"
and "inculcated the principles of justice and love."[B] And according to
Professor Stuart, the maxims which our Savior furnished, "decide
against" "the theory of slavery." All, then, that these ecclesiastical
apologists for slavery can make of the Savior's alledged silence is,
that he did not, in his personal instructions, "_apply his own principles
to this particular form of wickedness_." For wicked that must be, which
the maxims of the Savior decide against, and which our Princeton
professor assures us the principles of the gospel, duly acted on, would
speedily extinguish[C]. How remarkable it is, that a teacher should
"hardly allude to a subject in any of his personal instructions," and
yet inculcate principles which have a direct and vital bearing upon
it!--should so conduct, as to justify the inference, that "slaveholding
is not a crime[D]," and at the same time lend his authority for its
"speedy extinction!"

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet, (already alluded to,)p.9.]

[Footnote B: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p.9.]

[Footnote C: The same, p.34.]

[Footnote D: The same, p.13.]

Higher authority than sustains _self-evident truths_ there can not be.
As forms of reason, they are rays from the face of Jehovah. Not only are
their presence and power self-manifested, but they also shed a strong
and clear light around them. In this light, other truths are visible.
Luminaries themselves, it is their office to enlighten. To their
authority, in every department of thought, the sane mind bows promptly,
gratefully, fully. And by their authority, he explains, proves, and
disposes of whatever engages his attention and engrosses his powers as a
reasonable and reasoning creature. For what, when thus employed and when
most successful, is the utmost he can accomplish? Why, to make the
conclusions which he would establish and commend, _clear in the light of
reason_;--in other words, to evince that _they are reasonable_. He
expects, that those with whom he has to do, will acknowledge the
authority of principle--will see whatever is exhibited in the light of
reason. If they require him to go further, and, in order to convince
them, to do something more that show that the doctrines he maintains,
and the methods he proposes, are accordant with reason--are illustrated
and supported by "self-evident truths"--they are plainly "beside
themselves." They have lost the use of reason. They are not to be argued
with. They belong to the mad-house.

"COME NOW, LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD."

Are we to honor the Bible, which Prof. Stuart quaintly calls "the good
old book," by turning away from "self-evident truths" to receive its
instructions? Can these truths be contradicted or denied there? Do we
search for something there to obscure their clearness, or break their
force, or reduce their authority? Do we long to find something there, in
the form of premises or conclusions, of arguing or of inference, in
broad statements or blind hints, creed-wise or fact-wise, which may set
us free from the light and power of first principles? And what if we
were to discover what we were thus in search of?--something directly or
indirectly, expressly or impliedly prejudicial to the principles, which
reason, placing us under the authority of, makes self-evident? In what
estimation, in that case, should we be constrained to hold the Bible?
Could we longer honor it, as the book of God? _The book of God opposed
to the authority of_ REASON! Why, before what tribunal do we dispose of
the claims of the sacred volume to divine authority? The tribunal of
reason. _This every one acknowledges the moment he begins to reason on
the subject_. And what must reason do with a book, which reduced the
authority of its own principles--broke the force of self-evident truths?
Is he not, by way of eminence, the apostle of infidelity, who, as a
minister of the gospel or a professor of sacred literature, exerts
himself, with whatever arts of ingenuity or show of piety, to exalt the
Bible at the expense of reason? Let such arts succeed and such piety
prevail, and Jesus Christ is "crucified afresh and put to an
open shame."

What saith the Princeton professor? Why, in spite of "general
principles," and "clear as we may think the arguments against DESPOTISM,
there have been thousands of ENLIGHTENED _and good men_, who _honestly_
believe it to be of all forms of government the best and most acceptable
to God."[A] Now, these "good men" must have been thus warmly in favor of
despotism, in consequence of, or in opposition to, their being
"enlightened." In other words, the light, which in such abundance they
enjoyed, conducted them to the position in favor of despotism, where the
Princeton professor so heartily shook hands with them, or they must have
forced their way there in despite of its hallowed influence. Either in
accordance with, or in resistance to the light, they became what he
found them--the advocates of despotism. If in resistance to the
light--and he says they were "enlightened men"--what, so far as the
subject with which alone he and we are now concerned, becomes of their
"honesty" and "goodness?" Good and honest resisters of the light, which
was freely poured around them! Of such, what says Professor Stuart's
"good old Book?" Their authority, where "general principles" command the
least respect, must be small indeed. But if in accordance with the
light, they have become the advocates of despotism, then is despotism
"the best form of government and most acceptable to God." It is
sustained by the authority of reason, by the word of Jehovah, by the
will of Heaven! If this be the doctrine which prevails at certain
theological seminaries, it must be easy to account for the spirit which
they breathe, and the general influence which they exert. Why did not
the Princeton professor place this "general principle" as a shield,
heaven-wrought and reason-approved, over that cherished form of
despotism which prevails among the churches of the South, and leave the
"peculiar institutions" he is so forward to defend, under its
protection?

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p.12.]

What is the "general principle" to which, whatever may become of
despotism with its "honest" admirers and "enlightened" supporters, human
governments should be universally and carefully adjusted? Clearly
this--_that as capable of, man is entitled to, self-government_. And
this is a specific form of a still more general principle, which may
well be pronounced self-evident--_that every thing should be treated
according to its nature_. The mind that can doubt of this, must be
incapable of rational conviction. Man, then,--it is the dictate of
reason, it is the voice of Jehovah--must be treated _as a man_. What is
he? What are his distinctive attributes? The Creator impressed his own
image on him. In this were found the grand peculiarities of his
character. Here shone his glory. Here REASON manifests its laws. Here
the WILL puts forth its volitions. Here is the crown of IMMORTALITY. Why
such endowments? Thus furnished--the image of Jehovah--is he not capable
of self-government? And is he not to be so treated? _Within the sphere
where the laws of reason place him_, may he not act according to his
choice--carry out his own volitions?--may he not enjoy life, exult in
freedom and pursue as he will the path of blessedness? If not, why was
he so created and endowed? Why the mysterious, awful attribute of will?
To be a source, profound as the depths of hell, of exquisite misery, of
keen anguish, of insufferable torment! Was man formed "according to the
image of Jehovah," to be crossed, thwarted, counteracted; to be forced
in upon himself; to be the sport of endless contradictions; to be driven
back and forth forever between mutually repellant forces; and all, all
"_at the discretion of another!"_[A] How can men be treated according to
his nature, as endowed with reason or will, if excluded from the powers
and privileges of self government?--if "despotism" be let loose upon
him, to "deprive him of personal liberty, oblige him to serve at the
discretion of another," and with the power of "transferring" such
"authority" over him and such claim upon him, to "another master?" If
"thousands of enlightened and good men" can so easily be found, who are
forward to support "despotism" as "of all governments the best and most
acceptable to God," we need not wonder at the testimony of universal
history, that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain
together until now." Groans and travail-pangs must continue to be the
order of the day throughout "the whole creation," till the rod of
despotism be broken, and man be treated as man--as capable of, and
entitled to, self-government.

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p.12]

But what is the despotism whose horrid features our smooth professor
tries to hide beneath an array of cunningly-selected words and
nicely-adjusted sentences? It is the despotism of American
slavery--which crushes the very life of humanity out of its victims, and
transforms them to cattle! At its touch, they sink from men to things!
"Slaves," with Prof. Stuart, "were _property_ in Greece and Rome. That
decides all questions about their _relation_." Yes, truly. And slaves in
republican America are _property_; and as that easily, clearly, and
definitely settles "all questions about their _relation_," why should
the Princeton professor have put himself to the trouble of weaving a
definition equally ingenious and inadequate--at once subtle and
deceitful? Ah, why? Was he willing thus to conceal the wrongs of his
mother's children even from himself? If among the figments of his brain,
he could fashion slaves, and make them something else than property, he
knew full well that a very different pattern was in use among the
southern patriarchs. Why did he not, in plain words, and sober earnest,
and good faith, describe the thing as it was, instead of employing
honied words and courtly phrases, to set forth with all becoming
vagueness and ambiguity what might possibly be supposed to exist in the
regions of fancy.

"FOR RULERS ARE NOT A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL."

But are we, in maintaining the principle of self-government, to overlook
the unripe, or neglected, or broken powers of any of our fellow-men with
whom we may be connected?--or the strong passions, vicious propensities,
or criminal pursuit of others? Certainly not. But in providing for their
welfare, we are to exert influences and impose restraints suited to
their character. In wielding those prerogatives which the social of our
nature authorizes us to employ for their benefit, we are to regard them
as they are in truth, not things, not cattle, not articles of
merchandize, but men, our fellow-men--reflecting, from however battered
and broken a surface, reflecting with us the image of a common Father.
And the great principle of self-government is to be the basis, to which
the whole structure of discipline under which they may be placed, should
be adapted. From the nursery and village school on to the work-house and
state-prison, this principle is over and in all things to be before the
eyes, present in the thoughts, warm on the heart. Otherwise, God is
insulted, while his image is despised and abused. Yes, indeed, we
remember that in carrying out the principle of self-government,
multiplied embarrassments and obstructions grow out of wickedness on the
one hand and passion on the other. Such difficulties and obstacles we
are far enough from overlooking. But where are they to be found? Are
imbecility and wickedness, bad hearts and bad heads, confined to the
bottom of society? Alas, the weakest of the weak, and the desperately
wicked, often occupy the high places of the earth, reducing every thing
within their reach to subserviency to the foulest purposes. Nay, the
very power they have usurped, has often been the chief instrument of
turning their heads, inflaming their passions, corrupting their hearts.
All the world knows, that the possession of arbitrary power has a strong
tendency to make men shamelessly wicked and insufferably mischievous.
And this, whether the vassals over whom they domineer, be few or many.
If you can not trust man with himself, will you put his fellows under
his control?--and flee from the inconveniences incident to
self-government, to the horrors of despotism?

"THOU THAT PREACHEST A MAN SHOULD NOT STEAL, DOST THOU STEAL."

Is the slaveholder, the most absolute and shameless of all despots, to
be intrusted with the discipline of the injured men whom he himself has
reduced to cattle?--with the discipline by which they are to be prepared
to wield the powers and enjoy the privileges of freemen? Alas, of such
discipline as he can furnish, in the relation of owner to property, they
have had enough. From this sprang the vary ignorance and vice, which in
the view of many lie in the way of their immediate enfranchisement. He
it is, who has darkened their eyes and crippled their powers. And are
they to look to him for illumination and renewed vigor!--and expect
"grapes from thorns and figs from thistles!" Heaven forbid! When,
according to arrangements which had usurped the sacred name of law, he
consented to receive and use them as property, he forfeited all claims
to the esteem and confidence, not only of the helpless sufferers
themselves, but also of every philanthropist. In becoming a slaveholder,
he became the enemy of mankind. The very act was a declaration of war
upon human man nature. What less can be made of the process of turning
men to cattle? It is rank absurdity--it is the height of madness, to
propose to employ _him_ to train, for the places of freemen, those whom
he has wantonly robbed of every right--whom he has stolen from
themselves. Sooner place Burke, who used to murder for the sake of
selling bodies to the dissector, at the head of a hospital. Why, what
have our slaveholders been about these two hundred years? Have they not
been constantly and earnestly engaged in the work of education?
--training up their human cattle? And how? Thomas Jefferson shall
answer. "The whole commerce between master and slave, is a perpetual
exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most unremitting despotism
on the one part, and degrading submission on the other." Is this the way
to fit the unprepared for the duties and privileges of American
citizens? Will the evils of the dreadful process be diminished by adding
to it length? What, in 1818, was the unanimous testimony of the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian church? Why, after describing a variety of
influences growing out of slavery, most fatal to mental and moral
improvement, the General Assembly assure us, that such "consequences are
not imaginary, but connect themselves WITH THE VERY EXISTENCE of
slavery. The evils to which the slave is _always_ exposed, often take
place in fact, and IN THEIR VERY WORST DEGREE AND FORM[A]; and where all
of them do not take place," "still the slave is deprived of his natural
right, degraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing
into the hands of a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships
and injuries, which inhumanity and avarice may suggest." Is this the
condition in which our ecclesiastics would keep the slave, at least a
little longer, to fit him to be restored to himself?

[Footnote A: The words here marked as emphasis were so distinguished by
ourselves.]

"AND THEY STOPPED THEIR EARS."

The methods of discipline under which, as slaveholders, the Southrons
now place their human cattle, they with one consent and in great wrath,
forbid us to examine. The statesman and the priest unite in the
assurance, that these methods are none of our business. Nay, they give
us distinctly to understand, that if we come among them to take
observations, and make inquiries, and discuss questions, they will
dispose of us as outlaws. Nothing will avail to protect us from speedy
and deadly violence! What inference does all this warrant? Surely, not
that the methods which they employ are happy and worthy of universal
application. If so, why do they not take the praise, and give us the
benefit, of their wisdom, enterprise, and success? Who, that has nothing
to hide, practices concealment?--"He that doeth truth cometh to the
light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they are wrought in God." Is
this the way of slaveholders? Darkness they court--they will have
darkness. Doubtless "because their deeds are evil." Can we confide in
methods for the benefit of our enslaved brethren, which it is death for
us to examine? Whet good ever came, what good can we expect, from deeds
of darkness?

Did the influence of the masters contribute any thing in the West
Indies; to prepare the apprentices for enfranchisement? Nay, verily. All
the world knows better. They did what in them lay, to turn back the tide
of blessings, which through emancipation was pouring in upon the
famishing around them. Are not the best minds and hearts in England now
thoroughly convinced, that slavery, under no modification, can be a
school for freedom?

We say such things to the many who alledge, that slaves can not at once
be entrusted with the powers and privileges of self-government. However
this may be, they can not be better qualified under _the influence of
slavery_. _That must be broken up_ from which their ignorance, and
viciousness, and wretchedness proceeded. That which can only do what it
has always done, pollute and degrade, must not be employed to purify and
elevate. _The lower their character and condition, the louder, clearer,
sterner, the just demand for immediate emancipation_. The plague-smitten
sufferer can derive no benefit from breathing a little longer an
infected atmosphere.

In thus referring to elemental principles--in thus availing ourselves of
the light of self-evident truths--we bow to the authority and tread in
the foot-prints of the great Teacher. He chid those around him for
refusing to make the same use of their reason in promoting their
spiritual, as they made in promoting their temporal welfare. He gives
them distinctly to understand, that they need not go out of themselves
to form a just estimation of their position, duties, and prospects, as
standing in the presence of the Messiah. "Why, EVEN OF YOURSELVES," he
demands of them, "judge ye not what is _right_?"[A] How could they,
unless they had a clear light, and an infallible standard _within them_,
whereby, amidst the relations they sustained and the interests they had
to provide for, they might discriminate between truth and falsehood,
right and wrong, what they ought to attempt and what they ought to
eschew? From this pointed, significant appeal of the Savior, it is clear
and certain, that in human consciousness may be found self-evident
truths, self-manifested principles; that every man, studying his own
consciousness, is bound to recognize their presence and authority, and
in sober earnest and good faith to apply them to the highest practical
concerns of "life and godliness." It is in obedience to the Bible, that
we apply self-evident truths, and walk in the light of general
principles. When our fathers proclaimed these truths, and at the hazard
of their property, reputation, and life, stood up in their defense, they
did homage to the sacred Scriptures--they honored the Bible. In that
volume, not a syllable can be found to justify that form of infidelity,
which in the abused name of piety, reproaches us for practicing the
lessons which "nature teacheth."[B] These lessons, the Bible requires us
reverently to listen to, earnestly to appropriate, and most diligently
and faithfully to act upon in every direction and on all occasions.

[Footnote A: Luke xii. 67.]

[Footnote B: 1 Cor. xi. 14.]

Why, our Savior goes so far in doing honor to reason, as to encourage
men universally to dispose of the characteristic peculiarities and
distinctive features of the Gospel in the light of its principles. "If
any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be
of God, or whether I speak of myself."[C] Natural religion--the
principles which nature reveals, and the lessons which nature
teaches--he thus makes a test of the truth and authority of revealed
religion. So far was he, as a teacher, from shrinking from the clearest
and most piercing rays of reason--from calling off the attention of
those around him from the import, bearings, and practical application of
general principle. And those who would have us escape from the pressure
of self-evident truths, by betaking ourselves to the doctrines and
precepts of Christianity, whatever airs of piety they may put on, do
foul dishonor to the Savior of mankind.

[Footnote C: John vii. 17.]

And what shall we say of the Golden Rule, which, according to the
Savior, comprehends all the precepts of the Bible? "Whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law
and the prophets."

According to this maxim, in human consciousness, universally, may be
found, 1. The standard whereby, in all the relations and circumstances
of life, we may determine what Heaven demands and expects of us. 2. The
just application of this standard, is practicable for, and obligatory
upon, every child of Adam. 3. The qualification requisite to a just
application of this rule to all the cases in which we can be concerned,
is simply this--_to regard all the members of the human family as our
brethren, our equals_.

In other words, the Savior here teaches us, that in the principles and
laws of reason, we have an infallible guide in all the relations and
circumstances of life; that nothing can hinder our following this guide,
but the bias of _selfishness_; and that the moment, in deciding any
moral question, we place _ourselves in the room of our brother_, before
the bar of reason, we shall see what decision ought to be pronounced.
Does this, in the Savior, look like fleeing self-evident truths!--like
decrying the authority of general principles!--like exalting himself at
the expense of reason!--like opening a refuge in the Gospel for those
whose practice is at variance with the dictates of humanity!

What then is the just application of the Golden Rule--that fundamental
maxim of the Gospel, giving character to, and shedding light upon, all
its precepts and arrangements--to the subject of slavery?--_that we must
"do to" slaves as we would be done by_, AS SLAVES, _the_ RELATION
_itself being justified and continued_? Surely not. A little reflection
will enable us to see, that the Golden Rule reaches farther in its
demands, and strikes deeper in its influences and operations. The
_natural equality_ of mankind lies at the very basis of this great
precept. It obviously requires _every man to acknowledge another self in
every other man_. With my powers and resources, and in my appropriate
circumstances, I am to recognize in any child of Adam who may address
me, another self in his appropriate circumstances and with his powers
and resources. This is the natural equality of mankind; and this the
Golden Rule requires us to admit, defend, and maintain.

"WHY DO YE NOT UNDERSTAND MY SPEECH; EVEN BECAUSE YE CAN NOT HEAR MY
WORD."

They strangely misunderstand and grossly misrepresent this doctrine, who
charge upon it the absurdities and mischiefs which _any "levelling
system"_ can not but produce. In all its bearings, tendencies, and
effects, it is directly contrary and powerfully hostile to any such
system. EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, the doctrine asserts; and this necessarily
opens the way for _variety of condition_. In other words, every child of
Adam has, from the Creator, the inalienable right of wielding, within
reasonable limits, his own powers, and employing his own resources,
according to his own choice; while he respects his social relations, to
promote as he will his own welfare. But mark--HIS OWN powers and
resources, and NOT ANOTHER'S, are thus inalienably put under his
control. The Creator makes every man free, in whatever he may do, to
exert HIMSELF, and not _another_. Here no man may lawfully cripple or
embarrass another. The feeble may not hinder the strong, nor may the
strong crush the feeble. Every man may make the most of himself; in his
own proper sphere. Now, as in the constitutional endowments, and natural
opportunities, and lawful acquisitions of mankind, infinite variety
prevails, so in exerting each HIMSELF, in his own sphere, according to
his own choice, the variety of human condition can be little less than
infinite. Thus equality of rights opens the way for variety of
condition.

But with all this variety of make, means, and condition, considered
individually, the children of Adam are bound together by strong ties
which can never be dissolved. They are mutually united by the social of
their nature. Hence mutual dependence and mutual claims. While each is
inalienably entitled to assert and enjoy his own personality as a man,
each sustains to all and all to each, various relations. While each owns
and honors the individual, all are to own and honor the social of their
nature. Now, the Golden Rule distinctly recognizes, lays its
requisitions upon, and extends its obligations to, the whole nature of
man, in his individual capacities and social relations. What higher
honor could it do to man, as _an individual_, than to constitute him the
judge, by whose decision, when fairly rendered, all the claims of his
fellows should be authoritatively and definitely disposed of?
"Whatsoever YE WOULD" have done to you, so do ye to others. Every member
of the family of Adam, placing himself in the position here pointed out,
is competent and authorized to pass judgment on all the cases in social
life in which he may be concerned. Could higher responsibilities or
greater confidence be reposed in men individually? And then, how are
their _claims upon each other_ herein magnified! What inherent worth and
solid dignity are ascribed to the social of their nature! In every man
with whom I may have to do, I am to recognize the presence of _another
self_, whose case I am to make _my own_. And thus I am to dispose of
whatever claims he may urge upon me.

Thus, in accordance with the Golden Rule, mankind are naturally brought,
in the voluntary use of their powers and resources, to promote each
other's welfare. As his contribution to this great object, it is the
inalienable birth-right of every child of Adam, to consecrate whatever
he may possess. With exalted powers and large resources, he has a
natural claim to a correspondent field of effort. If his "abilities" are
small, his task must be easy and his burden light. Thus the Golden Rule
requires mankind mutually to serve each other. In this service, each is
to exert _himself_--employ _his own_ powers, lay out his own resources,
improve his own opportunities. A division of labor is the natural
result. One is remarkable for his intellectual endowments and
acquisitions; another, for his wealth; and a third, for power and skill
in using his muscles. Such attributes, endlessly varied and diversified,
proceed from the basis of a _common character_, by virtue of which all
men and each--one as truly as another--are entitled, as a birth-right,
to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Each and all, one as
well as another, may choose his own modes of contributing his share to
the general welfare, in which his own is involved and identified. Under
one great law of mutual dependence and mutual responsibility, all are
placed--the strong as well as the weak, the rich as much as the poor,
the learned no less than the unlearned. All bring their wares, the
products of their enterprise, skill and industry, to the same market,
where mutual exchanges are freely effected. The fruits of muscular
exertion procure the fruits of mental effort. John serves Thomas with
his hands, and Thomas serves John with his money. Peter wields the axe
for James, and James wields the pen for Peter. Moses, Joshua, and Caleb,
employ their wisdom, courage, and experience, in the service of the
community, and the community serve Moses, Joshua, and Caleb, in
furnishing them with food and raiment, and making them partakers of the
general prosperity. And all this by mutual understanding and voluntary
arrangement. And all this according to the Golden Rule.

What then becomes of _slavery_--a system of arrangements, in which one
man treats his fellow, not as another self, but as a thing--a
chattel--an article of merchandize, which is not to be consulted in any
disposition which may be made of it;--a system which is built on the
annihilation of the attributes of our common nature--in which man doth
to others, what he would sooner die than have done to himself? The
Golden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other. If one
stands, the other must fall. The one strikes at the very root of the
other. The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of THE RELATION ITSELF, in
which slavery consists. It lays its demands upon every thing within the
scope of _human action_. To "whatever MEN DO," it extends its authority.
And the relation itself, in which slavery consists, is the work of human
hands. It is what men have done to each other--contrary to nature and
most injurious to the general welfare. THIS RELATION, therefore, the
Golden Rule condemns. Wherever its authority prevails, this relation
must be annihilated. Mutual service and slavery--like light and
darkness, life and death--are directly opposed to, and subversive of,
each other. The one the Golden Rule can not endure; the other it
requires, honors, and blesses.

"LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR."

Like unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment--"_Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself_." "A certain lawyer," who seems to have
been fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of human obligations,
once demanded of the Savior, within what limits the meshing of the word
"neighbor" ought to be confined. "And who is my neighbor?" The parable
of the good Samaritan set that matter in the clearest light, and made it
manifest and certain, that _every man_ whom we could reach with our
sympathy and assistance, was our neighbor, entitled to the same regard
which we cherished for ourselves. Consistently with such obligations,
can _slavery_, as a RELATION, be maintained? Is it then a _labor of
love_--such love as we cherish for ourselves--to strip a child of Adam
of all the prerogatives and privileges which are his inalienable
birth-right?--To obscure his reason, crush his will, and trample on his
immortality?--To strike home to the inmost of his being, and break the
heart of his heart?--To thrust him out of the human family, and dispose
of him as a chattel--as a thing in the hands of an owner, a beast under
the lash of a driver? All this, apart from every thing incidental and
extraordinary, belongs to the RELATION, in which slavery, as such,
consists. All this--well fed or ill fed, underwrought or overwrought,
clothed or naked, caressed or kicked, whether idle songs break from his
thoughtless tongue or "tears be his meat night and day," fondly
cherished or cruelly murdered;--_all this_ ENTERS VITALLY INTO THE
RELATION ITSELF, _by which every slave_, AS A SLAVE, _is set apart from
the rest of the human family_. Is it an exercise of love, to place our
"neighbor" under the crushing weight, the killing power, of such a
relation?--to apply the murderous steel to the very vitals of
his humanity?

"YE THEREFORE APPLAUD AND DELIGHT IN THE DEEDS OF YOUR FATHERS; FOR THEY
KILLED THEM, AND YE BUILD THEIR SEPULCHRES."[A]

The slaveholder may eagerly and loudly deny, that any such thing is
chargeable upon him. He may confidently and earnestly alledge, that he
is not responsible for the state of society in which he is placed.
Slavery was established before he began to breathe. It was his
inheritance. His slaves are his property by birth or testament. But why
will he thus deceive himself? Why will he permit the cunning and
rapacious spiders, which in the very sanctuary of ethics and religion
are laboriously weaving webs from their own bowels, to catch him with
their wretched sophistries?--and devour him, body, soul, and substance?
Let him know, as he must one day with shame and terror own, that whoever
holds slaves is himself responsible for _the relation_, into which,
whether reluctantly or willingly, he thus enters. _The relation can not
be forced upon him_. What though Elizabeth countenanced John Hawkins in
stealing the natives of Africa?--what though James, and Charles, and
George, opened a market for them in the English colonies?--what though
modern Dracos have "framed mischief by law," in legalizing man-stealing
and slaveholding?--what though your ancestors, in preparing to go "to
their own place," constituted you the owner of the "neighbors" whom they
had used as cattle?--what of all this, and as much more like this, as
can be drawn from the history of that dreadful process by which men "are
deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be _chattels
personal_?" Can all this force you to put the cap upon the climax--to
clinch the nail by doing that, without which nothing in the work of
slave-making would be attempted? _The slaveholder is the soul of the
whole system_. Without him, the chattel principle is a lifeless
abstraction. Without him, charters, and markets, and laws, and
testaments, are empty names. And does _he_ think to escape
responsibility? Why, kidnappers, and soul-drivers, and law-makers, are
nothing but his _agents_. He is the guilty _principal_. Let him look
to it.

[Footnote A: You join with them in their bloody work. They murder, and
you bury the victims.]

But what can he do? Do? Keep his hands off his "neighbor's" throat. Let
him refuse to finish and ratify the process by which the chattel
principle is carried into effect. Let him refuse, in the face of
derision, and reproach, and opposition. Though poverty should fasten its
bony hand upon him, and persecution shoot forth its forked tongue;
whatever may betide him--scorn, flight, flames--let him promptly and
steadfastly refuse. Better the spite and hate of men than the wrath of
Heaven! "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from
thee; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members should
perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

Prof. Stuart admits, that the Golden Rule and the second great
commandment "decide against the theory of slavery as being in itself
right." What, then, is their relation to the particular precepts,
institutions, and usages, which are authorized and enjoined in the New
Testament? Of all these, they are the summary expression--the
comprehensive description. No precept in the Bible enforcing our mutual
obligations, can be more or less than _the application of these
injunctions to specific relations or particular occasions and
conditions_. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New, do prophets teach
or laws enjoin, any thing which the Golden Rule and the second great
command do not contain. Whatever they forbid, no other precept can
require; and whatever they require, no other precept can forbid. What,
then, does he attempt, who turns over the sacred pages to find something
in the way of permission or command, which may set him free from the
obligations of the Golden Rule? What must his objects, methods, spirit
be, to force him to enter upon such inquiries?--to compel him to search
the Bible for such a purpose? Can he have good intentions, or be well
employed? Is his frame of mind adapted to the study of the Bible?--to
make its meaning plain and welcome? What must he think of God, to search
his word in quest of gross inconsistencies and grave contradictions!
Inconsistent legislation in Jehovah! Contradictory commands! Permissions
at war with prohibitions! General requirements at variance with
particular arrangements!

What must be the moral character of any institution which the Golden
Rule decides against?--which the second great command condemns? _It can
not but be wicked_, whether newly established or long maintained.
However it may be shaped, turned, colored--under every modification and
at all times--_wickedness must be its proper character_. _It must be_,
IN ITSELF, _apart from its circumstances_, IN ITS ESSENCE, _apart from
its incidents_, SINFUL.

"THINK NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES, WE HAVE ABRAHAM FOR OUR FATHER."

In disposing of those precepts and exhortations which have a specific
bearing upon the subject of slavery, it is greatly important, nay,
absolutely essential, that we look forth upon the objects around us,
from the right post of observation. Our stand we must take at some
central point, amidst the general maxims and fundamental precepts, the
known circumstances and characteristic arrangements, of primitive
Christianity. Otherwise, wrong views and false conclusions will be the
result of our studies. We can not, therefore, be too earnest in trying
to catch the general features and prevalent spirit of the New Testament
institutions and arrangements. For to what conclusions must we come, if
we unwittingly pursue our inquires under the bias of the prejudice, that
the general maxims of social life which now prevail in this country,
were current, on the authority of the Savior, among the primitive
Christians! That, for instance, wealth, station, talents, are the
standard by which our claims upon, and our regard for, others, should be
modified?--That those who are pinched by poverty, worn by disease,
tasked in menial labors, or marked by features offensive to the taste of
the artificial and capricious, are to be excluded from those refreshing
and elevating influences which intelligence and refinement may be
expected to exert; that thus they are to constitute a class by
themselves, and to be made to know and keep their place at the very
bottom of society? Or, what if we should think and speak of the
primitive Christians, as if they had the same pecuniary resources as
Heaven has lavished upon the American churches?--as if they were as
remarkable for affluence, elegance, and splendor? Or, as if they had as
high a position and as extensive an influence in politics and
literature?--having directly or indirectly, the control over the high
places of learning and of power?

If we should pursue our studies and arrange our arguments--if we should
explain words and interpret language--under such a bias, what must
inevitably be the results? What would be the worth of our conclusions?
What confidence could be reposed in any instruction we might undertake
to furnish? And is not this the way in which the advocates and
apologists of slavery dispose of the bearing which primitive
Christianity has upon it? They first ascribe, unwittingly perhaps, to
the primitive churches, the character, relations, and condition, of
American Christianity, and amidst the deep darkness and strange
confusion thus produced, set about interpreting the language and
explaining the usages of the New Testament!

"SO THAT YE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE."

Among the lessons of instruction which our Savior imparted, having a
general bearing on the subject of slavery, that in which he sets up the
_true standard of greatness_, deserves particular attention. In
repressing the ambition of his disciples, he held up before them the
methods by which alone healthful aspirations for eminence could be
gratified, and thus set the elements of true greatness in the clearest
light. "Ye know, that they which are accounted to rule over the
Gentiles, exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise
authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever
will be great among you, shall be your minister; _and whosoever of you
will be chiefest, shall be servant of all_." In other words, through the
selfishness and pride of mankind, the maxim widely prevails in the
world, that it is the privilege, prerogative, and mark of greatness, TO
EXACT SERVICE; that our superiority to others, while it authorizes us to
relax the exertion of our own powers, gives us a fair title to the use
of theirs; that "might," while it exempts us from serving, "gives the
right" to be served. The instructions of the Savior open the way to
greatness for us in the opposite direction. Superiority to others, in
whatever it may consist, gives us a claim to a wider field of exertion,
and demands of us a larger amount of service. We can be great only as we
_are useful_. And "might gives right" to bless our fellow men, by
improving every opportunity and employing every faculty, affectionately,
earnestly, and unweariedly, in their service. Thus the greater the man,
the more active, faithful, and useful the servant.

The Savior has himself taught us how this doctrine must be applied. He
bids us improve every opportunity and employ every power, even, through
the most menial services, in blessing the human family. And to make this
lesson shine upon our understandings and move our hearts, he embodied it
in a most instructive and attractive example. On a memorable occasion,
and just before his crucifixion, he discharged for his disciples the
most menial of all offices--taking, _in washing their feet_, the place
of the lowest servant. He took great pains to make them understand, that
only by imitating this example could they honor their relations to him
as their Master; that thus only would they find themselves blessed. By
what possibility could slavery exist under the influence of such a
lesson, set home by such an example? _Was it while washing the
disciples' feet, that our Savior authorized one man to make a chattel
of another_?

To refuse to provide for ourselves by useful labor, the apostle Paul
teaches us to regard as a grave offence. After reminding the
Thessalonian Christians, that in addition to all his official exertions
he had with his own muscles earned his own bread, he calls their
attention to an arrangement which was supported by apostolical
authority, "that if any would not work, neither should he eat." In the
most earnest and solemn manner, and as a minister of the Lord Jesus
Christ, he commanded and exhorted those who neglected useful labor,
"_with quietness to work and eat their own bread_." What must be the
bearing of all this upon slavery? Could slavery be maintained where
every man eat the bread which himself had earned?--where idleness was
esteemed so great a crime, as to be reckoned worthy of starvation as a
punishment? How could unrequited labor be exacted, or used, or needed?
Must not every one in such a community contribute his share to the
general welfare?--and mutual service and mutual support be the
natural result?

The same apostle, in writing to another church, describes the true
source whence the means of liberality ought to be derived. "Let him that
stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands
the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth."
Let this lesson, as from the lips of Jehovah, be proclaimed throughout
the length and breadth of South Carolina. Let it be universally welcomed
and reduced to practice. Let thieves give up what they had stolen to the
lawful proprietors, cease stealing, and begin at once to "labor, working
with their hands," for necessary and charitable purposes. Could slavery,
in such a case, continue to exist? Surely not! Instead of exacting
unpaid services from others, every man would be busy, exerting himself
not only to provide for his own wants, but also to accumulate funds,
"that he might have to give to" the needy. Slavery must disappear, root
and branch, at once and forever.

In describing the source whence his ministers should expect their
support, the Savior furnished a general principle, which has an obvious
and powerful bearing on the subject of slavery. He would have them
remember, while exerting themselves for the benefit of their fellow men,
that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." He has thus united wages with
work. Whoever renders the one is entitled to the other. And this
manifestly according to a mutual understanding and a voluntary
arrangement. For the doctrine that I may force you to work for me for
whatever consideration I may please to fix upon, fairly opens the way
for the doctrine, that you, in turn, may force me to render you whatever
wages you may choose to exact for any services you may see fit to
render. Thus slavery, even as involuntary servitude, is cut up by the
root. Even the Princeton professor seems to regard it as a violation of
the principle which unites work with wages.

The apostle James applies this principle to the claims of manual
laborers--of those who hold the plough and thrust in the sickle. He
calls the rich lordlings who exacted sweat and withheld wages, to
"weeping and howling," assuring them that the complaints of the injured
laborer had entered into the ear of the Lord of Hosts, and that, as a
result of their oppression, their riches were corrupted, and their
garments moth-eaten; their gold and silver were cankered; that the rest
of them should be a witness against them, and should eat their flesh as
it were fire; that, in one word, they had heaped treasure together for
the last days, when "miseries were coming upon them," the prospect of
which might well drench them in tears and fill them with terror. If
these admonition and warnings were heeded there, would not "the South"
break forth into "weeping and wailing, and gnashing of teeth?" What else
are its rich men about, but withholding by a system of fraud, his wages
from the laborer, who is wearing himself out under the impulse of fear,
in cultivating their fields and producing their luxuries? Encouragement
and support do they derive from James, in maintaining the "peculiar
institution" whence they derived their wealth, which they call
patriarchal, and boast of as the "corner-stone" of the republic?

In the New Testament, we have, moreover, the general injunction, "_Honor
all men_." Under this broad precept, every form of humanity may justly
claim protection and respect. The invasion of any human right must do
dishonor to humanity, and be a transgression of this command. How then,
in the light of such obligations, must slavery be regarded? Are those
men honored, who are rudely excluded from a place in the human family,
and shut up to the deep degradation and nameless horrors of chattelship?
_Can they be held as slaves, and at the same time be honored as men_?

How far, in obeying this command, we are to go, we may infer from the
admonitions and instructions which James applies to the arrangements and
usages of religious assemblies. Into these he can not allow "respect of
persons" to enter. "My brethren," he exclaims, "have not the faith of
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For
if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly
apparel; and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have
respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, sit thou
here in a good place; and say to the poor, stand thou there, or sit here
under my footstool; are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are
become judges of evil thoughts? _If ye have respect to persons, ye
commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors_." On this
general principle, then, religious assemblies ought to be
regulated--that every man is to be estimated, not according to his
_circumstances_--not according to any thing incidental to his
_condition_; but according to his _moral worth_--according to the
essential features and vital elements of his _character_. Gold rings and
gay clothing, as they qualify no man for, can entitle no man to, a "good
place" in the church. Nor can the "vile raiment of the poor man," fairly
exclude him from any sphere, however exalted, which his heart and head
may fit him to fill. To deny this, in theory or practice, is to degrade
a man below a thing; for what are gold rings, or gay clothing, or vile
raiment, but things, "which perish with the using?" And this must be "to
commit sin, and be convinced of the law as transgressors."

In slavery, we have "respect of persons," strongly marked, and reduced
to system. Here men are despised not merely for "the vile raiment,"
which may cover their scarred bodies. This is bad enough. But the
deepest contempt for humanity here grows out of birth or complexion.
Vile raiment may be, often is, the result of indolence, or improvidence,
or extravagance. It may be, often is, an index of character. But how can
I be responsible for the incidents of my birth?--how for my complexion?
To despise or honor me for these, is to be guilty of "respect of
persons" in its grossest form, and with its worst effects. It is to
reward or punish me for what I had nothing to do with; for which,
therefore, I can not, without the greatest injustice, be held
responsible. It is to poison the very fountains of justice, by
confounding all moral distinctions. It is with a worse temper, and in
the way of inflicting infinitely greater injuries, to copy the kingly
folly of Xerxes, in chaining and scourging the Hellespont. What, then,
so far as the authority of the New Testament is concerned, becomes of
slavery, which can not be maintained under any form nor for a single
moment, without "respect of persons" the most aggravated and
unendurable? And what would become of that most pitiful, silly, and
wicked arrangement in so many of our churches, in which worshipers of a
dark complexion are to be shut up to the negro pew?[A]

[Footnote A: In Carlyle's Review of the Memoirs of Mirabeau, we have the
following anecdote, illustrative of the character of a "grandmother" of
the Count. "Fancy the dame Mirabeau sailing stately towards the church
font; another dame striking in to take precedence of her; the dame
Mirabeau despatching this latter with a box on the ear, and these words,
'_Here, as in the army_, THE BAGGAGE _goes last_!'" Let those who
justify the negro-pew-arrangement, throw a stone at this proud woman--if
they dare.]

Nor are we permitted to confine this principle to _religious_
assemblies. It is to pervade social life every where. Even where plenty,
intelligence, and refinement, diffuse their brightest rays, the poor are
to be welcomed with especial favor. "Then said he to him that bade him,
when thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy
brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors, lest they also
bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. But when thou makest a
feast, call the poor and the maimed, the lame and the blind, and thou
shalt be blessed; for they can not recompense thee, but thou shalt be
recompensed at the resurrection of the just."

In the high places of social life then--in the parlor, the drawing-room,
the saloon--special reference should be had, in every arrangement, to
the comfort and improvement of those who are least able to provide for
the cheapest rites of hospitality. For these, ample accommodations must
be made, whatever may become of our kinsmen and rich neighbors. And for
this good reason, that while such occasions signify little to the
latter, to the former they are pregnant with good--raising their
drooping spirits, cheering their desponding hearts, inspiring them with
life, and hope, and joy. The rich and the poor thus meeting joyfully
together, can not but mutually contribute to each other's benefit; the
rich will be led to moderation, sobriety, and circumspection, and the
poor to industry, providence, and contentment. The recompense must be
rich and sure.

A most beautiful and instructive commentary on the text in which these
things are taught, the Savior furnished in his own conduct. He freely
mingled with those who were reduced to the very bottom of society. At
the tables of the outcasts of society, he did not hesitate to be a
cheerful guest, surrounded by publicans and sinners. And when flouted
and reproached by smooth and lofty ecclesiastics, as an ultraist and
leveler, he explained and justified himself by observing, that he had
only done what his office demanded. It was his to seek the lost, to heal
the sick, to pity the wretched;--in a word, to bestow just such benefits
as the various necessities of mankind made appropriate and welcome. In
his great heart, there was room enough for those who had been excluded
from the sympathy of little souls. In its spirit and design, the gospel
overlooked none--least of all, the outcasts of a selfish world.

Can slavery, however modified, be consistent with such a gospel?--a
gospel which requires us, even amidst the highest forms of social life,
to exert ourselves to raise the depressed by giving our warmest
sympathies to those who have the smallest share in the favor of
the world?

Those who are in "bonds" are set before us as deserving an especial
remembrance. Their claims upon us are described as a modification of the
Golden Rule--as one of the many forms to which its obligations are
reducible. To them we are to extend the same affectionate regard as we
would covet for ourselves, if the chains upon their limbs were fastened
upon ours. To the benefits of this precept, the enslaved have a natural
claim of the greatest strength. The wrongs they suffer, spring from a
persecution which can hardly be surpassed in malignancy. Their birth and
complexion are the occasion of the insults and injuries which they can
neither endure nor escape. It is for the _work of God_, and not them own
deserts, that they are loaded with chains. _This is persecution._

Can I regard the slave as another self--can I put myself in his
place--and be indifferent to his wrongs? Especially, can I, thus
affected, take sides with the oppressor? Could I, in such a state of
mind as the gospel requires me to cherish, reduce him to slavery or keep
him in bonds? Is not the precept under hand naturally subversive of
every system and every form of slavery?

The _general descriptions_ of the church which are found here and there
in the New Testament, are highly instructive in their bearing on the
subject of slavery. In one connection, the following words meet the eye:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."[A] Here
we have--1. A clear and strong description of the doctrine of _human
equality_. "Ye are all ONE;"--so much alike, so truly placed on common
ground, all wielding each his own powers with such freedom, _that one is
the same as another_.

[Footnote A: Gal. iii. 23.]

2. This doctrine, self-evident in the light of reason, is affirmed on
divine authority. "IN CHRIST JESUS, _ye are all one_." The natural
equality of the human family is a part of the gospel. For--

3. All the human family are included in this description. Whether men or
women, whether bond or free, whether Jews or Gentiles, all are alike
entitled to the benefit of this doctrine. Wherever Christianity
prevails, the _artificial_ distinctions which grow out of birth,
condition, sex, are done away. _Natural_ distinctions are not destroyed.
_They_ are recognized, hallowed, confirmed. The gospel does not abolish
the sexes, forbid a division of labor, or extinguish patriotism. It
takes woman from beneath the feet, and places her by the side of man;
delivers the manual laborer from "the yoke," and gives him wages for his
work; and brings the Jew and Gentile to embrace each other with
fraternal love and confidence. Thus it raises all to a common level,
gives to each the free use of his own powers and resources, binds all
together in one dear and loving brotherhood. Such, according to the
description of the apostle, was the influence, and such the effect of
primitive Christianity. "Behold the picture!" Is it like American
slavery, which, in all its tendencies and effects, is destructive of all
oneness among brethren?

"Where the spirit of the Lord is," exclaims the same apostle, with his
eye upon the condition and relations of the church, "_where the spirit
of the Lord is_, THERE IS LIBERTY." Where, then, may we reverently
recognize the presence, and bow before the manifested power, of this
spirit? _There_, where the laborer may not choose how he shall be
employed!--in what way his wants shall he supplied!--with whom he shall
associate!--who shall have the fruit of his exertions! _There_, where he
is not free to enjoy his wife and children! _There_, where his body and
his soul, his very "destiny,"[A] are placed altogether beyond his
control! _There_, where every power is crippled, every energy blasted,
every hope crushed! _There_, where in all the relations and concerns of
life, he is legally treated as if he had nothing to do with the laws of
reason, the light of immortality, or the exercise of will! Is the spirit
of the Lord _there_, where liberty is decried and denounced, mocked at
and spit upon, betrayed and crucified! In the midst of a church which
justified slavery, which derived its support from slavery, which carried
on its enterprises by means of slavery, would the apostle have found the
fruits of the Spirit of the Lord! Let that Spirit exert his influences,
and assert his authority, and wield his power, and slavery must vanish
at once and forever.

[Footnote A: "The Legislature [of South Carolina] from time to time, has
passed many restricted and penal acts, with a view to bring under direct
control and subjection the DESTINY _of the black population_." See the
Remonstrance of James S. Pope and 352 others, against home missionary
efforts for the benefit of the enslaved--a most instructive paper.]

In more than one connection, the apostle James describes Christianity as
"_the law of liberty_." It is in other words the law under which liberty
can not but live and flourish--the law in which liberty is clearly
defined, strongly asserted, and well protected. As the law of liberty,
how can it be consistent with the law of slavery? The presence and the
power of this law are felt wherever the light of reason shines. They are
felt in the uneasiness and conscious degradation of the slave, and in
the shame and remorse which the master betrays in his reluctant and
desperate efforts to defend himself. This law it is which has armed
human nature against the oppressor. Wherever it is obeyed, "every yoke
is broken."

In these references to the New Testament we have a _general description_
of the primitive church, and the _principles_ on which it was founded
and fashioned. These principles bear the same relation to Christian
_history_ as to Christian _character_, since the former is occupied with
the development of the latter. What then is Christian character but
Christian principle _realized_, acted out, bodied forth, and animated?
Christian principle is the soul, of which Christian character is the
expression--the manifestation. It comprehends in itself, as a living
seed, such Christian character, under every form, modification, and
complexion. The former is, therefore, the test and interpreter of the
latter. In the light of Christian principle, and in that light only, we
can judge of and explain Christian character. Christian history is
occupied with the forms, modifications, and various aspects of Christian
character. The facts which are there recorded serve to show, how
Christian principle has fared in this world--how it has appeared, what
it has done, how it has been treated. In these facts we have the various
institutions, usages, designs, doings, and sufferings of the church of
Christ. And all these have of necessity, the closest relation to
Christian principle. They are the production of its power. Through them,
it is revealed and manifested. In its light, they are to be studied,
explained, and understood. Without it they must be as unintelligible and
insignificant as the letters of a book, scattered on the wind.

In the principles of Christianity, then, we have a comprehensive and
faithful account of its objects, institutions, and usages--of how it
must behave, and act, and suffer, in a world of sin and misery. For
between the principles which God reveals, on the one hand, and the
precepts he enjoins, the institutions he establishes, and the usages he
approves, on the other, there must be consistency and harmony. Otherwise
we impute to God what we must abhor in man--practice at war with
principle. Does the Savior, then, lay down the _principle_ that our
standing in the church must depend upon the habits, formed within us, of
readily and heartily subserving the welfare of others; and permit us _in
practice_ to invade the rights and trample on the happiness of our
fellows, by reducing them to slavery. Does he, _in principle_ and by
example, require us to go all lengths in rendering mutual service,
comprehending offices the most menial, as well as the most honorable;
and permit us _in practice_ to EXACT service of our brethren, as if they
were nothing better than "articles of merchandize?" Does he require us
_in principle_ "to work with quietness and eat our own bread;" and
permit us _in practice_ to wrest from our brethren the fruits of their
unrequited toil? Does he in principle require us, abstaining from every
form of theft, to employ our powers in useful labor, not only to provide
for ourselves but also to relieve the indigence of others; and permit us
_in practice_, abstaining from every form of labor, to enrich and
aggrandize ourselves with the fruits of man-stealing? Does he require us
_in principle_ to regard "the laborer as worthy of his hire;" and permit
us _in practice_ to defraud him of his wages? Does he require us _in
principle_ "to honor ALL men;" and permit us _in practice_ to treat
multitudes like cattle? Does he _in principle_ prohibit "respect of
persons;" and permit us _in practice_ to place the feet of the rich upon
the necks of the poor? Does he _in principle_ require us to sympathize
with the bondman as another self; and permit us _in practice_ to leave
him unpitied and unhelped in the hands of the oppressor? _In principle_,
"where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" _in practice_, is
_slavery_ the fruit of the Spirit? _In principle_, Christianity is the
law of liberty; _in practice_, is it the law of slavery? Bring practice
in these various respects into harmony with principle, and what becomes
of slavery? And if, where the divine government is concerned, practice
is the expression of principle, and principle the standard and
interpreter of practice, such harmony cannot but be maintained and must
be asserted. In studying, therefore, fragments of history and sketches
of biography--in disposing of references to institutions, usages, and
facts in the New Testament, this necessary harmony between principle and
practice in the government, should be continually present to the
thoughts of the interpreter. Principles assert what practice must be.
Whatever principle condemns, God condemns. It belongs to those weeds of
the dunghill which, planted by "an enemy," his hand will assuredly "root
up." It is most certain, then, that if slavery prevailed in the first
ages of Christianity, it could nowhere have prevailed under its
influence and with its sanction.

The _condition_ in which, in its efforts to bless mankind, the primitive
church was placed, must have greatly assisted the early Christians in
understanding and applying the principles of the gospel.--Their _Master_
was born in great obscurity, lived in the deepest poverty, and died the
most ignominious death. The place of his residence, his familiarity with
the outcasts of society, his welcoming assistance and support from
female hands, his casting his beloved mother, when he hung upon the
cross, upon the charity of a disciple--such things evince the depth of
his poverty, and show to what derision and contempt he must have been
exposed. Could such an one, "despised and rejected of men--a man of
sorrows and acquainted with grief," play the oppressor, or smile on
those who made merchandize of the poor!

And what was the history of the _apostles_, but an illustration of the
doctrine, that "it is enough for the disciple, that he be as his
Master?" Were they lordly ecclesiastics, abounding with wealth, shining
with splendor, bloated with luxury! Were they ambitious of distinction,
fleecing, and trampling, and devouring "the flocks," that they
themselves might "have the pre-eminence!" Were they slaveholding
bishops! Or did they derive their support from the wages of iniquity and
the price of blood! Can such inferences be drawn from the account of
their condition, which the most gifted and enterprising of their number
has put upon record? "Even unto this present hour, we both hunger, and
thirst, and are naked, and _are buffetted_, and have _no certain
dwelling place, and labor working with our own hands_. Being reviled, we
bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are
made as _the filth of the world_, and are THE OFFSCOURING OF ALL THINGS
unto this day[A]." Are these the men who practiced or countenanced
slavery? _With such a temper, they WOULD NOT; in such circumstances,
they COULD NOT_. Exposed to "tribulation, distress, and persecution;"
subject to famine and nakedness, to peril and the sword; "killed all the
day long; accounted as sheep for the slaughter[B]," they would have made
but a sorry figure at the great-house or slave-market!

[Footnote A: 1 Cor. iv. 11-13.]

[Footnote B: 1 Rom. viii. 35, 36.]

Nor was the condition of the brethren, generally, better than that of
the apostles. The position of the apostles doubtless entitled them to
the strongest opposition, the heaviest reproaches, the fiercest
persecution. But derision and contempt must have been the lot of
Christians generally. Surely we cannot think so ill of primitive
Christianity as to suppose that believers, generally, refused to share
in the trials and sufferings of their leaders; as to suppose that while
the leaders submitted to manual labor, to buffeting, to be reckoned the
filth of the world, to be accounted as sheep for the slaughter, his
brethren lived in affluence, ease, and honor! despising manual labor!
and living upon the sweat of unrequited toil! But on this point we are
not left to mere inference and conjecture. The apostle Paul in the
plainest language explains the ordination of Heaven. "But _God hath_
CHOSEN the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God
hath CHOSEN the weak things of the world to confound the things which
are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised
hath God CHOSEN, yea, and THINGS WHICH ARE NOT, to bring to nought
things that are."[A] Here we may well notice,

[Footnote A: 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.]

1. That it was not by _accident_, that the primitive churches were made
up of such elements, but the result of the DIVINE CHOICE--an arrangement
of His wise and gracious Providence. The inference is natural, that this
ordination was co-extensive with the triumphs of Christianity. It was
nothing new or strange, that Jehovah had concealed his glory "from the
wise and prudent, and had revealed it unto babes," or that "the common
people heard him gladly," while "not many wise men after the flesh, not
many mighty, not many noble, had been called."

2. The description of character which the apostle records, could be
adapted only to what are reckoned the _very dregs of humanity_. The
foolish and the weak, the base and the contemptible, in the estimation
of worldly pride and wisdom--these were they whose broken hearts were
reached, and moulded, and refreshed by the gospel; these were they whom
the apostle took to his bosom as his own brethren.

That _slaves_ abounded at Corinth, may easily be admitted. _They_ have a
place in the enumeration of elements of which, according to the apostle,
the church there was composed. The most remarkable class found there,
consisted of "THINGS WHICH ARE NOT"--mere nobodies, not admitted to the
privileges of men, but degraded to a level with "goods and chattels;" of
whom _no account_ was made in such arrangements of society as subserved
the improvement, and dignity, and happiness of MANKIND. How accurately
this description applies to those who are crushed under the chattel
principle!

The reference which the apostle makes to the "deep poverty of the
churches of Macedonia,"[B] and this to stir up the sluggish liberality
of his Corinthian brethren, naturally leaves the impression, that the
latter were by no means inferior to the former in the gifts of
Providence. But, pressed with want and pinched by poverty as were the
believers in "Macedonia and Achaia, it pleased them to make a certain
contribution for the poor saints which were at Jerusalem."[C] Thus it
appears, that Christians every where were familiar with contempt and
indigence, so much so, that the apostle would dissuade such as had no
families from assuming the responsibilities of the conjugal relation[D]!

[Footnote B: 2 Cor. viii. 2.]

[Footnote C: Rom. xv. 26.]

[Footnote D: 1 Cor. vi 26,27]

Now, how did these good people treat each other? Did the few among them,
who were esteemed wise, mighty, or noble, exert their influence and
employ their power in oppressing the weak, in disposing of the "things
that are not," as marketable commodities!--kneeling with them in prayer
in the evening, and putting them up at auction the next morning! Did the
church sell any of the members to swell the "certain contribution far
the poor saints at Jerusalem!" Far otherwise--as far as possible! In
those Christian communities where the influence of the apostles was most
powerful, and where the arrangements drew forth their highest
commendations, believers treated each other as brethren, in the
strongest sense of that sweet word. So warm was their mutual love, so
strong the public spirit, so open-handed and abundant the general
liberality, that they are set forth as "_having all things common._" [E]
Slaves and their holders here? Neither the one nor the other could in
that relation to each other have breathed such an atmosphere. The appeal
of the kneeling bondman, "Am I not a man and a brother," must here have
met with a prompt and powerful response.

[Footnote E: Acts iv. 32]

The _tests_ by which our Savior tries the character of his professed
disciples, shed a strong light upon the genius of the gospel. In one
connection[F], an inquirer demands of the Savior, "What good thing shall
I do that I may have eternal life?" After being reminded of the
obligations which his social nature imposed upon him, he ventured, while
claiming to be free from guilt in his relations to mankind, to demand,
"what lack I yet?" The radical deficiency under which his character
labored, the Savior was not long or obscure in pointing out. If thou
wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and
thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me. On this
passage it is natural to suggest--

[Footnote F: Luke xvii 18-24]

1. That we have here a _test of universal application._ The rectitude
and benevolence of our Savior's character forbid us to suppose that he
would subject this inquirer, especially as he was highly amiable, to a
trial, where eternal life was at stake, _peculiarly_ severe. Indeed, the
test seems to have been only a fair exposition of the second great
command, and of course it must be applicable to all who are placed under
the obligations of that precept. Those who can not stand this test, as
their character is radically imperfect and unsound, must, with the
inquirer to whom our Lord applied it, be pronounced unfit for the
kingdom of heaven.

2. The least that our Savior can in that passage be understood to demand
is, that we disinterestedly and heartily devote ourselves to the welfare
of mankind, "the poor" especially. We are to put ourselves on a level
with _them_, as we must do "in selling that we have" for their
benefit--in other words, in employing our powers and resources to
elevate their character, condition, and prospects. This our Savior did;
and if we refuse to enter into sympathy and cooperation with him, how
can we be his _followers_? Apply this test to the slaveholder. Instead
of "selling that he hath" for the benefit of the poor, he BUYS THE POOR,
and exacts their sweat with stripes, to enable him to "clothe himself in
purple and fine linen, and fare sumptuously every day;" or, HE SELLS THE
POOR to support the gospel and convert the heathen!

What, in describing the scenes of the final judgment, does our Savior
teach us? _By what standard_ must our character be estimated, and the
retributions of eternity be awarded? A standard, which both the
righteous and the wicked will be surprised to see erected. From the
"offscouring of all things," the meanest specimen of humanity will be
selected--a "stranger" in the hands of the oppressor, naked, hungry,
sickly; and this stranger, placed in the midst of the assembled
universe, by the side of the sovereign Judge, will be openly
acknowledged as his representative. "Glory, honor, and immortality,"
will be the reward of those who had recognized and cheered their Lord
through his outraged poor. And tribulation, anguish, and despair, will
seize on "every soul of man," who had neglected or despised them. But
whom, within the limits of our country, are we to regard especially as
the representatives of our final Judge? Every feature of the Savior's
picture finds its appropriate original in our enslaved countrymen.

1. They are the LEAST of his brethren.

2. They are subject to thirst and hunger, unable to command a cup of
water or a crumb of bread.

3. They are exposed to wasting sickness, without the ability to procure
a nurse or employ a physician.

4. They are emphatically "in prison," restrained by chains, goaded with
whips, tasked, and under keepers. Not a wretch groans in any cell of the
prisons of our country, who is exposed to a confinement so rigorous and
heart-breaking as the law allows theirs to be continually and
permanently.

5. And then they are emphatically, and peculiarly, and exclusively,
STRANGERS--_strangers_ in the land which gave them birth. Whom else do
we constrain to remain aliens in the midst of our free institutions? The
Welch, the Swiss, the Irish? The Jews even? Alas, it is the _negro_
only, who may not strike his roots into our soil. Every where we have
conspired to treat him as a stranger--every where he is forced to feel
himself a stranger. In the stage and steamboat, in the parlor and at our
tables, in the scenes of business and in the scenes of amusement--even
in the church of God and at the communion table, he is regarded as a
stranger. The intelligent and religious are generally disgusted and
horror-struck at the thought of his becoming identified with the
citizens of our republic--so much so, that thousands of them have
entered into a conspiracy to send him off "out of sight," to find a home
on a foreign shore!--And justify themselves by openly alledging, that a
"single drop" of his blood, in the veins of any human creature, must
make him hateful to his fellow citizens!--That nothing but banishment
from "our coasts," can redeem him from the scorn and contempt to which
his "stranger" blood has reduced him among his own mother's children!

Who, then, in this land "of milk and honey," is "hungry and athirst,"
but the man from whom the law takes away the last crumb of bread and the
smallest drop of water?

Who "naked," but the man whom the law strips of the last rag of
clothing?

Who "sick," but the man whom the law deprives of the power of procuring
medicine or sending for a physician?

Who "in prison," but the man who, all his life is under the control of
merciless masters and cruel keepers?

Who a "stranger," but the man who is scornfully denied the cheapest
courtesies of life--who is treated as an alien in his native country?

There is one point in this awful description which deserves particular
attention. Those who are doomed to the left hand of the Judge, are not
charged with inflicting _positive injuries_ on their helpless, needy,
and oppressed brother. Theirs was what is often called _negative_
character. What they _had done_ is not described in the indictment.
Their _neglect_ of duty, what they _had_ NOT _done_, was the ground of
their "everlasting punishment." The representative of their Judge, they
had seen a hungered and they gave him no meat, thirsty and they have him
no drink, a stranger and they took him not in, naked and they clothed
him not, sick and in prison and they visited him not. In as much as they
did NOT yield to the claims of suffering humanity--did NOT exert
themselves to bless the meanest of the human family, they were driven
away in their wickedness. But what if the indictment had run thus: I was
a hungered and ye snatched away the crust which might have saved me from
starvation; I was thirsty and ye dashed to the ground the "cup of cold
water," which might have moistened my parched lips; I was a stranger and
ye drove me from the hovel which might have sheltered me from the
piercing wind; I was sick and ye scourged me to my task; in prison and
you sold me for my jail-fees--to what depths of hell must not those who
were convicted under such charges be consigned! And what is the history
of American slavery but one long indictment, describing under
ever-varying forms and hues just such injuries!

Nor should it be forgotten, that those who incurred the displeasure of
their Judge, took far other views than he, of their own past history.
The charges which he brought against them, they heard with great
surprise. They were sure that they had never thus turned away from his
necessities. Indeed, when had they seen him thus subject to poverty,
insult, and oppression! Never. And as to that poor friendless creature
whom they left unpitied and unhelped in the hands of the oppressor, and
whom their Judge now presented as his own representative, they never
once supposed, that _he_ had any claims on their compassion and
assistance. Had they known, that he was destined to so prominent a place
at the final judgment, they would have treated him as a human being, in
despite of any social, pecuniary, or political considerations. But
neither their _negative virtue_ nor their _voluntary ignorance_ could
shield them from the penal fire which their selfishness had kindled.

Now amidst the general maxims, the leading principles, the "great
commandments" of the gospel; amidst its comprehensive descriptions and
authorized tests of Christian character, we should take our position in
disposing of any particular allusions to such forms and usages of the
primitive churches as are supposed by divine authority. The latter must
be interpreted and understood in the light of the former. But how do the
apologists and defenders of slavery proceed? Placing themselves amidst
the arrangements and usages which grew out of the _corruptions_ of
Christianity, they make these the standard by which the gospel is to be
explained and understood! Some Recorder or Justice, without the light of
inquiry or the aid of a jury, consigns the negro whom the kidnapper has
dragged into his presence to the horrors of slavery. As the poor wretch
shrieks and faints, Humanity shudders and demands why such atrocities
are endured? Some "priest" or "Levite," "passing by on the other side,"
quite self-possessed and all complacent reads in reply from his bread
phylactery, _Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon_! Yes, echoes the
negro-hating mob, made up of "gentlemen of property and standing"
together with equally gentle-men reeking from the gutter; _Yes--Paul
sent back Onesimus to Philemon_! And Humanity, brow-beaten, stunned with
noise and tumult, is pushed aside by the crowd! A fair specimen this of
the manner in which modern usages are made to interpret the sacred
Scriptures?

Of the particular passages in the New Testament on which the apologists
for slavery especially rely, the epistle to Philemon first demands our
attention.

1. This letter was written by the apostle Paul while a "prisoner of
Jesus Christ" at Rome.

2. Philemon was a benevolent and trustworthy member of the church at
Colosse, at whose house the disciples of Christ held their assemblies,
and who owed his conversion, under God, directly or indirectly to the
ministry of Paul.

3. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon; under a relation which it is
difficult with accuracy and certainty to define. His condition, though
servile, could not have been like that of an American slave; as, in that
case, however he might have "wronged" Philemon, he could not also have
"_owed him ought_."[A] The American slave is, according to law, as much
the property of his master as any other chattel; and can no more "owe"
his master than can a sheep or a horse. The basis of all pecuniary
obligations lies in some "value received." How can "an article of
merchandise" stand on this basis and sustain commercial relations to its
owner? There is no _person_ to offer or promise. _Personality is
swallowed up in American slavery_!

[Footnote A: Phil. 18.]

4. How Onesimus found his way to Rome it is not easy to determine. He
and Philemon appear to have parted from each other on ill terms. The
general character of Onesimus, certainly, in his relation to Philemon,
had been far from attractive, and he seems to have left him without
repairing the wrongs he had done him or paying the debts which he owed
him. At Rome, by the blessing of God upon the exertions of the apostle,
he was brought to reflection and repentance.

5. In reviewing his history in the light of Christian truth, he became
painfully aware of the injuries, he had inflicted on Philemon. He longed
for an opportunity for frank confession and full restitution. Having,
however, parted with Philemon on ill terms, he knew not how to appear in
his presence. Under such embarrassments, he naturally sought sympathy
and advice of Paul. _His_ influence upon Philemon, Onesimus knew must be
powerful, especially as an apostle.

6. A letter in behalf of Onesimus was therefore written by the apostle
to Philemon. After such salutations, benedictions, and thanks giving as
the good character and useful life of Philemon naturally drew from the
heart of Paul, he proceeds to the object of the letter. He admits that
Onesimus had behaved ill in the service of Philemon; not in running
away, for how they had parted with each other is not explained, but in
being unprofitable and in refusing to pay the debts[B] which he had
contracted. But his character had undergone a radical change.
Thenceforward fidelity and usefulness would be his aim and mark his
course. And as to any pecuniary obligations which he had violated, the
apostle authorized Philemon to put them on _his_ account.[C] Thus a way
was fairly opened to the heart of Philemon. And now what does the
apostles ask?

[Footnote B: Verse 11,18.]

[Footnote C: Verse 18.]

7. He asks that Philemon would receive Onesimus. How? "Not as a
_servant_, but _above_ a servant."[A] How much above? Philemon was to
receive him as "a son" of the apostle--"as a brother beloved"--nay, if
he counted Paul a partner, an equal, he was to receive Onesimus as he
would receive _the apostle himself[B]. So much_ above a servant was he
to receive him!

[Footnote A: Verse 16.]

[Footnote B: Verse 10, 16, 17.]

8. But was not this request to be so interpreted and complied with as to
put Onesimus in the hands of Philemon as "an article of merchandise,"
CARNALLY, while it raised him to the dignity of a "brother beloved,"
SPIRITUALLY? In other words, might not Philemon consistently with the
request of Paul, have reduced Onesimus to a chattel, AS A MAN, while he
admitted him fraternally to his bosom, as a CHRISTIAN? Such gibberish in
an apostolic epistle! Never. As if, however, to guard against such
folly, the natural product of mist and moonshine, the apostle would have
Onesimus raised above a servant to the dignity of a brother beloved,
"BOTH IN THE FLESH AND IN THE LORD;"[C] as a man and Christian, in all
the relations, circumstances, and responsibilities of life.

[Footnote C: Verse 16.]

It is easy now with definiteness and certainty to determine in what
sense the apostle in such connections uses the word "_brother_." It
describes a relation inconsistent with and opposite to the _servile_. It
is "NOT" the relation of a "SERVANT." It elevates its subject "above"
the servile condition. It raises him to full equality with the master,
to the same equality, on which Paul and Philemon stood side by side as
brothers; and this, not in some vague, undefined, spiritual sense,
affecting the soul and leaving the body in bonds, but in every way,
"both in the FLESH and in the Lord." This matter deserves particular and
earnest attention. It sheds a strong light on other lessons of apostolic
instruction.

9. It is greatly to our purpose, moreover, to observe that the apostle
clearly defines the _moral character_ of his request. It was fit,
proper, right, suited to the nature and relations of things--a thing
which _ought_ to be done.[D] On this account, he might have urged it
upon Philemon in the form of an _injunction_, on apostolic authority and
with great boldness.[E] _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 birth-right privileges of
Onesimus, as a member of the human family, defined and protected by
apostolic authority.

[Footnote D: 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 E: Verse 8.]

10. The apostle preferred a request instead of imposing a command, on
the ground of CHARITY.[A] 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.[B] 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 Colosse, 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_."[C]

[Footnote A: Verse 9 [Greek: dia taen agapaen].]

[Footnote B: Verse 19.]

[Footnote C: 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 defense of the cause of
emancipation!

But what with Prof. 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."[A]

[Footnote A: See his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 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 at 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, who once gave public notice that he
saw no reason for caring for the servitude of his fellow men.[B] 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 any Caesar do, who had ever
felt a link of slavery's chain? As he left his _spiritual father_,
should we be surprized 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 can not thus throw myself away--thus rush
upon my own destruction.

[Footnote B: "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 thee ought, 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. Mr. 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 had 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 shouldest 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 Prof. 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 Prof. 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, skillful, 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 by Archy 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 my
acquaintance with you, and your strong obligations to me, will, I can
not 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 begotten in my
sickness.' Gladly would I have retained him, to be an _Isaac_ to me; for
how often did not his soothing voice, and skillful 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 Prof. 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. Prof. 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."[A]

[Footnote A: 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2.]

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 Prof. 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[B] opening the path to heaven,
to that of washing "one another's feet."[C] A general term it is,
comprehending every office which belongs to human relations and
Christian character.[D]

[Footnote B: Cor. iv. 5.]

[Footnote C: John xiii. 14.]

[Footnote D: 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 Prof. 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. Is it his by sympathy with the oppressor?

Yes, different classes. This is implied in the term "_as many_,"[A]
which sets apart the class now to be addressed. From these he proceeds
to others, who are introduced by a particle,[B] whose natural meaning
indicates the presence of another and a different subject.

[Footnote A: [Greek: Osoi.] See Passow's Schneider.]

[Footnote B: [Greek: De.] 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.[C] 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.[D] 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 C: See 1 Cor. vii. 21--[Greek: All ei kai d u n a s a i
eleutheros genesthai.]]

[Footnote D: 1 Cor. vii. 23--[Greek: Mae ginesthe douloi anthropon.]]

But all the servants whom the apostle addressed were not "_under the
yoke_"[E]--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,[F] 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.[G] Instead of this, they should be, as
emancipated slaves often have been,[H] models of enterprise, fidelity,
activity, and usefulness--especially as their masters were "worthy of
their confidence and love," their helpers in this well-doing.[I]

[Footnote E: See Lev. xxvi. 13; Isa. lviii. 6, 9.]

[Footnote F: Supra p. 47.]

[Footnote G: See Matt. vi. 24.]

[Footnote H: Those, for instance, set free by that "believing master"
James G. Birney.]

[Footnote I: The following exposition 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, koinonountes], &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: antilambano] 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: euergesai] can not 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_."]

Such, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of Prof.
Stuart, were Christian masters and Christian slaves[A]--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's 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 A: 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_."[A] 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 do the Pittsburgh pamphlet,
make the experiment?

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh 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."[A]

[Footnote A: 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.

"The relation of slavery," according to Prof. Stuart, is recognized in
"the precepts of the New Testament," as one which "may still exist
without violating the Christian faith or the church."[A] 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 Prof. 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 Prof. 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 A: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 7.]

"It is remarkable," with 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."[B] 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_.[C]
"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, soothe 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 B: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p. 9.]

[Footnote C: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p. 10.]

The Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South has
so warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural defense of
"the peculiar institution," maintains, that the "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF
THE GOSPEL _have_ DESTROYED SLAVERY _throughout out the greater part of
Christendom"_[A]--"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._"[B] 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 fathers; 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
defense of slavery!

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 18. 19.]

[Footnote B: 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."[A]

[Footnote A: 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."[A] 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 A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 10.]

To the Princeton professor the 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[B] 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
whenever 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."[C] 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 B: 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 Pittsburgh 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 be 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 _Prof. 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 C: Pittsburgh 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."[A] 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 A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 9.]

We do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or
courage,[B] 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."[C] The propriety of this arrangement
is not the matter of dispute between the Princeton professor and
ourselves.

[Footnote B: The same, p. 10.]

[Footnote C: 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.[A] 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 A: "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,[B] 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 B: 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.[C] 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 C: 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.")[A] 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."[B] 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.[C] _Heinrichs_ quotes a Rabbi as teaching, that no
man should by any means neglect to train his son to honest industry.[D]
Accordingly, the apostle Paul, though brought up at the "feet of
Gamaliel," the distinguished disciple of a most illustrious teacher,
practiced the art of tent-making. His own hands ministered to his
necessities; and his example in so doing, he commends to his Gentile
brethren for their imitation.[E] That Zebedee, the father of John the
Evangelist, had wealth, various hints in the New Testament render
probable.[F] 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."[G]

[Footnote A: Acts xviii. 1-3.]

[Footnote B: Henry on Acts xviii, 1-3.]

[Footnote C: Kuinoel on Acts.]

[Footnote D: Heinrichs on Acts.]

[Footnote E: Acts xx. 34, 35; 1 Thess. iv. 11]

[Footnote F: See Kuinoel's Prolegom. to the Gospel of John.]

[Footnote G: 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 object
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 form,"[A] without extorting from his lips a
syllable of rebuke. "The sacred writers did not condemn it."[B] And why
should they? By a definition[C] 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.[D]

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 9.]

[Footnote B: The same p. 13.]

[Footnote C: The same p. 12.]

[Footnote D: Supra p. 61.]

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 alledged 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             _The American system for
Slavery, according to Prof.             supporting Slavery,_
Hodge,_

"Enjoins a fair compensation            Makes compensation impossible
for labor."                             by reducing the laborer to a
                                        chattel.

"It insists on the moral                It sternly forbids its victim
and intellectual improvement            to learn to read even the
of all classes of men."                 name of his Creator and
                                        Redeemer.

"It condemns all infractions            It outlaws the conjugal and
of marital or parental rights."         parental relations.

"It requires that free scope            It forbids any effort, on the
should be allowed to human              part of myriads of the human
improvement."                           family, to improve their
                                        character, condition, and
                                        prospects.

"It requires that all suitable          It inflicts heavy penalties
means should be employed to improve     for teaching letters to the
mankind."                               to the poorest of the poor.

"Wherever it has had free scope, it     Wherever it has free scope,
has abolished domestic bondage."        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 Prof. 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 requisition 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
Prof. 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[A]."

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 12]


_According to Prof. Hodge's            According to Prof. Hodge's
account of the requisitions of           account of Slavery,
Christianity,_

The spring of effort in the labor       The laborer must serve at the
is a fair compensation.                 discretion of another.

Free scope must be given for his moral  He is deprived of personal
and intellectual improvement.           liberty--the necessary
                                        condition, and living soul
                                        of improvement, without which
                                        he has no control of either
                                        intellect or morals.

His rights as a husband and a father    The authority and claims of
are to be protected.                    the 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 Prof. 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 hearts' content. The hour can not 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 _Prof. 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_[A]." _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 A: Supra, p.8.]

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 Prof. 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,"[A] which can
not fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery, "root and branch," at once
and forever.

[Footnote A: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 8.]

Prof. 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?"[B]
What, Christianity bent on the destruction of an ancient and cherished
institution which hurts neither her character nor condition![C] 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 B: The same, p. 7.]

[Footnote C: Prof. 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 heart turns to stone, while
the cry dies upon his lips, "_How_ LONG, _O Lord_, HOW LONG?"

"_Ultimately!_" In _what circumstances_ does Prof. 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 principle 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 8.

THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

       *       *       *       *       *

CORRESPONDENCE,

BETWEEN THE

HON. F.H. ELMORE,

ONE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DELEGATION IN CONGRESS,

AND

JAMES G. BIRNEY,

ONE OF THE SECRETARIES OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.

       *       *       *       *       *

NEW-YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,

No. 143 NASSAU STREET.

1838.

       *       *       *       *       *

This periodical contains 5 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 7-1/2 cts.;
over 100 miles, 12-1/2 cts.

_Please read and circulate_.



REMARKS IN EXPLANATION.

       *       *       *       *       *

ANTI-SLAVERY OFFICE, _New York, May 24, 1838_.

In January, a tract entitled "WHY WORK FOR THE SLAVE?" was issued from
this office by the agent for the _Cent-a-week Societies_. A copy of it
was transmitted to the Hon. John C. Calhoun;--to _him_, because he has
seemed, from the first, more solicitous than the generality of Southern
politicians, to possess himself of accurate information about the
Anti-Slavery movement. A note written by me accompanied the tract,
informing Mr. Calhoun, why it was sent to him.

Not long afterward, the following letter was received from the Hon. F.H.
Elmore, of the House of Representatives in Congress. From this and
another of his letters just now received, it seems, that the
Slaveholding Representatives in Congress, after conferring together,
appointed a committee, of their own number, to obtain authentic
information of the intentions and progress of the Anti-Slavery
associations,--and that Mr. Elmore was selected, as the _South Carolina_
member of the Committee.

Several other communications have passed between Mr. Elmore and me. They
relate, chiefly, however, to the transmission and reception of
Anti-slavery publications, which he requested to be sent to him,--and to
other matters not having any connection with the merits of the main
subject. It is, therefore, thought unnecessary to publish them. It may
be sufficient to remark of all the communications received from Mr.
Elmore--that they are characterized by exemplary courtesy and good
temper, and that they bear the impress of an educated, refined, and
liberal mind.

It is intended to circulate this correspondence throughout the _whole
country_. If the information it communicates be important for southern
Representatives in Congress, it is not less so for their Constituents.
The Anti-slavery movement has become so important in a National point of
view, that no statesman can innocently remain ignorant of its progress
and tendencies. The facts stated in my answer may be relied on, in
proportion to the degree of accuracy to which they lay claim;--the
arguments will, of course, be estimated according to their worth.

JAMES G. BIRNEY.



CORRESPONDENCE.

       *       *       *       *       *

WASHINGTON CITY, FEB. 16, 1838

To Jas. G. Birney, Esq., _Cor. Sec. A.A.S. Soc._

Sir:--A letter from you to the Hon. John C. Calhoun, dated 29th January
last, has been given to me, by him, in which you say, (in reference to
the abolitionists or Anti-Slavery Societies,) "we have nothing to
conceal--and should you desire any information as to our procedure, it
will be cheerfully communicated on [my] being apprised of your wishes."
The frankness of this unsolicited offer indicates a fairness and honesty
of purpose, which has caused the present communication, and which
demands the same full and frank disclosure of the views with which the
subjoined inquiries are proposed.

Your letter was handed to me, in consequence of a duty assigned me by my
delegation, and which requires me to procure all the authentic
information I can, as to the nature and intentions of yours and similar
associations, in order that we may, if we deem it advisable, lay the
information before our people, so that they may be prepared to decide
understandingly, as to the course it becomes them to pursue on this all
important question. If you "have nothing to conceal," and it is not
imposing too much on, what may have been, an unguarded proffer, I will
esteem your compliance as a courtesy to an opponent, and be pleased to
have an opportunity to make a suitable return. And if, on the other
hand, you have the least difficulty or objection, I trust you will not
hesitate to withhold the information sought for, as I would not have it,
unless as freely given, as it will, if deemed expedient, be freely used.

I am, Sir,

Your ob'd't serv't,

F.H. ELMORE, of S.C.

QUESTIONS for J.G. Birney, Esq., Cor. Sec. A.A.S. Society.

1. How many societies, affiliated with that of which you are the
Corresponding Secretary, are there in the United States? And how many
members belong to them _in the aggregate_?

2. Are there any other societies similar to yours, and not affiliated
with it, in the United States? and how many, and what is the aggregate
their members?

3. Have you affiliation, intercourse or connection with any similar
societies out of the United States, and in what countries?

4. Do your or similar societies exist in the Colleges and other Literary
institutions of the non-slaveholding States, and to what extent?

5. What do you estimate the numbers of those who co-operate in this
matter at? What proportion do they bear in the population of the
Northern states, and what in the Middle non-slaveholding states? Are
they increasing, and at what rate?

6. What is the object your associations aim at? does it extend to the
abolition of slavery only in the District of Columbia, or in the whole
slave country?

7. By what means, and under what power, do you propose to carry your
views into effect?

8. What has been for three years past, the annual income of your
societies? and how is it raised?

9. In what way, and to what purposes, do you apply these funds?

10. How many priming presses and periodical publications have you?

11. To what classes of persons do you address your publications, and are
they addressed to the judgment, the imagination, or the feelings?

12. Do you propagate your doctrines by any other means than oral and
written discussions,--for instance, by prints and pictures in
manufactures--say pocket handkerchiefs, &c. Pray, state the
various modes?

13. Are your hopes and expectations increased or lessened by the events
of the last year, and, especially, by the action of this Congress? And
will your exertions be relaxed or increased?

14. Have you any permanent fund, and how much?

ANTI-SLAVERY OFFICE, _New York, March 8, 1838_

Hon. F.H. ELMORE,

Member of Congress from S. Carolina:

SIR,--I take pleasure in furnishing the information you have so politely
asked for, in your letter of the 16th ult., in relation to the American
Anti-Slavery Society;--and trust, that this correspondence, by
presenting in a sober light, the objects and measures of the society,
may contribute to dispel, not only from your own mind, but--if it be
diffused throughout the South--from the minds of our fellow-citizens
there generally, a great deal of undeserved prejudice and groundless
alarm. I cannot hesitate to believe, that such as enter on the
examination of its claims to public favour, without bias, will find that
it aims intelligently, not only at the promotion of the interests of the
slave, but of the master,--not only at the re-animation of the
Republican principles of our Constitution, but at the establishment of
the Union on an enduring basis.

I shall proceed to state the several questions submitted in your letter,
and answer them, in the order in which they are proposed. You ask,--

"1. _How many societies, affiliated with that of which you are
corresponding secretary, are there in the United States? And how many
members belong to them_ IN THE AGGREGATE?"

ANSWER.--Our anniversary is held on the Tuesday immediately preceding
the second Thursday in May. Returns of societies are made only a short
time before. In May, 1835, there were 225 auxiliaries reported. In May,
1836, 527. In May, 1837, 1006. Returns for the anniversary in May next
have not come in yet. It may, however, be safely said, that the
increase, since last May, is not less than 400.[A] Of late, the
multiplication of societies has not kept pace with the progress of our
principles. Where these are well received, our agents are not so careful
to organize societies as in former times, when our numbers were few;
_societies, now_, being not deemed so necessary for the advancement of
our cause. The auxiliaries average not less than 80 members each; making
an aggregate of 112,480. Others estimate the auxiliaries at 1500, and
the average of members at 100. I give you, what I believe to be the
lowest numbers.

[Footnote A: The number reported for May was three hundred and forty,
making, in the aggregate, 1346.--_Report for May_, 1838.]

"2. _Are there any other societies similar to yours, and not affiliated
with it in the United States? And how many, and what is the aggregate of
their members_?"

ANSWER.--Several societies have been formed in the Methodist connection
within the last two years,--although most of the Methodists who are
abolitionists, are members of societies auxiliary to the American. These
societies have been originated by Ministers, and others of weight and
influence, who think that their brethren can be more easily persuaded,
as a religious body, to aid in the anti-slavery movement by this twofold
action. None of the large religious denominations bid fairer soon to be
on the side of emancipation than the Methodist. Of the number of the
Methodist societies that are not auxiliary, I am not informed.--The
ILLINOIS SOCIETY comes under the same class. The REV. ELIJAH P. LOVEJOY,
the corresponding secretary, was slain by a mob, a few days after its
organization. It has not held a meeting since; and I have no data for
stating the number of its members. It is supposed not to be
large.--Neither is the DELAWARE SOCIETY, organized, a few weeks ago, at
Wilmington, auxiliary to the American. I have no information as to its
numbers.--The MANUMISSION SOCIETY in this city, formed in 1785, with
JOHN JAY its first, and ALEXANDER HAMILTON its second president, might,
from its name, be supposed to be affiliated with the American.
Originally, its object, so far as regarded the slaves, and those
illegally held in bondage _in this state_, was, in a great measure,
similar. Slavery being extinguished in New-York in 1827, as a state
system, the efforts of the Manumission Society are limited now to the
rescue, from kidnappers and others, of such persons as are really free
by the laws, but who have been reduced to slavery. Of the old Abolition
societies, organized in the time, and under the influence of Franklin
and Rush and Jay, and the most active of their coadjutors, but few
remain. Their declension may be ascribed to this defect,--they did not
inflexibly ask for _immediate_ emancipation.--The PENNSYLVANIA ABOLITION
SOCIETY, formed in 1789, with DR. FRANKLIN, president, and DR. RUSH,
secretary, is still in existence--but unconnected with the American
Society. Some of the most active and benevolent members of both the
associations last named, are members of the American Society. Besides
the societies already mentioned, there may be in the country a few
others of anti-slavery name; but they are of small note and efficiency,
and are unconnected with this.

"3. _Have you affiliation, intercourse, or connection with any similar
societies out of the United States, and in what countries_?"

ANSWER.--A few societies have spontaneously sprung up in Canada. Two
have declared themselves auxiliary to the American. We have an agent--a
native of the United States--in Upper Canada; not with a view to the
organization of societies, but to the moral and intellectual elevation
of the Ten thousand colored people there; most of whom have escaped from
slavery in this Republic, to enjoy freedom under the protection of a
Monarchy. In Great Britain there are numerous Anti-slavery Societies,
whose particular object, of late, has been, to bring about the abolition
of the Apprentice-system, as established by the emancipation act in her
slaveholding colonies. In England, there is a society whose professed
object is, to abolish slavery _throughout the world_. Of the existence
of the British societies, you are, doubtless, fully aware; as also of
the fact, that, in Britain, the great mass of the people are opposed to
slavery as it existed, a little while ago, in their own colonies, and as
it exists now in the United States.--In France, the "FRENCH SOCIETY FOR
THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY" was founded in 1834. I shall have the pleasure
of transmitting to you two pamphlets, containing an account of some of
its proceedings; from which you will learn, that, the DUC DE BROGLIE is
its presiding officer, and many of the most distinguished and
influential of the public men of that country are members.--In Hayti,
also, "The HAYTIAN ABOLITION SOCIETY" was formed in May, 1836.

These are all the foreign societies of which I have knowledge. They are
connected with the American by no formal affiliation. The only
intercourse between them and it, is, that which springs up spontaneously
among those of every land who sympathize with Humanity in her conflicts
with Slavery.

"4. _Do your or similar societies exist in the Colleges and other
Literary institutions of the non-slaveholding states, and to
what extent_?"

ANSWER.--Strenuous efforts have been made, and they are still being
made, by those who have the direction of most of the literary and
theological institutions in the free states, to bar out our principles
and doctrines, and prevent the formation of societies among the
students. To this course they have been prompted by various, and
possibly, in their view, good motives. One of them, I think it not
uncharitable to say, is, to conciliate the wealthy of the south, that
they may send their sons to the north, to swell the college catalogues.
Neither do I think it uncharitable to say, that in this we have a
manifestation of that Aristocratic pride, which, feeling itself honored
by having entrusted to its charge the sons of distant, opulent, and
distinguished planters, fails not to dull everything like sympathy for
those whose unpaid toil supplies the means so lavishly expended in
educating southern youth at northern colleges. These efforts at
suppression or restraint, on the part of Faculties and Boards of
Trustees, have heretofore succeeded to a considerable extent.
Anti-Slavery Societies, notwithstanding, have been formed in a few of
our most distinguished colleges and theological seminaries. Public
opinion is beginning to call for a relaxation of restraints and
impositions; they are yielding to its demands; and _now_, for the most
part, sympathy for the slave may be manifested by our generous college
youth, in the institution of Anti-Slavery Societies, without any
downright prohibition by their more politic teachers. College societies
will probably increase more rapidly hereafter; as, in addition to the
removal or relaxation of former restraints, just referred to, the murder
of Mr. Lovejoy, the assaults on the Freedom of speech and of the press,
the prostration of the Right of petition in Congress, &c, &c, all
believed to have been perpetrated to secure slavery from the scrutiny
that the intelligent world is demanding, have greatly augmented the
number of college abolitionists. They are, for the most part, the
diligent, the intellectual, the religious of the students. United in
societies, their influence is generally extensively felt in the
surrounding region; _dispersed_, it seems scarcely less effective. An
instance of the latter deserves particular notice.

The Trustees and Faculty of one of our theological and literary
institutions united for the suppression of anti-slavery action among the
students. The latter refused to cease pleading for the slave, as he
could not plead for himself. They left the institution; were
providentially dispersed over various parts of the country, and made
useful, in a remarkable manner, in advancing the cause of humanity and
liberty. One of these dismissed students, the son of a slaveholder,
brought up in the midst of slavery, and well acquainted with its
peculiarities, succeeded in persuading a pious father to emancipate his
fourteen slaves. After lecturing a long time with signal success--having
contracted a disease of the throat, which prevented him from further
prosecuting his labors in this way--he visited the West Indies, eighteen
months ago, in company with another gentleman of the most ample
qualifications, to note the operation of the British emancipation act.
Together, they collected a mass of facts--now in a course of
publication--that will astonish, as it ought to delight, the whole
south; for it shows, conclusively, that IMMEDIATE emancipation is the
best, the safest, the most profitable, as it is the most just and
honorable, of all emancipations.[A]

[Footnote A: See Appendix, A.]

Another of these dismissed students is one of the secretaries of this
society. He has, for a long time, discharged its arduous and responsible
duties with singular ability. To his qualifications as secretary, he
adds those of an able and successful lecturer. He was heard, several
times, before the joint committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts, a
year ago, prior to the report of that committee, and to the adoption, by
the Senate and House of Representatives, of their memorable resolutions
in favor of the Power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of
Columbia, and of the Right of petition.

"5. _What do you estimate the number of those who co-operate in the
matter at? What proportion do they bear in the population of the
northern states, and what in the middle non-slaveholding states? Are
they increasing, and at what rate_?"

ANSWER.--Those who stand _ready to join_ our societies on the first
suitable occasion, may be set down as equal in number to those who are
now _actually members_. Those who are ready _fully to co-operate with
us_ in supporting the freedom of speech and the press, the right of
petition, &c, may be estimated at _double_, if not _treble_, the joint
numbers of those who _already are members_, and those who are _ready to
become members_. The Recording secretary of the MASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY
stated, a few weeks ago, that the abolitionists in the various minor
societies in that state were one in thirty of the whole population. The
proportion of abolitionists to the whole population is greater in
Massachusetts than in any other of the free states, except
VERMONT,--where the spirit of liberty has almost entirely escaped the
corruptions which slavery has infused into it in most of her sister
states, by means of commercial and other intercourse with them.

In MAINE, not much of systematic effort has, as yet, been put forth to
enlighten her population as to our principles and proceedings. I
attended the anniversary of the State Society on the 31st of January, at
Augusta, the seat of government. The Ministers of the large religious
denominations were beginning, as I was told, to unite with us--and
Politicians, to descry the ultimate prevalence of our principles. The
impression I received was, that much could, and that much would,
speedily be done.

In NEW HAMPSHIRE, more labor has been expended, and a greater effect
produced. Public functionaries, who have been pleased to speak in
contemptuous terms of the progress of abolitionism, both in Maine and
New Hampshire, will, it is thought, soon be made to see, through a
medium not at all deceptive, the grossness of their error.

In RHODE ISLAND, our principles are fast pervading the great body of the
people. This, it is thought, is the only one of the free states, in
which the subject of abolition has been fully introduced, which has not
been disgraced by a mob, triumphant, for the time being, over the right
of the people to discuss any, and every, matter in which they feel
interested. A short time previous to the last election of members of
Congress, questions, embodying our views as to certain political
measures were propounded to the several candidates. Respectful answers
and, in the main, conformable with our views, were returned. I shall
transmit you a newspaper containing both the questions and the
answers.[A]

[Footnote A: Since the above was written, at the last election in this
state for governor and lieutenant governor, the abolitionists
_interrogated_ the gentlemen who stood candidates for these offices. Two
of them answered respectfully, and conformably to the views of the
abolitionists. Their opponents neglected to answer at all. The first
were elected.--See Appendix, B.]

In CONNECTICUT, there has not been, as yet, a great expenditure of
abolition effort. Although the moral tone of this state, so far as
slavery is concerned, has been a good deal weakened by the influence of
her multiform connexions with the south, yet the energies that have been
put forth to reanimate her ancient and lofty feelings, so far from
proving fruitless, have been followed by the most encouraging results.
Evidence of this is found in the faithful administration of the laws by
judges and juries. In May last, a slave, who had been brought from
Georgia to Hartford, successfully asserted her freedom under the laws of
Connecticut. The cause was elaborately argued before the Supreme court.
The most eminent counsel were employed on both sides. And it is but a
few days, since two anti-abolition rioters (the only ones on trial) were
convicted before the Superior court in New Haven, and sentenced to pay a
fine of twenty dollars each, and to be imprisoned six months, the
longest term authorized by the law. A convention, for the organization
of a State Society, was held in the city of Hartford on the last day of
February. It was continued three days. The _call_ for it (which I send
you) was signed by nearly EIGHTEEN HUNDRED of the citizens of that
state. SEVENTEEN HUNDRED, as I was informed, are legal voters. The
proceedings of the convention were of the most harmonious and animating
character.[B]

[Footnote B: See Appendix, C.]

In NEW YORK, our cause is evidently advancing. The state is rapidly
coming up to the high ground of principle, so far as universal liberty
is concerned, on which the abolitionists would place her. Several large
Anti-Slavery conventions have lately been held in the western counties.
Their reports are of the most encouraging character. Nor is the change
more remarkable in the state than in this city. Less than five years
ago, a few of the citizens advertised a meeting, to be held in Clinton
Hall, to form a City Anti-Slavery Society. A mob prevented their
assembling at the place appointed. They repaired, privately, to one of
the churches. To this they were pursued by the mob, and routed from it,
though not before they had completed, in a hasty manner, the form of
organization. In the summer of 1834, some of the leading political and
commercial journals of the city were enabled to stir up the mob against
the persons and property of the abolitionists, and several of the most
prominent were compelled to leave the city for safety; their houses were
attacked, broken into, and, in one instance, the furniture publicly
burnt in the street. _Now_, things are much changed. Many of the
merchants and mechanics are favorable to our cause; gentlemen of the
bar, especially the younger and more growing ones, are directing their
attention to it; twenty-one of our city ministers are professed
abolitionists; the churches are beginning to be more accessible to us;
our meetings are held in them openly, attract large numbers, are
unmolested; and the abolitionists sometimes hear themselves commended in
other assemblies, not only for their honest _intentions_, but for their
_respectability_ and _intelligence_.

NEW JERSEY has, as yet, no State Society, and the number of avowed
abolitionists is small. In some of the most populous and influential
parts of the state, great solicitude exists on the subject; and the call
for lecturers is beginning to be earnest, if not importunate.

PENNSYLVANIA has advanced to our principles just in proportion to the
labor that has been bestowed, by means of lectures and publications in
enlightening her population as to our objects, and the evils and dangers
impending over the whole country, from southern slavery. The act of her
late Convention, in depriving a large number of their own constituents
(the colored people) of the elective franchise, heretofore possessed by
them without any allegation of its abuse on their part, would seem to
prove an unpropitious state of public sentiment. We would neither deny,
nor elude, the force of such evidence. But when this measure of the
convention is brought out and unfolded in its true light--shown to be a
party measure to bring succor from the south--a mere following in the
wake of North Carolina and Tennessee, who led the way, in their _new_
constitutions, to this violation of the rights of their colored
citizens, that they might the more firmly compact the wrongs of the
enslaved--a pernicious, a profitless violation of great principles--a
vulgar defiance of the advancing spirit of humanity and justice--a
relapse into the by-gone darkness of a barbarous age--we apprehend from
it no serious detriment to our cause.

OHIO has been well advanced. In a short time, she will be found among
the most prominent of the states on the right side in the contest now
going on between the spirit of liberty embodied in the free institutions
of the north, and the spirit of slavery pervading the south. Her
Constitution publishes the most honorable reprobation of slavery of any
other in the Union. In providing for its own revision or amendment, it
declares, that _no alteration of it shall ever take place, so as to
introduce slavery or involuntary servitude into the state_. Her Supreme
court is intelligent and firm. It has lately decided, virtually, against
the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature, made, in effect, to
favor southern slavery by the persecution of the colored people within
her bounds. She has, already, abolitionists enough to turn the scale in
her elections, and an abundance of excellent material for augmenting
the number.

In INDIANA but little has been done, except by the diffusion of our
publications. But even with these appliances, several auxiliary
societies have been organized.[A]

[Footnote A: The first Legislative movement against the annexation of
Texas to the Union, was made, it is believed, in Indiana. So early as
December, 1836, a joint resolution passed its second reading in one or
both branches of the Legislature. How it was ultimately disposed of, is
not known.]

In MICHIGAN, the leaven of abolitionists pervades the whole population.
The cause is well sustained by a high order of talent; and we trust soon
to see the influence of it in all her public acts.

In ILLINOIS, the murder of Mr. Lovejoy has multiplied and confirmed
abolitionists, and led to the formation of many societies, which, in all
probability, would not have been formed so soon, had not that event
taken place.

I am not possessed of sufficient data for stating, with precision, what
proportion the abolitionists bear in the population of the Northern and
Middle non-slaveholding states respectively. Within the last ten months,
I have travelled extensively in both these geographical divisions. I
have had whatever advantage this, assisted by a strong interest in the
general cause, and abundant conversations with the best informed
abolitionists, could give, for making a fair estimate of their numbers.
In the Northern states I should say, _they are one in ten_--in New York,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, _one in twenty_--of the whole adult
population. That the abolitionists have multiplied, and that they are
still multiplying rapidly, no one acquainted with the smallness of their
numbers at their first organization a few years ago, and who has kept
his eyes about him since, need ask. That they have not, thus far, been
more successful, is owing to the vastness of the undertaking, and the
difficulties with which they have had to contend, from comparatively
limited means, for presenting their measures and objects, with the
proper developments and explanations, to the great mass of the popular
mind. The progress of their principles, under the same amount of
intelligence in presenting them, and where no peculiar causes of
prejudice exist in the minds of the hearers, is generally proportioned
to the degree of religious and intellectual worth prevailing in the
different sections of the country where the subject is introduced. I
know no instance, in which any one notoriously profane or intemperate,
or licentious, or of openly irreligious _practice_, has professed,
cordially to have received our principles.

"6. _What is the object your associations aim at? Does it extend to
abolition of slavery only in the District of Columbia, or in the whole
slave country_?"

ANSWER.--This question is fully answered in the second Article of the
Constitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society, which is in
these words:--

"The object of this society is the entire abolition of slavery in the
United States. While it admits that each state, in which slavery exists,
has, by the Constitution of the United States, the exclusive right to
_legislate_ in regard to its abolition in said state, it shall aim to
convince all our fellow-citizens, by arguments addressed to their
understandings and consciences, that slaveholding is a heinous crime in
the sight of God, and that the duty, safety, and best interests of all
concerned require its immediate abandonment, without expatriation. The
society will also endeavor, in a constitutional way, to influence
Congress to put an end to the domestic slave-trade, and to abolish
slavery in all those portions of our common country which come under its
control, especially in the District of Columbia; and likewise to prevent
the extension of it to any state that may hereafter be admitted to
the Union."

Other objects, accompanied by a pledge of peace, are stated in the third
article of the Constitution,--

"This Society shall aim to elevate the character and condition of the
people of color, by encouraging their intellectual, moral, and religious
improvement, and by removing public prejudice,--that thus they may,
according to their intellectual and moral worth, share an equality with
the whites of civil and religious privileges; but this Society will
never in any way, countenance the oppressed in vindicating their rights
by resorting to physical force."

"7. _By what means and by what power do you propose to carry your views
into effect_?"

ANSWER.--Our "means" are the Truth,--the "Power" under whose guidance we
propose to carry our views into effect, is, the Almighty. Confiding in
these means, when directed by the spirit and wisdom of Him, who has so
made them as to act on the hearts of men, and so constituted the hearts
of then as to be affected by them, we expect, 1. To bring the CHURCH of
this country to repentance for the sin of OPPRESSION. Not only the
Southern portion of it that has been the oppressor--but the Northern,
that has stood by, consenting, for half a century, to the wrong. 2. To
bring our countrymen to see, that for a nation to persist in injustice
is, but to rush on its own ruin; that to do justice is the highest
expediency--to love mercy its noblest ornament. In other countries,
slavery has sometimes yielded to fortuitous circumstances, or been
extinguished by physical force. _We_ strive to win for truth the victory
over error, and on the broken fragments of slavery to rear for her a
temple, that shall reach to the heavens, and toward which all nations
shall worship. It has been said, that the slaveholders of the South will
not yield, nor hearken to the influence of the truth on this subject. We
believe it not--nor give we entertainment to the slander that such an
unworthy defence of them implies. We believe them _men_,--that they have
understandings that arguments will convince--consciences to which the
appeals of justice and mercy will not be made in vain. If our principles
be true--our arguments right--if slaveholders be men--and God have not
delivered over our guilty country to the retributions of the oppressor,
not only of the STRANGER but of the NATIVE--our success is certain.

"8. _What has been for three years past, the annual income of your
societies? And how has it been raised?_"

ANSWER.--The annual income of the societies at large, it would be
impossible to ascertain. The total receipts of this society, for the
year ending 9th of May, 1835--leaving out odd numbers--was $10,000; for
the year ending 9th of May, 1837, $25,000; and for the year ending 11th
of May, 1836, $38,000. From the last date, up to this--not quite ten
months--there has been paid into the treasury the sum of $36,000.[A]
These sums are independent of what is raised by state and auxiliary
societies, for expenditure within their own particular bounds, and for
their own particular exigencies. Also, of the sums paid in subscriptions
for the support of newspapers, and for the printing (by auxiliaries,) of
periodicals, pamphlets, and essays, either for sale at low prices, or
for gratuitous distribution. The moneys contributed in these various
modes would make an aggregate greater, perhaps, than is paid into the
treasury of any one of the Benevolent societies of the country. Most of
the wealthy contributors of former years suffered so severely in the
money-pressure of this, that they have been unable to contribute much to
our funds. This has made it necessary to call for aid on the great body
of abolitionists--persons, generally, in moderate circumstances. They
have well responded to the call, considering the hardness of the times.
To show you the extremes that meet at our treasury,--General Sewall, of
Maine, a revolutionary officer, eighty-five years old--William
Philbrick, a little boy near Boston, not four years old--and a colored
woman, who makes her subsistence by selling apples in the streets in
this city, lately sent in their respective sums to assist in promoting
the emancipation of the "poor slave."

[Footnote A: The report for May states the sum received during the
previous year at $44,000.]

All contributions of whatever kind are _voluntary_.

"9. _In what way, and to what purposes do you apply these funds!_"

ANSWER.--They are used in sustaining the society's office in this
city--in paying lecturers and agents of various kinds--in upholding the
press--in printing books, pamphlets, tracts, &c, containing expositions
of our principles--accounts of our progress--refutations of
objections--and disquisitions on points, scriptural, constitutional,
political, legal, economical, as they chance to arise and become
important. In this office three secretaries are employed in different
departments of duty; one editor; one publishing agent, with an
assistant, and two or three young men and boys, for folding, directing,
and despatching papers, executing errands, &c. The business of the
society has increased so much of late, as to make it necessary, in order
to ensure the proper despatch of it, to employ additional clerks for the
particular exigency. Last year, the society had in its service about
sixty "permanent agents." This year, the number is considerably
diminished. The deficiency has been more than made up by creating a
large number of "Local" agents--so called, from the fact, that being
generally Professional men, lawyers or physicians in good practice, or
Ministers with congregations, they are confined, for the most part, to
their respective neighborhoods. Some of the best minds in our country
are thus engaged. Their labors have not only been eminently successful,
but have been rendered at but small charge to the society; they
receiving only their travelling expenses, whilst employed in lecturing
and forming societies. In the case of a minister, there is the
additional expense of supplying his pulpit while absent on the business
of his agency, However, in many instances, these agents, being in easy
circumstances, make no charge, even for their expenses.

In making appointments, the executive committee have no regard to party
discrimination. This will be fully understood, when it is stated, that
on a late occasion, two of our local agents were the candidates of their
respective political parties for the office of Secretary of State for
the state of Vermont.

It ought to be stated here, that two of the most effective advocates of
the anti-slavery cause are females--the Misses Grimké--natives of South
Carolina--brought up in the midst of the usages of slavery--most
intelligently acquainted with the merits of the system, and qualified,
in an eminent degree, to communicate their views to others in public
addresses. They are not only the advocates of the slave at their own
charge, but they actually contribute to the funds of the societies. So
successfully have they recommended the cause of emancipation to the
crowds that attended their lectures during the last year, that they were
permitted on three several occasions publicly to address the joint
committee (on slavery) of the Massachusetts Legislature, now in session,
on the interesting matters that occupy their attention.

"10. _How many printing presses and periodical publications have you?_"

ANSWER.--We own no press. Our publications are all printed by contract.
The EMANCIPATOR and HUMAN RIGHTS are the organs of the Executive
Committee. The first (which you have seen,) is a large sheet, is
published weekly, and employs almost exclusively the time of the
gentleman who edits it. Human Rights is a monthly sheet of smaller size,
and is edited by one of the secretaries. The increasing interest that is
fast manifesting itself in the cause of emancipation and its kindred
subjects will, in all probability, before long, call for the more
frequent publication of one or both of these papers.--The ANTI-SLAVERY
MAGAZINE, a quarterly, was commenced in October, 1835, and continued
through two years. It has been intermitted, only to make the necessary
arrangements for issuing it on a more extended scale.--It is proposed to
give it size enough to admit the amplest discussions that we or our
opponents may desire, and to give _them_ a full share of its room--in
fine, to make it, in form and merit, what the importance of the subject
calls for. I send you a copy of the Prospectus for the new series.--The
ANTI-SLAVERY RECORD, published for three years as a monthly, has been
discontinued _as such_, and it will be issued hereafter, only as
occasion may require:--THE SLAVE'S FRIEND, a small monthly tract, of
neat appearance, intended principally for children and young persons,
has been issued for several years. It is replete with facts relating to
slavery, and with accounts of the hair-breadth escapes of slaves from
their masters and pursuers that rarely fail to impart the most thrilling
interest to its little readers.--Besides these, there is the
ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER, in which are published, as the times call for
them, our larger essays partaking of a controversial character, such as
Smith's reply to the Rev. Mr. Smylie--Grimké's letter and "Wythe." By
turning to page 32 of our Fourth Report (included in your order for
books, &c,) you will find, that in the year ending 11th May, the issues
from the press were--bound volumes, 7,877--Tracts and Pamphlets,
47,250--Circulars, &c, 4,100--Prints, 10,490--Anti-Slavery Magazine,
9000--Slave's Friend, 131,050--Human Rights, 189,400--Emancipator,
217,000. These are the issues of the American Anti-Slavery Society, from
their office in this city. Other publications of similar character are
issued by State Societies or individuals--the LIBERATOR, in Boston;
HERALD OF FREEDOM, in Concord, N.H.; ZION'S WATCHMAN and the COLORED
AMERICAN in this city. The latter is conducted in the editorial, and
other departments, by colored citizens. You can judge of its character,
by a few numbers that I send to you. Then, there is the FRIEND of MAN,
in Utica, in this state. The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, in Philadelphia;[A] the
CHRISTIAN WITNESS, in Pittsburgh; the PHILANTHROPIST, in
Cincinnati.--All these are sustained by the friends, and devoted almost
exclusively to the cause, of emancipation. Many of the Religious
journals that do not make emancipation their main object have adopted
the sentiments of abolitionists, and aid in promoting them. The Alton
Observer, edited by the late Mr. Lovejoy, was one of these.

[Footnote A: The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, edited by Benjamin Lundy, has been
converted into the PENNSYLVANIA FREEMAN, edited by John G. Whittier. Mr.
Lundy proposes to issue the GENIUS OF UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION, in
Illinois.]

From the data I have, I set down the newspapers, as classed above, at
upwards of one hundred. Here it may also be stated, that the presses
which print the abolition journals above named, throw off besides, a
great variety of other anti-slavery matter, in the form of books,
pamphlets, single sheets, &c, &c, and that, at many of the principal
commercial points throughout the free states, DEPOSITORIES are
established, at which our publications of every sort are kept for sale.
A large and fast increasing number of the Political journals of the
country have become, within the last two years, if not the avowed
supporters of our cause, well inclined to it. Formerly, it was a common
thing for most of the leading _party_-papers, especially in the large
cities, to speak of the abolitionists in terms signally disrespectful
and offensive. Except in rare instances, and these, it is thought, only
where they are largely subsidized by southern patronage, it is not so
now. The desertions that are taking place from their ranks will, in a
short time, render their position undesirable for any, who aspire to
gain, or influence, or reputation in the North.

"11. _To what class of persons do you address your publications--and are
they addressed to the judgment, the imagination, or the feelings_?"

ANSWER.--They are intended for the great mass of intelligent mind, both
in the free and in the slave states. They partake, of course, of the
intellectual peculiarities of the different authors. Jay's "INQUIRY" and
Mrs. Child's "APPEAL" abound in facts--are dispassionate, ingenious,
argumentative. The "BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY," by the most careful and
laborious research, has struck from slavery the prop, which careless
Annotators, (writing, unconscious of the influence, the prevailing
system of slavery throughout the Christian world exercised on their own
minds,) have admitted was furnished for it in the Scriptures. "Wythe" by
a pains-taking and lucid adjustment of facts in the history of the
Government, both before and after the adoption of the Constitution, and
with a rigor of logic, that cannot, it is thought, be successfully
encountered, has put to flight forever with unbiased minds, every doubt
as to the "Power of Congress over the District of Columbia."

There are among the abolitionists, Poets, and by the acknowledgment of
their opponents, poets of no mean name too--who, as the use of poets is,
do address themselves often--as John G. Whittier does _always_
--powerfully to the imagination and feelings of their readers.

Our publications cannot be classed according to any particular style or
quality of composition. They may characterized generally, as well suited
to affect the public mind--to rouse into healthful activity the
conscience of this nation, stupified, torpid, almost dead, in relation
to HUMAN RIGHTS, the high theme of which they treat!

It has often been alleged, that our writings appeal to the worst
passions of the slaves, and that they are placed in their hands with a
view to stir them to revolt. Neither charge has any foundation in truth
to rest upon. The first finds no support in the tenor of the writings
themselves; the last ought forever to be abandoned, in the absence of
any single well authenticated instance of their having been conveyed by
abolitionists to slaves, or of their having been even found in their
possession. To instigate the slaves to revolt, as the means of obtaining
their liberty, would prove a lack of wisdom and honesty that none would
impute to abolitionists, except such as are unacquainted with their
character. Revolt would be followed by the sure destruction, not only of
all the slaves who might be concerned in it, but of multitudes of the
innocent. Moreover, the abolitionists, as a class, are religious--they
favor peace, and stand pledged in their constitution, before the country
and heaven, to abide in peace, so far as a forcible vindication of the
right of the slaves to their freedom is concerned. Further still, no
small number of them deny the right of defence, either to individuals or
nations, even when forcibly and wrongfully attacked. This disagreement
among ourselves on this single point--of which our adversaries are by no
means ignorant, as they often throw it reproachfully in our teeth--would
forever prevent concert in any scheme that looked to instigating servile
revolt. If there be, in all our ranks, one, who--personal danger out of
the question--would excite the slaves to insurrection and massacre, or
who would not be swift to repeat the earliest attempt to concoct such an
iniquity--I say, on my obligations as a man, he is unknown to me.

Yet it ought not to be matter of surprise to abolitionists, that the
South should consider them "fanatics," "incendiaries," "cut-throats,"
and call them so too. The South has had their character reported to them
by the North, by those who are their neighbors, who, it was supposed,
knew, and would speak the truth, and the truth only, concerning them. It
would, I apprehend, be unavailing for abolitionists now to enter on any
formal vindication of their character from charges that can be so easily
repeated after every refutation. False and fraudulent as they knew them
to be, they must be content to live under them till the consummation of
the work of Freedom shall prove to the master that they have been _his_
friends, as well as the friends of the slave. The mischief of these
charges has fallen on the South--the malice is to be placed to the
credit of the North.

"12. _Do you propagate your doctrines by any other means than oral and
written discussions--for instance, by prints and pictures in
manufactures--say of pocket-handkerchiefs, calicoes, &c? Pray, state the
various modes?_"

ANSWER.--Two or three years ago, an abolitionist of this city procured
to be manufactured, at his own charge, a small lot of children's
pocket-handkerchiefs, impressed with anti-slavery pictures and mottoes.
I have no recollection of having seen any of them but once. None such, I
believe, are now to be found, or I would send you a sample. If any
manufactures of the kinds mentioned, or others similar to theta, are in
existence, they have been produced independently of the agency of this
society. It is thought that none such exist, unless the following should
be supposed to fall within the terms of the inquiry. Female
abolitionists often unite in sewing societies. They meet together,
usually once a week or fortnight, and labor through the afternoon, with
their own hands, to furnish means for advancing the cause of the slave.
One of the company reads passages from the Bible, or some religious
book, whilst the others are engaged at their work. The articles they
prepare, especially if they be of the "fancy" kind, are often ornamented
with handsomely executed emblems, underwritten with appropriate mottoes.
The picture of a slave kneeling (such as you will see impressed on one
of the sheets of this letter) and supplicating in the words, "AM I NOT A
MAN AND A BROTHER," is an example. The mottoes or sentences are,
however, most generally selected from the Scriptures; either appealing
to human sympathy in behalf of human suffering, or breathing forth God's
tender compassion for the oppressed, or proclaiming, in thunder tones,
his avenging justice on the oppressor. A few quotations will show their
general character:--

"Blessed is he that considereth the poor."

"Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Deliver the poor and the needy; rid him out of the hand of the wicked."

"Open thy mouth for the dumb, plead the cause of the poor and needy."

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."

"First, be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift."

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so
to them."

Again:--

"For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him
that hath no helper."

"The Lord looseth the prisoners; the Lord raiseth them that are bowed
down; the Lord preserveth the strangers."

"He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to
the captives, to set at liberty them that are bruised."'

"For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will
I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that
puffeth at him."

Again:--

"The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are
oppressed."

"Rob not the poor because he is poor, neither oppress the afflicted in
the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of
those that spoiled them."

"And I will come near to you to judgment, and I will be a swift witness
against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the
fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear
not me, saith the Lord of hosts."

"Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his
chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and
giveth him not for his work."

Fairs, for the sale of articles fabricated by the hands of female
abolitionists, and recommended by such pictures and sentences as those
quoted above, are held in many of our cities and large towns. Crowds
frequent them to purchase; hundreds of dollars are thus realized, to be
appropriated to the anti-slavery cause; and, from the cheap rate at
which the articles are sold, vast numbers of them are scattered far and
wide over the country. Besides these, if we except various drawings or
pictures on _paper_, (samples of which were put up in the packages you
ordered a few days ago,) such as the Slave-market in the District of
Columbia, with Members of congress attending it--views of slavery in the
South--a Lynch court in the slave-states--the scourging of Mr. Dresser
by a vigilance committee in the public square of Nashville--the
plundering of the post-office in Charleston, S.C., and the conflagration
of part of its contents, &c, &c, I am apprised of no other means of
propagating our doctrines than by oral and written discussions.

"13. _Are your hopes and expectations of success increased or lessened
by the events of the last year, and especially by the action of this
Congress? And will your exertions be relaxed or increased?_"

ANSWER.--The events of the last year, including the action of the
present Congress, are of the same character with the events of the
eighteen months which immediately preceded it. In the question before
us, they may be regarded as one series. I would say, answering your
interrogatory generally, that none of them, however unpropitious to the
cause of the abolitionists they may appear, to those who look at the
subject from an opposite point to the one _they_ occupy, seem, thus far,
in any degree to have lessened their hopes and expectations. The events
alluded to have not come altogether unexpected. They are regarded as the
legitimate manifestations of slavery--necessary, perhaps, in the present
dull and unapprehensive state of the public mind as to human rights, to
be brought out and spread before the people, before they will
sufficiently revolt against slavery itself.

1. They are seen in the CHURCH, and in the practice of its individual
members. The southern portion of the American church may now be regarded
as having admitted the dogma, that _slavery is a Divine institution_.
She has been forced by the anti-slavery discussion into this
position--either to cease from slaveholding, or formally to adopt the
only alternative, that slaveholding is right. She has chosen the
alternative--reluctantly, to be sure, but substantially, and, within the
last year, almost unequivocally. In defending what was dear to her, she
has been forced to cast away her garments, and thus to reveal a
deformity, of which she herself, before, was scarcely aware, and the
existence of which others did not credit. So much for the action of the
southern church as a body.--On the part of her MEMBERS, the revelation
of a time-serving spirit, that not only yielded to the ferocity of the
multitude, but fell in with it, may be reckoned among the events of the
last three years. Instances of this may be found in the attendance of
the "clergy of all denominations," at a tumultuous meeting of the
citizens of Charleston, S.C., held in August, 1835, for the purpose of
reducing to _system_ their unlawful surveillance and control of the
post-office and mail; and in the alacrity with which they obeyed the
popular call to dissolve the Sunday-schools for the instruction of the
colored people. Also in the fact, that, throughout the whole South,
church members are not only found on the Vigilance Committees,
(tribunals organized in opposition to the laws of the states where they
exist,) but uniting with the merciless and the profligate in passing
sentence consigning to infamous and excruciating, if not extreme
punishment, persons, by their own acknowledgment, innocent of any
unlawful act. Out of sixty persons that composed the vigilance committee
which condemned Mr. Dresser to be scourged in the public square of
Nashville, TWENTY-SEVEN were members of churches, and one of them a
professed Teachers of Christianity. A member of the committee stated
afterward, in a newspaper of which he was the editor, that Mr. D. _had
not laid himself liable to any punishment known to the laws_. Another
instance is to be found in the conduct of the Rev. Wm. S. Plumer, of
Virginia. Having been absent from Richmond, when the ministers of the
gospel assembled together formally to testify their abhorrence of the
abolitionists, he addressed the chairman of the committee of
correspondence a note, in which he uses this language:--"If
abolitionists will set the country in a blaze, it is but fair that they
should have the first warming at the fire."--"Let them understand, that
they will be caught, if they come among us, and they will take good heed
to keep out of our way." Mr. P. has no doubtful standing in the
Presbyterian church with which he is connected. He has been regarded as
one of its brightest ornaments.[A] To drive the slaveholding church and
its members from the equivocal, the neutral position, from which they
had so long successfully defended slavery--to compel them to elevate
their practice to an even height with their avowed principles, or to
degrade their principles to the level of their known practice, was a
preliminary, necessary in the view of abolitionists, either for bringing
that part of the church into the common action against slavery, or as a
ground for treating it as confederate with oppressors. So far, then, as
the action of the church, or of its individual members, is to be
reckoned among the events of the last two or three years, the
abolitionists find in it nothing to lessen their hopes or expectations.

[Footnote A: In the division of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
church, that has just taken place, Mr. Plumer has been elected Moderator
of the "Old School" portion.]

2. The abolitionists believed, from the beginning, that the slaves of
the South were (as slaves are everywhere) unhappy, _because of their
condition_. Their adversaries denied it, averring that, as a class, they
were "contented and happy." The abolitionists thought that the argument
against slavery could be made good, so far as this point was concerned,
by either _admitting_ or _denying_ the assertion.

_Admitting_ it, they insisted, that, nothing could demonstrate the
turpitude of any system more surely than the fact, that MAN--made in the
image of God--but a little lower than the angels--crowned with glory and
honor, and set over the works of God's hands--his mind sweeping in an
instant from planet to planet, from the sun of one system to the sun of
another, even to the great centre sun of them all--contemplating the
machinery of the universe "wheeling unshaken" in the awful and
mysterious grandeur of its movements "through the void immense"--with a
spirit delighting in upward aspiration--bounding from earth to
heaven--that seats itself fast by the throne of God, to drink in the
instructions of Infinite Wisdom, or flies to execute the commands of
Infinite Goodness;--that such a being could be made "contented and
happy" with "enough to eat, and drink, and wear," and shelter from the
weather--with the base provision that satisfies the brutes, is (say the
abolitionists) enough to render superfluous all other arguments for the
_instant_ abandonment of a system whose appropriate work is such
infinite wrong.

_Denying_ that "the slaves are contented and happy," the abolitionists
have argued, that, from the structure of his moral nature--the laws of
his mind--man cannot be happy in the fact, that he is _enslaved_. True,
he may be happy in slavery, but it is not slavery that makes him so--it
is virtue and faith, elevating him above the afflictions of his lot. The
slave has a will, leading him to seek those things which the Author of
his nature has made conducive to its happiness. In these things, the
will of the master comes in collision with his will. The slave desires
to receive the rewards of his own labor; the power of the master wrests
them from him. The slave desires to possess his wife, to whom God has
joined him, in affection, to have the superintendence, and enjoy the
services, of the children whom God has confided to him as a parent to
train them, by the habits of the filial relation, for the yet higher
relation that they may sustain to him as their heavenly Father. But here
he is met by the opposing will of the master, pressing _his_ claims with
irresistible power. The ties that heaven has sanctioned and blessed--of
husband and wife, of parent and child--are all sundered in a moment by
the master, at the prompting of avarice or luxury or lust; and there is
none that can stay his ruthless hand, or say unto him, "What doest
thou?" The slave thirsts for the pleasures of refined and elevated
intellect--the master denies to him the humblest literary acquisition.
The slave pants to know something of that still higher nature that he
feels burning within him--of his present state, his future destiny, of
the Being who made him, to whose judgment-seat he is going. The master's
interests cry, "No!" "Such knowledge is too wonderful for you; it is
high, you cannot attain unto it." To predicate _happiness_ of a class of
beings, placed in circumstances where their will is everlastingly
defeated by an irresistible power--the abolitionists say, is to prove
them destitute of the sympathies of _our_ nature--not _human_. It is to
declare with the Atheist, that man is independent of the goodness of his
Creator for his enjoyments--that human happiness calls not for any of
the appliances of his bounty--that God's throne is a nullity, himself a
superfluity.

But, independently of any abstract reasoning drawn from the nature of
moral and intelligent beings, FACTS have been elicited in the discussion
of the point before us, proving slavery everywhere (especially Southern
slavery, maintained by enlightened Protestants of the nineteenth
century) replete with torments and horrors--the direst form of
oppression that upheaves itself before the sun. These facts have been so
successfully impressed on a large portion of the intelligent mind of the
country, that the slaves of the South are beginning to be considered as
those whom God emphatically regards as the "poor," the "needy," the
"afflicted," the "oppressed," the "bowed down;" and for whose
consolation he has said, "Now will I arise--I will set him in safety
from him that puffeth at him."

This state of the public mind has been brought about within the last two
or three years; and it is an event which, so far from lessening, greatly
animates, the hopes and expectations of abolitionists.

3. The abolitionists believed from the first, that the tendency of
slavery is to produce, on the part of the whites, looseness of morals,
disdain of the wholesome restraints of law, and a ferocity of temper,
found, only in solitary instances, in those countries where slavery is
unknown. They were not ignorant of the fact, that this was disputed; nor
that the "CHIVALRY OF THE SOUTH" had become a cant phrase, including,
all that is high-minded and honorable among men; nor, that it had been
formally asserted in our National legislature, that slavery, as it
exists in the South, "produces the highest toned, the purest, best
organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth."
Nor were the abolitionists unaware, that these pretensions, proving
anything else but their own solidity, had been echoed and re-echoed so
long by the unthinking and the interested of the North, that the
character of the South had been injuriously affected by them--till she
began boldly to attribute her _peculiar_ superiority to her _peculiar_
institution, and thus to strengthen it. All this the abolitionists saw
and knew. But few others saw and understood it as they did. The
revelations of the last three years are fast dissipating the old notion,
and bringing multitudes in the North to see the subject as the
abolitionists see it. When "Southern Chivalry" and the _purity_ of
southern society are spoken of now, it is at once replied, that a large
number of the slaves show, by their _color_, their indisputable claim to
white paternity; and that, notwithstanding their near consanguineous
relation to the whites, they are still held and treated, in all
respects, _as slaves_. Nor is it forgotten now, when the claims of the
South to "hospitality" are pressed, to object, because they are grounded
on the unpaid wages of the laborer--on the robbery of the poor. When
"Southern generosity" is mentioned, the old adage, "be just before you
are generous," furnishes the reply. It is no proof of generosity (say
the objectors) to take the bread of the laborer, to lavish it in
banquetings on the rich. When "Southern Chivalry" is the theme of its
admirers, the hard-handed, but intelligent, working man of the North
asks, if the espionage of southern hotels, and of ships and steamboats
on their arrival at southern ports; if the prowl, by day and by night,
for the solitary stranger suspected of sympathizing with the enslaved,
that he may be delivered over to the mercies of a vigilance committee,
furnishes the proof of its existence; if the unlawful importation of
slaves from Africa[A] furnishes the proof; if the abuse, the scourging,
the hanging on suspicion, without law, of friendless strangers, furnish
the proof; if the summary execution of slaves and of colored freemen,
almost by the score, without legal trial, furnishes the proof; if the
cruelties and tortures to which _citizens_ have been exposed, and the
burning to death of slaves by slow fires,[B] furnish the proof. All
these things, says he, furnish any thing but proof of _true_
hospitality, or generosity, or gallantry, or purity, or chivalry.

[Footnote A: Mr. Mercer, of Virginia, some years ago, asserted in
Congress, that "CARGOES" of African slaves were smuggled into the
southern states to a deplorable extent. Mr. Middleton, of South
Carolina, declared it to be his belief, that THIRTEEN THOUSAND Africans
were annually smuggled into the southern states. Mr. Wright, of
Maryland, estimated the number at FIFTEEN THOUSAND. Miss Martineau was
told in 1835, by a wealthy slaveholder of Louisiana, (who probably spoke
of that state alone,) that the annual importation of native Africans was
from THIRTEEN THOUSAND to FIFTEEN THOUSAND. The President of the United
States, in his last Annual Message, speaking of the Navy, says, "The
large force under Commodore Dallas [on the West India station] has been
most actively and efficiently employed in protecting our commerce, IN
PREVENTING THE IMPORTATION OF SLAVES, &c."]

[Footnote B: Within the last few years, four slaves, and one citizen of
color, have been put to death in this manner, in Alabama, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Arkansas.]

Certain it is, that the time when southern slavery derived countenance
at the North, from its supposed connection with "chivalry," is rapidly
passing away. "Southern Chivalry" will soon be regarded as one of the
by-gone fooleries of a less intelligent and less virtuous age. It will
soon be cast out--giving place to the more reasonable idea, that the
denial of wages to the laborer, the selling of men and women, the
whipping of husbands and wives in each others presence, to compel them
to unrequited toil, the deliberate attempt to extinguish mind, and,
consequently, to destroy the soul--is among the highest offences against
God and man--unspeakably mean and ungentlemanly.

The impression made on the minds of the people as to this matter, is one
of the events of the last two or three years that does not contribute to
lessen the hopes or expectations of abolitionists.

4. The ascendency that Slavery has acquired, and exercises, in the
administration of the government, and the apprehension now prevailing
among the sober and intelligent, irrespective of party, that it will
soon overmaster the Constitution itself, may be ranked among the events
of the last two or three years that affect the course of abolitionists.
The abolitionists regard the Constitution with unabated affection. They
hold in no common veneration the memory of those who made it. They would
be the last to brand Franklin and King and Morris and Wilson and Sherman
and Hamilton with the ineffaceable infamy of attempting to ingraft on
the Constitution, and therefore to _perpetuate_, a system of oppression
in absolute antagonism to its high and professed objects, one which
their own practice condemned,--and this, too, when they had scarcely
wiped away the dust and sweat of the Revolution from their brows! Whilst
abolitionists feel and speak thus of our Constitutional fathers, they do
not justify the dereliction of principle into which they were betrayed,
when they imparted to the work of their hands _any_ power to contribute
to the continuance of such a system. They can only palliate it, by
supposing, that they thought, slavery was already a waning institution,
destined soon to pass away. In their time, (1787) slaves were
comparatively of little value--there being then no great slave-labor
staple (as cotton is now) to make them profitable to their holders.[A]
Had the circumstances of the country remained as they then were,
slave-labor, always and every where the most expensive--would have
disappeared before the competition of free labour. They had seen, too,
the principle of universal liberty, on which the Revolution was
justified, recognised and embodied in most of the State Constitutions;
they had seen slavery utterly forbidden in that of Vermont
--instantaneously abolished in that of Massachusetts--and laws
enacted in the New-England States and in Pennsylvania, for its gradual
abolition. Well might they have anticipated, that Justice and Humanity,
now starting forth with fresh vigor, would, in their march, sweep away
the whole system; more especially, as freedom of speech and of the
press--the legitimate abolisher not only of the acknowledged vice of
slavery, but of every other that time should reveal in our institutions
or practices--had been fully secured to the people. Again; power was
conferred on Congress to put a stop to the African slave-trade, without
which it was thought, at that time, to be impossible to maintain
slavery, as a system, on this continent,--so great was the havoc it
committed on human life. Authority was also granted to Congress to
prevent the transfer of slaves, as articles of commerce, from one State
to another; and the introduction of slavery into the territories. All
this was crowned by the power of refusing admission into the Union, to
any new state, whose form of government was repugnant to the principles
of liberty set forth in that of the United States. The faithful
execution, by Congress, of these powers, it was reasonably enough
supposed, would, at least, prevent the growth of slavery, if it did not
entirely remove it. Congress did, at the set time, execute _one_ of
them--deemed, then, the most effectual of the whole; but, as it has
turned out, the least so.

[Footnote A: The cultivation of cotton was almost unknown in the United
States before 1787. It was not till two years afterward that it began to
be raised or exported. (See Report of the Secretary of the Treasury,
Feb. 29, 1836.)--See Appendix, D.]

The effect of the interdiction of the African slave-trade was, not to
diminish the trade itself, or greatly to mitigate its horrors; it only
changed its name from African to American--transferred the seat of
commerce from Africa to America--its profits from African princes to
American farmers. Indeed, it is almost certain, if the African
slave-trade had been left unrestrained, that slavery would not have
covered so large a portion of our country as it does now. The cheap rate
at which slaves might have been imported by the planters of the south,
would have prevented the rearing of them for sale, by the farmers of
Maryland, Virginia, and the other slave-selling states. If these states
could be restrained from the _commerce_ in slaves, slavery could not be
supported by them for any length of time, or to any considerable extent.
They could not maintain it, as an economical system, under the
competition of free labor. It is owing to the _non-user_ by Congress, or
rather to their unfaithful application of their power to the other
points, on which it was expected to act for the limitation or
extermination of slavery, that the hopes of our fathers have not been
realized; and that slavery has, at length, become so audacious, as
openly to challenge the principles of 1776--to trample on the most
precious rights secured to the citizen--to menace the integrity of the
Union and the very existence of the government itself.

Slavery has advanced to its present position by steps that were, at
first, gradual, and, for a long time, almost unnoticed; afterward, it
made its way by intimidating or corrupting those who ought to have been
forward to resist its pretensions. Up to the time of the "Missouri
Compromise," by which the nation was wheedled out of its honor, slavery
was looked on as an evil that was finally to yield to the expanding and
ripening influences of our Constitutional principles and regulations.
Why it has not yielded, we may easily see, by even a slight glance at
some of the incidents in our history.

It has already been said, that we have been brought into our present
condition by the unfaithfulness of Congress, in not _exerting_ the power
vested in it, to stop the domestic slave-trade, and in the _abuse_ of
the power of admitting "_new_ states" into the Union. Kentucky made
application in 1792, with a slave-holding Constitution in her
hand.--With what a mere _technicality_ Congress suffered itself to be
drugged into torpor:--_She was part of one of the "Original States"--and
therefore entitled to all their privileges._

One precedent established, it was easy to make another. Tennessee was
admitted in 1796, without scruple, on the same ground.

The next triumph of slavery was in 1803, in the purchase of Louisiana,
acknowledged afterward, even by Mr. Jefferson who made it, to be
unauthorized by the Constitution--and in the establishment of slavery
throughout its vast limits, actually and substantially under the
auspices of that instrument which declares its only objects to be--"to
form a more perfect union, establish JUSTICE, insure DOMESTIC
TRANQUILITY, provide for the common defence, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our
posterity."[A]

[Footnote A: It may be replied, The colored people were held as
_property_ by the laws of Louisiana previously to the cession, and that
Congress had no right to divest the newly acquired citizens of their
property. This statement is evasive. It does not include, nor touch the
question, which is this:--Had Congress, or the treaty-making power, a
right to recognise, and, by recognising, to establish, in a territory
that had no claim of privilege, on the ground of being part of one of
the "Original States," a condition of things that it could not establish
_directly_, because there was no grant in the constitution of power,
direct or incidental, to do so--and because, _to do so_, was in
downright oppugnancy to the principles of the Constitution itself? The
question may be easily answered by stating the following case:--Suppose
a law had existed in Louisiana, previous to the cession, by which the
children--male and female--of all such parents as were not owners of
real estate of the yearly value of $500, had been--no matter how
long--held in slavery by their more wealthy land-holding
neighbors:--would Congress, under the Constitution, have a right (by
recognising) to establish, for ever, such a relation as one white
person, under such a law, might hold to another? Surely not. And yet no
substantial difference between the two cases can be pointed out.]

In this case, the violation of the Constitution was suffered to pass
with but little opposition, except from Massachusetts, because we were
content to receive in exchange, multiplied commercial benefits and
enlarged territorial limits.

The next stride that slavery made over the Constitution was in the
admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union. _She_ could claim no
favor as part of an "Original State." At this point, it might have been
supposed, the friends of Freedom and of the Constitution according to
its original intent, would have made a stand. But no: with the exception
of Massachusetts, they hesitated and were persuaded to acquiesce,
because the country was just about entering into a war with England, and
the crisis was unpropitious for discussing questions that would create
divisions between different sections of the Union. We must wait till the
country was at peace. Thus it was that Louisiana was admitted without a
controversy.

Next followed, in 1817 and 1820, Mississippi and Alabama--admitted after
the example of Kentucky and Tennessee, without any contest.

Meantime, Florida had given some uneasiness to the slaveholders of the
neighboring states; and for their accommodation chiefly, a negociation
was set on foot by the government to purchase it.

Missouri was next in order in 1821. She could plead no privilege, on the
score of being part of one of the original states; the country too, was
relieved from the pressure of her late conflict with England; it was
prosperous and quiet; every thing seemed propitious to a calm and
dispassionate consideration of the claims of slaveholders to add props
to their system, by admitting indefinitely, new slave states to the
Union. Up to this time, the "EVIL" of slavery had been almost
universally acknowledged and deplored by the South, and its termination
(apparently) sincerely hoped for.[A] By this management its friends
succeeded in blinding the confiding people of the North. They thought
for the most part, that the slaveholders were acting in good faith. It
is not intended by this remark, to make the impression, that the South
had all along pressed the admission of new slave states, simply with a
view to the increase of its own relative power. By no means: slavery had
insinuated itself into favor because of its being mixed up with (other)
supposed benefits--and because its ultimate influence on the government
was neither suspected nor dreaded. But, on the Missouri question, there
was a fair trial of strength between the friends of Slavery and the
friends of the Constitution. The former triumphed, and by the prime
agency of one whose raiment, the remainder of his days, ought to be
sackcloth and ashes,--because of the disgrace he has continued on the
name of his country, and the consequent injury that he has inflicted on
the cause of Freedom throughout the world. Although all the different
Administrations, from the first organization of the government, had, in
the indirect manner already mentioned, favored slavery,--there had not
been on any previous occasion, a direct struggle between its pretensions
and the principles of liberty ingrafted on the Constitution. The friends
of the latter were induced to believe, whenever they should be arrayed
against each other, that _theirs_ would be the triumph. Tremendous
error! Mistake almost fatal! The battle was fought. Slavery emerged from
it unhurt--her hands made gory--her bloody plume still floating in the
air--exultingly brandishing her dripping sword over her prostrate and
vanquished enemy. She had won all for which she fought. Her victory was
complete--THE SANCTION OF THE NATION WAS GIVEN TO SLAVERY![B]

[Footnote A: Mr. Clay, in conducting the Missouri compromise, found it
necessary to argue, that the admission of Missouri, as a slaveholding
state, would aid in bringing about the termination of slavery. His
argument is thus stated by Mr. Sergeant, who replied to him:--"In this
long view of remote and distant consequences, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Clay) thinks he sees how slavery, when thus spread, is at
last to find its end. It is to be brought about by the combined
operation of the laws which regulate the price of labor, and the laws
which govern population. When the country shall be filled with
inhabitants, and the price of labor shall have reached a minimum, (a
comparative minimum I suppose is meant,) free labor will be found
cheaper than slave labor. Slaves will then be without employment, and,
of course, without the means of comfortable subsistence, which will
reduce their numbers, and finally extirpate them. This is the argument
as I understand it," says Mr. Sergeant; and, certainly, one more
chimerical or more inhuman could not have been urged.]

[Footnote B: See Appendix, E.]

Immediately after this achievement, the slaveholding interest was still
more strongly fortified by the acquisition of Florida, and the
establishment of slavery there, as it had already been in the territory
of Louisiana. The Missouri triumph, however, seems to have extinguished
every thing like a systematic or spirited opposition, on the part of the
free states, to the pretensions of the slaveholding South.

Arkansas was admitted but the other day, with nothing that deserves to
be called an effort to prevent it--although her Constitution attempts to
_perpetuate_ slavery, by forbidding the master to emancipate his bondmen
without the consent of the Legislature, and the Legislature without the
consent of the master. Emboldened, but not satisfied, with their success
in every political contest with the people of the free states, the
slaveholders are beginning now to throw off their disguise--to brand
their former notions about the "_evil_, political and moral" of slavery,
as "folly and delusion,"[A]--and as if to "make assurance double sure,"
and defend themselves forever, by territorial power, against the
progress of Free principles and the renovation of the Constitution, they
now demand openly--scorning to conceal that their object is, to _advance
and establish their political power in the country_,--that Texas, a
foreign state, five or six times as large as all New England, with a
Constitution dyed as deep in slavery, as that of Arkansas, shall be
added to the Union.

[Footnote A: Mr. Calhoun is reported, in the National Intelligencer, as
having used these words in a speech delivered in the Senate, the 10th
day of January:--

"Many in the South once believed that it [slavery] was a moral and
political evil; that folly and delusion are gone. We see it now in its
true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free
institutions in the world."

Mr. Hammond, formerly a Representative in Congress from South Carolina,
delivered a speech (Feb. 1, 1836) on the question of receiving petitions
for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In answering
those who objected to a slaveholding country, that it was "assimilated
to an aristocracy," he says--"In this they are right. I accept the
terms. _It is a government of the best._ Combining all the advantages,
and possessing but few of the disadvantages, of the aristocracy of the
old world--without fostering, to an unwarrantable extent, the pride, the
exclusiveness, the selfishness, the thirst for sway, the contempt for
the rights of others, which distinguish the nobility of Europe--it gives
us their education, their polish, their munificence, their high honor,
their undaunted spirit. Slavery does indeed create an aristocracy--an
aristocracy of talents, of virtue, of generosity, of courage. In a slave
country, every freeman is an aristocrat. Be he rich or poor, if he does
not possess a single slave, he has been born to all the natural
advantages of the society in which he is placed; and all its honors lie
open before him, inviting his genius and industry. Sir, I do firmly
believe, that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the
highest toned, the purest, best organization of society, that has ever
existed on the face of the earth."

That this _retraxit_ of former _follies and delusions_ is not confined
to the mere politician, we have the following proofs:--

The CHARLESTON (S.C.) UNION PRESBYTERY--"Resolved. That in the opinion
of this Presbytery, the holding of slaves, so far from being a sin in
the sight of God, is nowhere condemned in his holy word; that it is in
accordance with the example, or consistent with the precepts, of
patriarchs, prophets, and apostles; and that it is compatible with the
most fraternal regard to the good of the servants whom God has committed
to our charge."--Within the last few months, as we learn from a late No.
of the Charleston Courier, the late Synod of the Presbyterian Church, in
Augusta, (Ga.) passed resolutions declaring "That slavery is a CIVIL
INSTITUTION, with which the General Assembly [the highest ecclesiastical
tribunal] has NOTHING TO DO."

Again:--The CHARLESTON BAPTIST ASSOCIATION, in a memorial to the
Legislature of South Carolina, say--"The undersigned would further
represent, that the said Association does not consider that the Holy
Scriptures have made the FACT of slavery a question of morals at all."
And further,--"The right of masters to dispose of the time of their
slaves, has been distinctly recognised by the Creator of all things."

Again:--The EDGEFIELD (S.C.) ASSOCIATION--"Resolved, That the practical
question of slavery, in a country where the system has obtained as a
part of its stated policy, is settled in the Scriptures by Jesus Christ
and his apostles." "Resolved, That these uniformly recognised the
relation of master and slave, and enjoined on both their respective
duties, under a system of servitude more degrading and absolute than
that which obtains in our country."

Again we find, in a late No. of the Charleston Courier, the following:--

"THE SOUTHERN CHURCH.--The Georgia Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, at a recent meeting in Athens, passed resolutions, declaring
that slavery, as it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil,
and is a civil and domestic institution, with which Christian ministers
have nothing to do, further than to meliorate the condition of the
slave, by endeavoring to impart to him and his master the benign
influence of the religion of Christ, and aiding both on their way
to heaven."]

The abolitionists feel a deep regard for the integrity and union of the
government, _on the principles of the Constitution_. Therefore it is,
that they look with earnest concern on the attempt now making by the
South, to do, what, in the view of multitudes of our citizens, would
amount to good cause for the separation of the free from the slave
states. Their concern is not mingled with any feelings of despair. The
alarm they sounded on the "annexation" question has penetrated the free
states; it will, in all probability, be favorably responded to by every
one of them; thus giving encouragement to our faith, that the admission
of Texas will be successfully resisted,--that this additional stain will
not be impressed on our national escutcheon, nor this additional peril
brought upon the South.[A]

[Footnote A: See Appendix, F.]

This, the present condition of the country, induced by a long train of
usurpations on the part of the South, and by unworthy concessions to it
by the North, may justly be regarded as one of the events of the last
few years affecting in some way, the measures of the abolitionists. It
has certainly done so. And whilst it is not to be denied, that many
abolitionists feel painful apprehensions for the result, it has only
roused them up to make more strenuous efforts for the preservation of
the country.

It may be replied--if the abolitionists are such firm friends of the
Union, why do they persist in what must end in its rupture and
dissolution? The abolitionists, let it be repeated _are_ friends of
_the_ Union that was intended by the Constitution; but not of a Union
from which is eviscerated, to be trodden under foot, the right to
SPEAK,--to PRINT--to PETITION,--the rights of CONSCIENCE; not of a Union
whose ligaments are whips, where the interest of the oppressor is the
_great_ interest, the right to oppress the _paramount_ right. It is
against the distortion of the glorious Union our fathers left us into
one bound with despotic bands that the abolitionists are contending. In
the political aspect of the question, they have nothing to ask, except
what the Constitution authorizes--no change to desire, but that the
Constitution may be restored to its pristine republican purity.

But they have well considered the "dissolution of the Union." There is
no just ground for apprehending that such a measure will ever be
resorted to by the _South_. It is by no means intended by this, to
affirm, that the South, like a spoiled child, for the first time denied
some favourite object, may not fall into sudden frenzy and do herself
some great harm. But knowing as I do, the intelligence and forecast of
the leading men of the South--and believing that they will, if ever such
a crisis should come, be judiciously influenced by the _existing_ state
of the case, and by the _consequences_ that would inevitably flow from
an act of dissolution--they would not, I am sure, deem it desirable or
politic. They would be brought, in their calmer moments, to coincide
with one who has facetiously, but not the less truly remarked, that it
would be as indiscreet in the slave South to separate from the free
North, as for the poor, to separate from the parish that supported them.
In support of this opinion, I would say:

First--A dissolution of the Union by the South would, in no manner,
secure to her the object she has in view.--The _leaders_ at the South,
both in the church and in the state, must, by this time, be too well
informed as to the nature of the anti-slavery movement, and the
character of those engaged in it, to entertain fears that, violence of
any kind will be resorted to, directly or indirectly.[A] The whole
complaint of the South is neither more nor less than this--THE NORTH
TALKS ABOUT SLAVERY. Now, of all the means or appliances that could be
devised, to give greater life and publicity to the discussion of
slavery, none could be half so effectual as the dissolution of the Union
_because of the discussion_. It would astonish the civilized world--they
would inquire into the cause of such a remarkable event in its
history;--the result would be not only enlarged _discussion_ of the
whole subject, but it would bring such a measure of contempt on the
guilty movers of the deed, that even with all the advantages of "their
education, their polish, their munificence, their high honor, their
undaunted spirit," so eloquently set forth by the Hon. Mr. Hammond, they
would find it hard to withstand its influence. It is difficult for men
in a _good_ cause, to maintain their steadfastness in opposition to an
extensively corrupt public sentiment; in a _bad_ one, against public
sentiment purified and enlightened, next to impossible, if not quite so.

[Footnote A: "It is not," says Mr. Calhoun, "that we expect the
abolitionists will resort to arms--will commence a crusade to deliver
our slaves by force."--"Let me tell our friends of the South, who differ
from us, that the war which the abolitionists wage against us is of a
very different character, and _far more effective_. It is waged, not
against our lives, but our character." More correctly, Mr. C. might have
said against a _system_, with which the slaveholders have chosen to
involve their characters, and which they have determined to defend, at
the hazard of losing them.]

Another result would follow the dissolution:--_Now_, the abolitionists
find it difficult, by reason of the odium which the principal
slaveholders and their friends have succeeded in attaching to their
_name_, to introduce a knowledge of their principles and measures into
the great mass of southern mind. There are multitudes at the South who
would co-operate with us, if they could be informed of our aim.[A] Now,
we cannot reach them--then, it would be otherwise. The united power of
the large slaveholders would not be able longer to keep them in
ignorance. If the Union were dissolved, they _would_ know the cause, and
discuss it, and condemn it.

[Footnote A: There is abundant evidence of this. Our limits confine us
to the following, from the first No. of the Southern Literary Journal,
(Charleston, S.C.):--"There are _many good men even among us_, who have
begun to grow _timid_. They think, that what the virtuous and
high-minded men of the North look upon as a crime and a plague-spot,
cannot be perfectly innocent or quite harmless in a slaveholding
community."

This, also, from the North Carolina Watchman:--

"It (the abolition party) is the growing party at the North. We are
inclined to believe that there is even more of it at the South than
prudence will permit to be openly avowed."

"It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that there is a LARGE, RESPECTABLE and
INTELLIGENT PARTY in Kentucky, who will exert every nerve and spare no
efforts to dislodge the subsisting rights to our Slave population, or
alter in some manner, and to some extent, at least, the tenure by which
that species of property is held."--_Speech of the Hon. James T.
Morehead in the Kentucky Legislature, last winter_.]

A second reason why the South will not dissolve the Union is, that she
would be exposed to the visitation of _real_ incendiaries, exciting her
slaves to revolt. Now, it would cover any one with infamy, who would
stir them up to vindicate their rights by the massacre of their masters.
Dissolve the Union, and the candidates for "GLORY" would find in the
plains of Carolina and Louisiana as inviting a theatre for their
enterprise, as their prototypes, the Houstons, the Van Rennsselaers, and
the Sutherlands did, in the prairies of Texas or the forests of Canada.

A third reason why the South will not dissolve is, that the slaves would
leave their masters and take refuge in the free states. The South would
not be able to establish a _cordon_ along her wide frontier sufficiently
strong to prevent it. Then, the slaves could not be reclaimed, as they
now are, under the Constitution. Some may say, the free states would not
permit them to come in and dwell among them.--Believe it not. The fact
of separation on the ground supposed, would abolitionize the whole
North. Beside this, in an economical point of view, the _demand for
labor_ in the Western States would make their presence welcome. At all
events, a passage through the Northern States to Canada would not be
denied them.

A fourth reason why the South will not dissolve is, that a large number
of her most steady and effective population would emigrate to the free
states. In the slave-_selling_ states especially, there has always been
a class who have consented to remain there with their families, only in
the hope that slavery would, in some way or other, be terminated. I do
not say they are abolitionists, for many of them are slaveholders. It
may be, too, that such would expect compensation for their slaves,
should they be emancipated, and also that they should be sent out of the
country. The particular mode of emancipation, however crude it may be,
that has occupied their minds, has nothing to do with the point before
us. _They look for emancipation--in this hope they have remained, and
now remain, where they are_. Take away this hope, by making slavery the
_distinctive bond of union_ of a new government, and you drive them to
the North. These persons are not among the rich, the voluptuous, the
effeminate; nor are they the despised, the indigent, the
thriftless--they are men of moderate property, of intelligence, of
conscience--in every way the "bone and sinew" of the South.

A fifth reason why the South will not dissolve, is her _weakness_. It is
a remarkable fact, that in modern times, and in the Christian world, all
slaveholding countries have been united with countries that are free.
Thus, the West Indian and Mexican and South American slaveholding
colonies were united to England, France, Spain, Portugal, and other
states of Europe. If England (before her Emancipation Act) and the
others had at any time withdrawn the protection of their _power_ from
their colonies, slavery would have been extinguished almost
simultaneously with the knowledge of the fact. In the West Indies there
could have been no doubt of this, from the disparity in numbers between
the whites and the slaves, from the multiplied attempts made from time
to time by the latter to vindicate their rights by insurrection, and
from the fact, that all their insurrections had to be suppressed by the
_force_ of the mother country. As soon as Mexico and the South American
colonies dissolved their connexion with Spain, slavery was abolished in
every one of them. This may, I know, be attributed to the necessity
imposed on these states, by the wars in which they engaged to establish
their independence. However this may be--the _fact_ still remains. The
free states of this Union are to the slave, so far as the maintenance of
slavery is concerned, substantially, in the relation of the European
states to their slaveholding colonies. Slavery, in all probability,
could not be maintained by the South disjoined from the North, a single
year. So far from there existing any reason for making the South an
exception, in this particular, to other slave countries, there are
circumstances in her condition that seem to make her dependence more
complete. Two of them are, the superior intelligence of her slaves on
the subject of human rights, and the geographical connexion of the slave
region in the United States. In the West Indies, in Mexico and South
America the great body of the slaves were far below the slaves of this
country in their intellectual and moral condition--and, in the former,
their power to act in concert was weakened by the insular fragments into
which they were divided.

Again, the depopulation of the South of large numbers of its white
inhabitants, from the cause mentioned under the fourth head, would, it
is apprehended, bring the two classes to something like a numerical
equality. Now, consider the present state of the moral sentiment of the
Christianized and commercial world in relation to slavery; add to it the
impulse that this sentiment, acknowledged by the South already to be
wholly opposed to her, would naturally acquire by an act of separation
on her part, with a single view to the perpetuation of slavery; bring
this sentiment in all its accumulation and intensity to act upon a
nation where one half are enslavers, the other the enslaved--and what
must be the effect? From the nature of mind; from the laws of moral
influence, (which are as sure in their operation, if not so well
understood, as the laws of physical influence,) the party "whose
conscience with injustice is oppressed," must become dispirited,
weakened in courage, and in the end unnerved and contemptible. On the
other hand, the sympathy that would be felt for the oppressed--the
comfort they would receive--the encouragement that would be given them
to assert their rights, would make it an impossibility, to keep them in
slavish peace and submission.

This state of things would be greatly aggravated by the peculiarly
morbid sensitiveness of the South to every thing that is supposed to
touch her _character_. Her highest distinction would then become her
most troublesome one. How, for instance, could her chivalrous sons bear
to be taunted, wherever they went, on business or for pleasure, out of
their own limits, with the cry "the knights of the lash!" "Go home and
pay your laborers!" "Cease from the scourging of husbands and wives in
each others presence--from attending the shambles, to sell or buy as
slaves those whom God has made of the same blood with yourselves--your
brethren--your sisters! Cease, high minded sons of the 'ANCIENT
DOMINION,' from estimating your revenue by the number of children you
rear, to sell in the flesh market!" "Go home and pay your laborers!" "Go
home and pay your laborers!" This would be a trial to which "southern
chivalry" could not patiently submit. Their "high honor," their
"undaunted spirit" would impel them to the field--only to prove that the
"last resort" requires something more substantial than mere "honor" and
"spirit" to maintain it. Suppose there should be a disagreement--as in
all likelihood there soon would, leading to war between the North and
the South? The North would scarcely have occasion to march a squadron to
the field. She would have an army that could be raised up by the
million, at the fireside of her enemy. It has been said, that during the
late war with England, it was proposed to her cabinet, by some
enterprising officers, to land five thousand men on the coast of South
Carolina and proclaim liberty to the slates. The success of the scheme
was well thought of. But then the example! England herself held nearly a
million of slaves at no greater distance from the scene of action than
the West Indies. _Now_, a restraint of this kind on such a scheme does
not exist.

It seems plain beyond the power of argument to make it plainer, that a
slaveholding nation--one under the circumstances in which the South
separated from the North would be placed--must be at the mercy of every
free people having neither power to vindicate a right nor avenge
a wrong.[A]

[Footnote A: Governor Hayne, of South Carolina, spoke in high terms, a
few years ago, of the ability that the South would possess, in a
military point of view, because her great wealth would enable her, at
all times, to command the services of mercenary troops. Without stopping
to dispute with him, as to her comparative wealth, I would remark, that
he seemed entirely to have overlooked this truth--that whenever a
government is under the necessity of calling in foreign troops, to keep
in subjection one half of the people, the power of the government has
already passed into the hands of the _Protectors_. They can and will, of
course, act with whichever party will best subserve their purpose.]

A sixth reason why the South will not dissolve the Union, is found in
the difficulty of bringing about an _actual_ separation. Preparatory to
such a movement, it would seem indispensable, that _Union_ among the
seceding states themselves should be secured. A General Convention would
be necessary to adjust its terms. This would, of course, be preceded by
_particular_ conventions in the several states. To this procedure the
same objection applies, that has been made, for the last two or three
years, to holding an anti-abolition convention in the South:--It would
give to the _question_ such notoriety, that the object of holding the
convention could not be concealed from the slaves. The more sagacious in
the South have been opposed to a convention; nor have they been
influenced solely by the consideration just mentioned--which, in my
view, is but of little moment--but by the apprehension, that the
diversity of sentiment which exists among the slave states, themselves,
in relation to the _system_, would be disclosed to the country; and that
the slaveholding interest would be found deficient in that harmony
which, from its perfectness heretofore, has made the slaveholders so
successful in their action on the North.

The slaveholding region may be divided into the _farming_ and the
_planting_--or the slave-_selling_ and the slave-_buying_ districts.
Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri and East Tennessee constitute the
first. West Tennessee is somewhat equivocal. All the states south of
Tennessee belong to the slave-_buying_ district. The first, with but few
exceptions, have from the earliest times, felt slavery a reproach to
their good name--an encumbrance on their advancement--at some period, to
be cast off. This sentiment, had it been at all encouraged by the action
of the General Government, in accordance with the views of the
convention that formed the Constitution, would, in all probability, by
this time, have brought slavery in Maryland and Virginia to an end.
Notwithstanding the easy admission of slave states into the Union, and
the _yielding_ of the free states whenever they were brought in
collision with the South, have had a strong tendency to persuade the
_farming_ slave states to continue their system, yet the sentiment in
favor of emancipation in some form, still exists among them. Proof,
encouraging proof of this, is found in the present attitude of Kentucky.
Her legislature has just passed a law, proposing to the people, to hold
a convention to alter the constitution. In the discussion of the bill,
slavery as connected with some form of emancipation, seems to have
constituted the most important element. The public journals too, that
are _opposed_ to touching the subject at all, declare that the main
object for recommending a convention was, to act on slavery in
some way.

Now, it would be in vain for the _planting_ South to expect, that
Kentucky or any other of the _farming_ slave states would unite with
her, in making slavery the _perpetual bond_ of a new political
organization. If they feel the inconveniences of slavery _in their
present condition_, they could not be expected to enter on another,
where these inconveniences would be inconceivably multiplied and
aggravated, and, by the very terms of their new contract, _perpetuated_.

This letter is already so protracted, that I cannot stop here to develop
more at large this part of the subject. To one acquainted with the state
of public sentiment, in what I have called, the _farming_ district, it
needs no further development. There is not one of these states embraced
in it, that would not, when brought to the test, prefer the privileges
of the Union to the privilege of perpetual slaveholding. And if there
should turn out to be a single _desertion_ in this matter, the whole
project of secession must come to nought.

But laying aside all the obstacles to union among the seceding states,
how is it possible to take the first step to _actual_ separation! The
separation, at the worst, can only be _political_. There will be no
chasm--no rent made in the earth between the two sections. The natural
and ideal boundaries will remain unaltered. Mason and Dixon's line will
not become a wall of adamant that can neither be undermined nor
surmounted. The Ohio river will not be converted into flame, or into
another Styx, denying a passage to every living thing.

Besides this stability of natural things, the multiform interests of the
two sections would, in the main, continue as they are. The complicate
ties of commerce could not be suddenly unloosed. The breadstuffs, the
beef, the pork, the turkies, the chickens, the woollen and cotton
fabrics, the hats, the shoes, the socks, the "_horn flints and bark
nutmegs_,"[A] the machinery, the sugar-kettles, the cotton-gins, the
axes, the hoes, the drawing-chains of the North, would be as much needed
by the South, the day after the separation as the day before. The
newspapers of the North--its Magazines, its Quarterlies, its Monthlies,
would be more sought after by the readers of the South than they now
are; and the Southern journals would become doubly interesting to us.
There would be the same lust for our northern summers and your southern
winters, with all their health-giving influences; and last, though not
least, the same desire of marrying and of being given in marriage that
now exists between the North and South. Really it is difficult to say
_where_ this long threatened separation is to _begin_; and if the place
of beginning could be found, it would seem like a poor exchange for the
South, to give up all these pleasant and profitable relations and
connections for the privilege of enslaving an equal number of their
fellow-creatures.

[Footnote A: Senator Preston's Railroad Speech, delivered at Colombia,
S.C., in 1836.]

Thus much for the menace, that the "UNION WILL BE DISSOLVED" unless the
discussion of the slavery question be stopped.

But you may reply, "Do you think the South is not in earnest in her
threat of dissolving the Union?" I rejoin, by no means;--yet she pursues
a perfectly reasonable course (leaving out of view the justice or
morality of it)--just such a course as I should expect she would pursue,
emboldened as she must be by her multiplied triumphs over the North by
the use of the same weapon. "We'll dissolve the Union!" was the cry,
"unless Missouri be admitted!!" The North were frightened, and Missouri
was admitted with SLAVERY engraved on her forehead. "We'll dissolve the
Union!" unless the Indians be driven out of the South!! The North forgot
her treaties, parted with humanity, and it is done--the defenceless
Indians are forced to "consent" to be driven out, or they are left,
undefended, to the mercies of southern land-jobbers and gold-hunters.
"We'll dissolve the Union! If the Tariff" [established at her own
suggestion] "be not repealed or modified so that our slave-labor may
compete with your free-labor." The Tariff is accordingly modified to
suit the South. "We'll dissolve the Union!" unless the freedom of speech
and the press be put down in the North!!--With the promptness of
commission-merchants, the alternative is adopted. Public assemblies met
for deliberation are assailed and broken up at the North; her citizens
are stoned and beaten and dragged through the streets of her cities; her
presses are attacked by mobs, instigated and led on by men of influence
and character; whilst those concerned in conducting them are compelled
to fly from their homes, pursued as if they were noxious wild beasts;
or, if they remain to defend, they are sacrificed to appease the
southern divinity. "We'll dissolve the Union" if slavery be abolished in
the District of Columbia! The North, frightened from her propriety,
declares that slavery ought not to be abolished there NOW.--"We'll
dissolve the Union!" if you read petitions from your constituents for
its abolition, or for stopping the slave-trade at the Capital, or
between the states. FIFTY NORTHERN REPRESENTATIVES respond to the cry,
"down, then, with the RIGHT OF PETITION!!" All these assaults have
succeeded because the North has been frightened by the war-cry, "WE'LL
DISSOLVE THE UNION!"

After achieving so much by a process so simple, why should not the South
persist in it when striving for further conquests? No other course ought
to be expected from her, till this has failed. And it is not at all
improbable, that she will persist, till she almost persuades herself
that she is serious in her menace to dissolve the Union. She may in her
eagerness, even approach so near the verge of dissolution, that the
earth may give way under her feet and she be dashed in ruins in the
gulf below.

Nothing will more surely arrest her fury, than the firm array of the
North, setting up anew the almost forgotten principles of our fathers,
and saying to the "dark spirit of slavery,"--"thus far shalt thou go,
and no farther." This is the best--the only--means of saving the South
from the fruits of her own folly--folly that has been so long, and so
strangely encouraged by the North, that it has grown into intolerable
arrogance--down right presumption.

There are many other "events" of the last two or three years which have,
doubtless, had their influence on the course of the abolitionists--and
which might properly be dwelt upon at considerable length, were it not
that this communication is already greatly protracted beyond its
intended limits. I shall, therefore, in mentioning the remaining topics,
do little more than enumerate them.

The Legislature of Vermont has taken a decided stand in favor of
anti-slavery principles and action. In the Autumn of 1836, the following
resolutions were passed by an almost unanimous vote in both houses:--

"Resolved, By the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, That neither
Congress nor the State Governments have any constitutional right to
abridge the free expressions of opinions, or the transmission of them
through the medium of the public mails."

"Resolved, That Congress do possess the power to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia."

"Resolved, That His Excellency, the Governor, be requested to transmit a
copy of the foregoing resolutions to the Executive of each of the
States, and to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress."

At the session held in November last, the following joint resolutions,
preceded by a decisive memorial against the admission of Texas, were
passed by both branches--with the exception of the _fifth_ which was
passed only by the House of Representatives:--

1. Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives, That our
Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested,
to use their influence in that body to prevent the annexation of Texas
to the Union.

2. Resolved, That, representing, as we do, the people of Vermont, we do
hereby, in their name, SOLEMNLY PROTEST against such annexation in
any form.

3. Resolved, That, as the Representatives of the people of Vermont, we
do solemnly protest against the admission, into this Union, of any state
whose constitution tolerates domestic slavery.

4. Resolved, That Congress have full power, by the Constitution, to
abolish slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia and in
the territories of the United States.

[5. Resolved, That Congress has the constitutional power to prohibit the
slave-trade between the several states of this Union, and to make such
laws as shall effectually prohibit such trade.]

6. Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our
Representatives requested, to present the foregoing Report and
Resolutions to their respective Houses in Congress, and use their
influence to carry the same speedily into effect.

7. Resolved, That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit a
copy of the foregoing Report and Resolutions to the President of the
United States, and to each of our Senators and Representatives
in Congress.

The influence of anti-slavery principles in Massachusetts has become
decisive, if we are to judge from the change of sentiment in the
legislative body. The governor of that commonwealth saw fit to introduce
into his inaugural speech, delivered in January, 1836, a severe censure
of the abolitionists, and to intimate that they were guilty of an
offence punishable at common law. This part of the speech was referred
to a joint committee of five, of which a member of the senate was
chairman. To the same committee were also referred communications which
had been received by the governor from several of the legislatures of
the slaveholding states, requesting the Legislature of Massachusetts to
enact laws, making it PENAL for citizens of that state to form societies
for the abolition of slavery, or to speak or publish sentiments such as
had been uttered in anti-slavery meetings and published in anti-slavery
tracts and papers. The managers of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery
Society, in a note addressed to the chairman of the committee, requested
permission, as a party whose rights were drawn in question, to appear
before it. This was granted. The gentlemen selected by them to appear on
their behalf were of unimpeachable character, and distinguished for
professional merit and general literary and scientific intelligence.
Such was _then_ the unpopularity of abolitionism, that notwithstanding
the personal influence of these gentlemen, they were ill--not to say
rudely--treated, especially by the chairman of the committee; so much
so, that respect for themselves, and the cause they were deputed to
defend, persuaded them to desist before they had completed their
remarks. A Report, including Resolutions unfavorable to the
abolitionists was made, of which the following is a copy:--

The Joint Special Committee, to whom was referred so much of the
governor's message as related to the abolition of slavery, together with
certain documents upon the same subject, communicated to the Executive
by the several Legislatures of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, and Alabama, transmitted by his Excellency to the Legislature,
and hereunto annexed, have considered the same, and ask leave,
respectfully, to submit the following:--

Resolved, That this Legislature distinctly disavow any right whatever in
itself, or in the citizens of this commonwealth, to interfere in the
institution of domestic slavery in the southern states: it having
existed therein before the establishment of the Constitution; it having
been recognised by that instrument; and it being strictly within their
own keeping.

Resolved, That this Legislature, regarding the agitation of the question
of domestic slavery as having already interrupted the friendly relations
which ought to exist between the several states of this Union, and as
tending permanently to injure, if not altogether to subvert, the
principles of the Union itself; and believing that the good effected by
those who excite its discussion in the non-slaveholding states is, under
the circumstances of the case, altogether visionary, while the immediate
and future evil is great and certain; does hereby express its entire
disapprobation of the doctrine upon this subject avowed, and the general
measures pursued by such as agitate the question; and does earnestly
recommend to them carefully to abstain from all such discussion, and all
such measures, as may tend to disturb and irritate the public mind.

The report was laid on the table, whence it was not taken up during the
session--its friends being afraid of a lean majority on its passage; for
the _alarm_ had already been taken by many of the members who otherwise
would have favored it. From this time till the election in the
succeeding autumn, the subject was much agitated in Massachusetts. The
abolitionists again petitioned the Legislature at its session begun in
January, 1837; especially, that it should remonstrate against the
resolution of Mr. Hawes, adopted by the House of Representatives in
Congress, by which all memorials, &c, in relation to slavery were laid,
and to be laid, on the table, without further action on them. The
abolitionists were again heard, in behalf of their petitions, before the
proper committee.[A] The result was, the passage of the following
resolutions with only 16 dissenting voices to 378, in the House of
Representatives, and in the Senate with not more than one or two
dissentients on any one of them:--

[Footnote A: The gentleman who had been chairman of the committee the
preceding year, was supposed, in consequence of the change in public
opinion in relation to abolitionists, to have injured his political
standing too much, even to be nominated as a candidate for re-election.]

    "Whereas, The House of Representatives of the United States, in the
    month of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
    and thirty-seven, did adopt a resolution, whereby it was ordered
    that all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers,
    relating in any way, or to any extent whatever, to the subject of
    slavery, or the abolition of slavery, without being either printed
    or referred, should be laid upon the table, and that no further
    action whatever should be had thereon; and whereas such a
    disposition of petitions, then or thereafter to be received, is a
    virtual denial of the right itself; and whereas, by the resolution
    aforesaid, which is adopted as a standing rule in the present House
    of Representatives, the petitions of a large number of the people of
    this commonwealth, praying for the removal of a great social, moral,
    and political evil, have been slighted and contemned: therefore,--

    Resolved, That the resolution above named is an assumption of power
    and authority at variance with the spirit and intent of the
    Constitution of the United States, and injurious to the cause of
    freedom and free institutions; that it does violence to the
    inherent, absolute, and inalienable rights of man; and that it
    tends, essentially, to impair those fundamental principles of
    natural justice and natural law which are antecedent to any written
    constitutions of government, independent of them all, and essential
    to the security of freedom in a state.

    Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress, in
    maintaining and advocating the right of petition, have entitled
    themselves to the cordial approbation of the people of this
    commonwealth.

    Resolved, That Congress, having exclusive legislation in the
    District of Columbia, possess the right to abolish slavery in said
    district, and that its exercise should only be restrained by a
    regard to the public good."

That you may yourself, judge what influence the abolition question
exercised in the elections in Massachusetts _last_ autumn, I send you
three numbers of the Liberator containing copies of letters addressed to
many of the candidates, and their respective answers.

The Legislature have passed, _unanimously_, at its present session,
resolutions (preceded by a report of great ability) protesting
"_earnestly and solemnly against the annexation of Texas to this
Union_;" and declaring that, "_no act done, or compact made, for such
purpose, by the government of the United States, will be binding on the
states or the people_."

Two years ago, Governor Marcy, of this state, showed himself willing, at
the dictation of the South, to aid in passing laws for restraining and
punishing the abolitionists, whenever the extremity of the case might
call for it. Two weeks ago, at the request of the Young Men's
Anti-Slavery Society of Albany, the Assembly-chamber, by a vote of the
House (only two dissentient) was granted to Alvan Stewart, Esq., a
distinguished lawyer, to lecture on the subject of abolition.

Kentucky is assuming an attitude of great interest to the friends of
Liberty and the Constitution. The blessings of "them that are ready to
perish" throughout the land, the applause of the good throughout the
world will be hers, if she should show moral energy enough to break
every yoke that she has hitherto imposed on the "poor," and by which her
own prosperity and true power have been hindered.

In view of the late action in the Senate and House of Representatives in
Congress--adverse as they may seem, to those who think more highly of
the branches of the Legislature than of the SOURCE of their power--the
abolitionists see nothing that is cause for discouragement. They find
the PEOPLE sound; they know that they still cherish, as their fathers
did, the right of petition--the freedom of the press--the freedom of
speech--the rights of conscience; that they love the liberty of the
North more than they love the slavery of the South. What care they for
_Resolutions_ in the House, or Resolutions in the Senate, when the House
and the Senate are but their ministers, their servants, and they know
that they can discharge them at their pleasure? It may be, that Congress
has yet to learn, that the people have but slight regard for their
restraining resolutions. They ought to have known this from the history
of such resolutions for the last two years. THIRTY-SEVEN THOUSAND
petitioners for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia had
their petitions laid on the table by the resolution of the House of
Representatives in May, 1836. At the succeeding session, they had
increased to ONE HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND.--The resolution of Jan. 18,
1837, laid all _their_ petitions in the same way on the table. At the
_called_, and at the present session, these 110,000 had multiplied to
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND[A]. Soon, Senators and Representatives will be
sent from the free states who will need no petitions--they will know
the prayer of their constituents _before they leave their homes_.

[Footnote A: See Appendix, G.]

In concluding this, my answer to your 13th interrogatory, I will say
that I know of no event, that has transpired, either in or out of
Congress, for the last two or three years, that has had any other
influence on the efforts of abolitionists than to increase and stimulate
them. Indeed, every thing that has taken place within that period, ought
to excite to their utmost efforts all who are not despairing dastards.
The Demon of oppression in this land is tenfold more fierce and rampant
and relentless than he was supposed to be before roused from the quiet
of his lair. To every thing that is precious the abolitionists have seen
him lay claim. The religion of the Bible must be adulterated--the claims
of Humanity must be smothered--the demands of justice must be
nullified--a part of our Race must be shut out from the common sympathy
of a common nature. Nor is this all: they see their _own_ rights and
those of the people; the right to SPEAK--to WRITE--to PRINT--to
PUBLISH--to ASSEMBLE TOGETHER--to PETITION THEIR OWN SERVANTS--all
brought in peril. They feel that the final conflict between Popular
liberty and Aristocratic slavery has come; that one or the other must
fall; and they have made up their minds, with the blessing of God on
their efforts, that their adversary shall die.

"14. _Have you any permanent fund, and how much?_"

ANSWER.--We have none. The contributions are anticipated. We are always
in debt, and always getting out of debt.

I have now, Sir, completed my answers to the questions proposed in your
letter of the 16th ult. It gives me pleasure to have had such an
auspicious opportunity of doing so. I cannot but hope for good to both
the parties concerned, where candor and civility have characterized
their representatives.

Part of the answer to your 13th question may seem to wander from the
strict terms of the question proposed. Let it be set down to a desire,
on my part, to give you all the information I can, at all germain to the
inquiry. The "proffer," made in my note to Mr. Calhoun, was not
"unguarded;"--nor was it _singular_. The information I have furnished
has been always accessible to our adversaries--even though the
application for it might not have been clothed in the polite and
gentlemanly terms which have so strongly recommended yours to the most
respectful consideration of

Your very obedient servant,

JAMES G. BIRNEY.

       *       *       *       *       *

[In the Explanatory Remarks placed at the beginning of this
Correspondence, reasons were given, that were deemed sufficient, for not
publishing more of the letters that passed between Mr. Elmore and myself
than the two above. Since they were in type, I have received from Mr.
Elmore a communication, in reply to one from me, informing him that I
proposed limiting the publication to the two letters just mentioned. It
is dated May 19. The following extract shows that he entertains a
different opinion from mine, and thinks that justice to him requires
that _another_ of his letters should be included in the
Correspondence:--

"The order you propose in the publication is proper enough; the omission
of business and immaterial letters being perfectly proper, as they can
interest nobody. I had supposed my last letter would have formed an
exception to the rule, which excluded immaterial papers. It explained,
more fully than my first, my reasons for this correspondence, defined
the limits to _which I had prescribed myself_, and was a proper
accompaniment to _a publication_ of what _I_ had not written for
publication. Allow me, Sir, to say, that it will be but bare justice to
me that it should be printed with the other papers. I only suggest this
for your own consideration, for--adhering to my former opinions and
decision--I ask nothing and complain of nothing."

It is still thought that the publication of the letter alluded to is
unnecessary to the purpose of enlightening the public, as to the state,
prospects, &c, of the anti-slavery cause. It contains no denial of the
facts, nor impeachment of the statements, nor answer to the arguments,
presented in my communication. But as Mr. Elmore is personally
interested in this matter, and as it is intended to maintain the
consistent liberality which has characterized the Executive Committee in
all their intercourse with their opponents, the suggestion made by Mr.
Elmore is cheerfully complied with. The following is a copy of the
letter alluded to.--J.G.B.]

    "WASHINGTON, May 5, 1838.

    To JAMES G. BIRNEY, Esq., Cor. Sec. A.A.S.S.

    SIR,--I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st
    instant, in which you again refer to the publication of the
    Correspondence between us, in relation to the measures and designs
    of the abolitionists. I would have certainly answered yours of the
    2d ult., on the same subject, more fully before this, had it not
    escaped my recollection, in consequence [of] having been more
    engaged than usual in the business before the House. I hope the
    delay has been productive of no inconvenience.

    If I correctly understand your letters above referred to, the
    control of these papers, and the decision as to their publication,
    have passed into the 'Executive Committee of the American
    Anti-Slavery Society;' and, from their tenor, I infer that their
    determination is so far made, that nothing I could object would
    prevent it, if I desired to do so. I was certainly not apprised,
    when I entered into this Correspondence, that its disposition was to
    depend on any other will than yours and mine,--but that matters
    nothing now,--you had the power, and I am not disposed to question
    the right or propriety of its exercise. I heard of you as a man of
    intelligence, sincerity, and truth,--who, although laboring in a bad
    cause, did it with ability, and from a mistaken conviction of its
    justice. As one of the Representatives of a slave-holding
    constituency, and one of a committee raised by the Representatives
    of the slave-holding States, to ascertain the intentions and
    progress of your associations, I availed myself of the opportunity
    offered by your character and situation, to propose to you inquiries
    _as to facts_, which would make those _developments so important to
    be known by our people_. My inquiries were framed to draw out _full
    and authentic details_ of the organization, numbers, resources, and
    designs of the abolitionists, of the means they resorted to for the
    accomplishment of their ends, and the progress made, and making, in
    their dangerous work, that all such information might be laid before
    the _four millions and a half of white inhabitants in the slave
    States, whose lives and property are menaced and endangered_ by this
    ill-considered, misnamed, and disorganizing philanthropy. They
    should be informed of the full length and breadth and depth of this
    storm which is gathering over their heads, before it breaks in its
    desolating fury. Christians and civilized, they are _now_
    industrious, prosperous, and happy; but should your schemes of
    abolition prevail, it will bring upon them overwhelming ruin, and
    misery unutterable. The two races cannot exist together upon terms
    of equality--the extirpation of one and the ruin of the other _would
    be inevitable_. This humanity, conceived in wrong and born in civil
    strife, would be baptized in a people's blood. It was, that our
    people might know, in time to guard against the mad onset, the full
    extent of this gigantic conspiracy and crusade against their
    institutions; and of necessity upon their lives with which they must
    sustain them; and their fortunes and prosperity, which _exist only
    while these institutions exist_, that I was induced to enter into a
    correspondence with you, who by your official station and
    intelligence were known to be well informed on these points, and
    from your well established character for candor and fairness, would
    make no statements of facts which were not known or believed by you
    to be true. To a great extent, my end has been accomplished by your
    replies to my inquiries. How far, or whether at all, your answers
    have run, beyond _the facts inquired for_, into theories, arguments,
    and dissertations, as erroneous as mischievous, is not a matter of
    present consideration. We differed no wider than I expected, but
    that difference has been exhibited courteously, and has nothing to
    do with the question of publication. Your object, or rather the
    object of your Committee, is to publish; and I, having no reason to
    desire it, as you have put me in possession of the facts I wished,
    and no reason not to desire it, as there is nothing to conceal, will
    leave yourself and the Committee to take your own course, neither
    assenting nor dissenting, in what you may finally decide to do.

    Very respectfully,

    Your obedient servant,

    F.H. Elmore."

[This letter of Mr. Elmore contains but little more than a reiteration
of alarming cries on the part of the slaveholder;--cries that are as old
as the earliest attempts of philanthropy to break the fetters of the
enslaved, and that have been repeated up to the present day, with a
boldness that seems to increase, as instances of emancipation multiply
to prove them groundless. Those who utter them seem, in their panic, not
only to overlook the most obvious laws of the human mind, and the lights
of experience, but to be almost unconscious of the great events
connected with slavery, that are now passing around them in the world,
and conspiring to bring about its early abrogation among all civilized
and commercial nations.

However _Christian, and civilized, industrious, prosperous and happy_,
the SLAVEHOLDERS of the South may be, this cannot be said of the SLAVES.
A large religious denomination of the state in which Mr. Elmore resides,
has deliberately pronounced them to be "HEATHEN." _Their_ "industry" is
seen at the end of the lash--of "prosperity" they have none, for they
cannot possess any thing that is an element of prosperity--their
"happiness" they prove, by running away from their masters, whenever
they think they can effect their escape. This is the condition of a
large _majority_ of the people in South Carolina, Mississippi and
Louisiana.

The "two races" exist in peace in Mexico,--in all the former South
American dependencies of Spain, in Antigua, in the Bermudas, in Canada,
in Massachusetts, in Vermont, in fine, in every country where they enjoy
_legal equality_. It is the _denial_ of this that produces discontent.
MEN will never be satisfied without it. Let the slaveholders consult the
irreversible laws of the human mind--make a full concession of right to
those from whom they have withheld it, and they will be blessed with a
peace, political, social, moral, beyond their present conceptions;
without such concessions they never can possess it.

A system that cannot withstand the assaults of truth--that replies to
arguments with threats--that cannot be "talked about"--that flourishes
in secrecy and darkness, and dies when brought forth into the light and
examined, must in this time of inexorable scrutiny and relentless
agitation, be a dangerous one. If _justice_ be done, all necessity for
the extirpation of any part of the people will at once be removed.
Baptisms _of blood_ are seen only when humanity has failed in her
offices, and the suffering discern hope only in the brute efforts
of despair.

Mr. Elmore is doubtless well versed in general history. To his vigorous
declamation, I reply by asking, if he can produce from the history of
our race a single instance, where emancipation, full and immediate, has
been followed, as a legitimate consequence, by insurrection or
bloodshed. I may go further, and ask him for a well authenticated
instance, where an emancipated slave, singly has imbrued his hands in
his master's blood. The first record of such an act in modern times, is
yet to be made.

Mr. Elmore says "the white inhabitants in the slave states should be
informed of the full length and breadth and depth of this storm which is
gathering over their heads, before it breaks in its desolating fury." In
this sentiment there is not a reasonable man in the country, be he
abolitionist or not, who will not coincide with him. We rejoice at the
evidence we here have, in a gentleman of the influence and intelligence
of Mr. Elmore, of the returning sanity of the South. How wildly and
mischievously has she been heretofore misled! Whilst the Governors of
Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas, have been repelling offers,
made in respectful terms, of the fullest and most authentic accounts of
our movements; and whilst Governor Butler of South Carolina, has not
only followed the example of his gubernatorial brethren just named, but
is found corresponding with an obscure culprit in Massachusetts--bribing
him with a few dollars, the sum he demanded for his fraudulent promise
to aid in thwarting the abolitionists[A]; whilst too, Mr. Calhoun has
been willing to pass laws to shut out from his constituents and the
South generally information that concerned them more nearly than all
others--we now have it from the highest source, from one selected by a
state delegation as its _representative_ in a general committee of the
whole slaveholding delegations, that the South ought to be "_informed of
the full length and breadth and depth_" of the measures, intentions, &c,
of the abolitionists. At this there is not an abolitionist who will not
rejoice. We ask for nothing but access to the popular mind of the South.
We feel full confidence in the eternal rectitude of our principles, and
of their reception at the South, when once they are understood. Let the
conflict come, let the truth of liberty fairly enter the lists with the
error of slavery, and we have not a doubt of a glorious triumph.

[Footnote A: Appendix H.]

May we not, after this, expect the aid of Mr. Elmore and others of equal
distinction in the South, in giving to their fellow-citizens the
information that we have always believed, and that they now acknowledge,
to be so, important to them?

_May 24, 1838_.

JAMES G. BIRNEY.]

APPENDIX.

       *       *       *       *       *

APPENDIX A.

Extract from an article addressed to the editor of the Christian
Register and Observer, signed W.E.C.--attributed to the Rev.
Dr. Channing.

    "Speaking of slavery, I wish to recommend to your readers a book
    just from the press, entitled 'Emancipation in the West Indies,' and
    written by J. A. Thome and J.H. Kimball, who had visited those
    islands to inquire into the great experiment now going on there. I
    regard it as the most important work which has appeared among us for
    years. No man, without reading it, should undertake to pass judgment
    on Emancipation. It is something more than a report of the
    observation and opinions of the writers. It consists, chiefly, of
    the opinions, conversations, letters, and other documents of the
    very inhabitants of the islands whose judgments are most
    trust-worthy; of the governors, special magistrates, police
    officers, managers, attorneys, physicians, &c; and, in most cases,
    the names of these individuals are given, so that we have the
    strongest evidence of the correctness of the work.

    The results of this great experiment surpass what the most sanguine
    could have hoped. It is hardly possible that the trial could have
    been made under more unfavorable circumstances. The planters on all
    the islands were opposed to the Act of Emancipation, and, in most,
    exceedingly and fiercely hostile to it, and utterly indisposed to
    give it the best chance of success. The disproportion of the colored
    race to the whites was fearfully great, being that of seven or eight
    to one; whilst, in our slaveholding states, the whites outnumber the
    colored people. The slaves of the West Indies were less civilized
    than ours, and less fit to be trusted with their own support.
    Another great evil was, that the proprietors, to a considerable
    extent, were absentees; residing in England, and leaving the care of
    their estates and slaves to managers and owners; the last people for
    such a trust, and utterly unfit to carry the wretched victims of
    their tyranny through the solemn transition from slavery to freedom.
    To complete the unhappy circumstances under which the experiment
    began, the Act of Emancipation was passed by a distant government,
    having no intimate knowledge of the subject; and the consequence
    was, that a system of 'Apprenticeship,' as it was called, was
    adopted, so absurd, and betraying such ignorance of the principles
    of human nature, that, did we not know otherwise, we might suspect
    its author of intending to produce a failure. It was to witness the
    results of an experiment promising so little good, that our authors
    visited three islands, particularly worthy of examination--Antigua,
    Barbadoes, and Jamaica.

    Our authors went first to Antigua, an island which had been wise
    enough to foresee the mischiefs of the proposed apprenticeship, and
    had substituted for it immediate and unqualified emancipation. The
    report given of this island is most cheering. It is, indeed, one of
    the brightest records in history. The account, beginning page 143,
    of the transition from slavery to freedom, can hardly be read by a
    man of ordinary sensibility without a thrill of tender and holy joy.
    Why is it not published in all our newspapers as among the most
    interesting events of our age? From the accounts of Antigua, it
    appears that immediate emancipation has produced only good. Its
    fruits are, greater security, the removal of the fears which
    accompany slavery, better and cheaper cultivation of the soil,
    increased value of real estate, improved morals, more frequent
    marriages, and fewer crimes. _The people proclaim, with one voice,
    that emancipation is a blessing, and that nothing would tempt than
    to revert to slavery._

    Our authors proceeded next to Barbadoes, where the apprenticeship
    system is in operation; and if any proof were needed of the docility
    and good dispositions of the negroes, it would be found in their
    acquiescence to so wonderful a degree in this unhappy arrangement.
    The planters on this island have been more disposed, than could have
    been anticipated, to make the best of this system, and here,
    accordingly, the same fruits of the Act of Emancipation are found as
    in Antigua, though less abundant; and a very general and strong
    conviction prevails of the happiness of the change.

    In Jamaica, apprenticeship manifests its worst tendencies. The
    planters of this island were, from first to last, furious in their
    hostility to the act of emancipation; and the effort seems to have
    been, to make the apprenticeship bear as heavily as possible on the
    colored people; so that, instead of preparing them for complete
    emancipation, it has rather unfitted them for this boon. Still,
    under all these disadvantages, there is strong reason for expecting,
    that emancipation, when it shall come, will prove a great good. At
    any rate, it is hardly possible for the slaves to fall into a more
    deplorable condition, than that in which this interposition of
    parliament found them.

    The degree of success which has attended this experiment in the
    West Indies, under such unfavorable auspices, makes us sure, that
    emancipation in this country, accorded by the good will of the
    masters, would be attended with the happiest effects. One thing is
    plain, that it would be perfectly _safe_. Never were the West Indies
    so peaceful and secure as since emancipation. So far from general
    massacre and insurrection, not an instance is recorded or intimated
    of violence of any kind being offered to a white man. Our authors
    were continually met by assurances of security on the part of the
    planters, so that, in this respect at least, emancipation has been
    unspeakable gain. The only obstacle to emancipation is, therefore,
    removed; for nothing but well grounded fears of violence and crime
    can authorize a man to encroach one moment on another's freedom.

    The subject of this book is of great interest at the present
    moment. Slavery, in the abstract, has been thoroughly discussed
    among us. We all agree that it is a great wrong. Not a voice is here
    lifted up in defence of the system, when viewed in a general light.
    We only differ when we come to apply our principles to a particular
    case. The only question is, whether the Southern states can abolish
    slavery consistently with the public safety, order, and peace? Many,
    very many well disposed people, both at the North and South, are
    possessed with vague fears of massacre and universal misrule, as the
    consequences of emancipation. Such ought to inquire into the ground
    of their alarm. They are bound to listen to the voice of _facts_,
    and such are given in this book. None of us have a right to make up
    our minds without inquiry, or to rest in opinions adopted indolently
    and without thought. It is a great crime to doom millions of our
    race to brutal degradation, on the ground of unreasonable fears. The
    power of public opinion is here irresistible, and to this power
    every man contributes something; so that every man, by his spirit
    and language, helps to loosen or rivet the chains of the slave."

       *       *       *       *       *

The following sentiments are expressed by GOVERNOR EVERETT, of
Massachusetts, in a letter to EDMUND QUINCY, Esq., dated

    "Boston, April 29, 1838.

    DEAR SIR,--I have your favor of the 21st, accompanied with the
    volume containing the account of the tour of Messrs. Thome and
    Kimball in the West Indies, for which you will be pleased to accept
    my thanks. I have perused this highly interesting narrative with the
    greatest satisfaction. From the moment of the passage of the law,
    making provision for the immediate or prospective abolition of
    slavery in the British colonial possessions, I have looked with the
    deepest solicitude for tidings of its operation. The success of the
    measure, as it seemed to me, would afford a better hope than had
    before existed, that a like blessing might be enjoyed by those
    portions of the United States where slavery prevails. The only
    ground on which I had been accustomed to hear the continuance of
    slavery defended at the South, was that of necessity, and the
    impossibility of abolishing it without producing consequences of the
    most disastrous character to both parties. The passage of a law
    providing for the emancipation of nearly a million of slaves in the
    British colonies, seemed to afford full opportunity of bringing this
    momentous question to the decisive test of experience. _If the
    result proved satisfactory, I have never doubted that it would seal
    the fate of slavery throughout the civilised world_. As far as the
    observations of Messrs. Thome and Kimball extended, the result is of
    the most gratifying character. It appears to place beyond a doubt,
    that the experiment of immediate emancipation, adopted by the
    colonial Legislature of Antigua, has fully succeeded in that island;
    and the plan of apprenticeship in other portions of the West Indies,
    as well as could have been expected from the obvious inherent vices
    of that measure. _It has given me new views of the practicability of
    emancipation_. It has been effected in Antigua, as appears from
    unquestionable authorities contained in the work of Messrs. Thome
    and Kimball, not merely _without danger_ to the master, but without
    any sacrifice of his _interest_. I cannot but think that the
    information collected in the volume will have a powerful effect on
    public opinion, not only in the northern states, but in the
    slaveholding states."

GOVERNOR ELLSWORTH, of Connecticut, writes thus to A.F. WILLIAMS, Esq.,
of this city:--

    "NEW HAVEN, _May_ 19, 1838.

    MY DEAR SIR,--Just before I left home, I received from you the
    Journal of Thome and Kimball, for which token of friendship I
    intended to have made you my acknowledgments before this; but I
    wished first to read the book. As far as time would permit, I have
    gone over most of its pages; and let me assure you, it is justly
    calculated to produce great effects, provided you can once get it
    into the hands of the planters. Convince _them_ that their
    interests, as well as their security, will be advanced by employing
    free blacks, and emancipation will be accomplished without
    difficulty or delay.

    I have looked with great interest at the startling measure of
    emancipation in Antigua; but if this book is correct, the question
    is settled as to that island beyond a doubt, since there is such
    accumulated testimony from all classes, that the business and real
    estate of the island have advanced, by reason of the emancipation,
    one fourth, at least, in value; while personal security, without
    military force, is felt by the former masters, and contentment,
    industry, and gratitude, are seen in those who were slaves.

    The great moral example of England, in abolishing slavery in the
    West Indies, will produce a revolution on this subject throughout
    the world, and put down slavery in every Christian country.

    With sentiments of high esteem, &c,

    W. W. ELLSWORTH."


       *       *       *       *       *

APPENDIX B.

A short time previous to the late election in Rhode Island for governor
and lieutenant-governor, a letter was addressed to each of the
candidates for those offices by Mr. Johnson, Corresponding Secretary of
the Rhode Island Anti-Slavery Society, embodying the views of the
abolitionists on the several subjects it embraced, in a series of
queries. Their purport will appear from the answer of Mr. Sprague, (who
was elected governor,) given below. The answer of Mr. Childs (elected
lieutenant-governor) is fully as direct as that of governor Sprague.

    "WARWICK, _March 28, 1838_.

    DEAR SIR,--Your favor of the 19th inst. requesting of me, in
    conformity to a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Rhode
    Island Anti-Slavery Society, an expression of my opinions on certain
    topics, was duly received. I have no motive whatever for withholding
    my opinions on any subject which is interesting to any portion of my
    fellow-citizens. I will, therefore, cheerfully proceed to reply to
    the interrogatories proposed, and in the order in which they are
    submitted.

    1. Among the powers vested by the Constitution in Congress, is the
    power to exercise exclusive legislation, 'in all cases whatsoever,'
    over the District of Columbia? 'All cases' must, of course, include
    the _case_ of slavery and the slave-trade. I am, therefore, clearly
    of opinion, that the Constitution does confer upon Congress the
    power to abolish slavery and the slave-trade in that District; and,
    as they are great moral and political evils, the principles of
    justice and humanity demand the exercise of that power.

    2. The traffic in slaves, whether foreign or domestic, is equally
    obnoxious to every principle of justice and humanity; and, as
    Congress has exercised its powers to suppress the slave-trade
    between this country and foreign nations, it ought, as a matter of
    consistency and justice, to exercise the same powers to suppress the
    slave-trade between the states of this Union. The slave-trade within
    the states is, undoubtedly, beyond the control of Congress; as the
    'sovereignty of each state, to legislate exclusively on the subject
    of slavery, which is tolerated within its limits,' is, I believe,
    universally conceded. The Constitution unquestionably recognises the
    sovereign power of each state to legislate on the subject within its
    limits; but it imposes on us no obligation to add to the evils of
    the system by countenancing the traffic between the states. That
    which our laws have solemnly pronounced to be piracy in our foreign
    intercourse, no sophistry can make honorable or justifiable in a
    domestic form. For a proof of the feelings which this traffic
    naturally inspires, we need but refer to the universal execration in
    which the slave-dealer is held in those portions of the country
    where the institution of slavery is guarded with the most jealous
    vigilance.

    3. Congress has no power to abridge the right of petition. The
    right of the people of the non-slaveholding states to petition
    Congress for the abolition of slavery and the slave-trade in the
    District of Columbia, and the traffic of human beings among the
    states, is as undoubted as any right guarantied by the Constitution;
    and I regard the Resolution which was adopted by the House of
    Representatives on the 21st of December last as a virtual denial of
    that right, inasmuch as it disposed of all such petitions, as might
    be presented thereafter, in advance of presentation and reception.
    If it was right thus to dispose of petitions on _one_ subject, it
    would be equally right to dispose of them in the same manner on
    _all_ subjects, and thus cut of all communication, by petition
    between the people and their representatives. Nothing can be more
    clearly a violation of the spirit of the Constitution, as it
    rendered utterly nugatory a right which was considered of such vast
    importance as to be specially guarantied in that sacred instrument.
    A similar Resolution passed the House of Representatives at the
    first session of the last Congress, and as I then entertained the
    same views which I have now expressed, I recorded my vote
    against it.

    4. I fully concur in the sentiment, that 'every principle of
    justice and humanity requires, that every human being, when personal
    freedom is at stake, should have the benefit of a jury trial;' and I
    have no hesitation in saying, that the laws of this state ought to
    secure that benefit, so far as they can, to persons claimed as
    fugitives from 'service or labor,' without interfering with the laws
    of the United States. The course pursued in relation to this subject
    by the Legislature of Massachusetts meets my approbation.

    5. I am opposed to all attempts to abridge or restrain the freedom
    of speech and the press, or to forbid any portion of the people
    peaceably to assemble to discuss any subject--moral, political, or
    religious.

    6. I am opposed to the annexation of Texas to the United States.

    7. It is undoubtedly inconsistent with the principles of a free
    state, professing to be governed in its legislation by the
    principles of freedom, to sanction slavery, in any form, within its
    jurisdiction. If we have laws in this state which bear this
    construction, they ought to be repealed. We should extend to our
    southern brethren, whenever they may have occasion to come among us,
    all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by our own citizens, and
    all the rights and privileges guarantied to them by the Constitution
    of the United States; but they cannot expect of us to depart from
    the fundamental principles of civil liberty for the purpose of
    obviating any temporal inconvenience which they may experience.

    These are my views upon the topics proposed for my consideration.
    They are the views which I have always entertained, (at least ever
    since I have been awakened to their vast importance,) and which I
    have always supported, so far as I could, by my vote in Congress;
    and if, in any respect, my answers have not been sufficiently
    explicit, it will afford me pleasure to reply to any other questions
    which you may think proper to propose.

    I am, Sir, very respectfully,

    Your friend and fellow citizen,

    WILLIAM SPRAGUE."

Oliver Johnson, Esq., Cor. Sec. R.I.A.S. Society.

APPENDIX C.

The abolitionists in Connecticut petitioned the Legislature of that
state at its late session on several subjects deemed by them proper for
legislative action. In answer to these petitions--

1. The law known as the "Black Act" or the "Canterbury law"--under which
Miss Crandall was indicted and tried--was repealed, except a single
provision, which is not considered objectionable.

2. The right to _trial by jury_ was secured to persons who are claimed
as slaves.

3. Resolutions were passed asserting the power of Congress to abolish
slavery in the District of Columbia, and recommending that it be done as
soon as it can be, "consistently with the _best good_ of the _whole
country_."(!)

4. Resolutions were passed protesting against the annexation of Texas to
the Union.

5. Resolutions were passed asserting the right of petition as
inalienable--condemning Mr. Patton's resolution of Dec. 21, 1837 as an
invasion of the rights of the people, and calling on the Connecticut
delegation in Congress to use their efforts to have the same rescinded.

       *       *       *       *       *

APPENDIX D.

In the year 1793 there were but 5,000,000 pounds of cotton produced in
the United States, and but 500,000 exported. Cotton never could have
become an article of much commercial importance under the old method of
preparing it for market. By hand-picking, or by a process strictly
_manual_, a cultivator could not prepare for market, during the year,
more than from 200 to 300 pounds; being only about one-tenth of what he
could cultivate to maturity in the field. In '93 Mr. Whitney invented
the Cotton-gin now in use, by which the labor of at least _one thousand_
hands under the old system, is performed by _one_, in preparing the crop
for market. Seven years after the invention (1800) 35,000,000 pounds
were raised, and 17,800,000 exported. In 1834, 460,000,000 were
raised--384,750,000 exported. Such was the effect of Mr. Whitney's
invention. It gave, at once, extraordinary value to the _land_ in that
part of the country where alone cotton could be raised; and to _slaves_,
because it was the general, the almost universal, impression that the
cultivation of the South could be carried on only by slaves. There being
no _free_ state in the South, competition between free and slave labor
never could exist on a scale sufficiently extensive to prove the
superiority of the former in the production of cotton, and in the
preparation of it for market.

Thus, it has happened that Mr. Whitney has been the innocent occasion of
giving to slavery in this country its present importance--of magnifying
it into the great interest to which all others must yield. How he was
rewarded by the South--especially by the planters of Georgia--the reader
may see by consulting Silliman's Journal for January, 1832, and the
Encyclopedia Americana, article, WHITNEY.

       *       *       *       *       *

APPENDIX E.

It is impossible, of course, to pronounce with precision, how great
would have been the effect in favor of emancipation, if the effort to
resist the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding state had been
successful. We can only conjecture what it would have been, by the
effect its admission has had in fostering slavery up to its present huge
growth and pretensions. If the American people had shown, through their
National legislature, a _sincere_ opposition to slavery by the rejection
of Missouri, it is probable at least--late as it was--that the early
expiration of the 'system' would, by this time, have been discerned
by all men.

When the Constitution was formed, the state of public sentiment even in
the South--with the exception of South Carolina and Georgia, was
favorable to emancipation. Under the influence of this public sentiment
was the Constitution formed. No person at all versed in constitutional
or legal interpretation--with his judgment unaffected by interest or any
of the prejudices to which the existing controversy has given
birth--could, it is thought, construe the Constitution, _in its letter_,
as intending to perpetuate slavery. To come to such a conclusion with a
full knowledge of what was the mind of this nation in regard to slavery,
when that instrument was made, demonstrates a moral or intellectual flaw
that makes all reasoning useless.

Although it is a fact beyond controversy in our history, that the power
conferred by the Constitution on Congress to "regulate commerce with
foreign nations" was known to include the power of abolishing the
African slave-trade--and that it was expected that Congress, at the end
of the period for which the exercise of that power on this particular
subject was restrained, would use it (as it did) _with a view to the
influence that the cutting off of that traffic would have on the
"system" in this country_--yet, such has been the influence of the action
of Congress on all matters with which slavery has been mingled--more
especially on the Missouri question, in which slavery was the sole
interest--that an impression has been produced on the popular mind, that
the Constitution of the United States _guaranties_, and consequently
_perpetuates_, slavery to the South. Most artfully, incessantly, and
powerfully, has this lamentable error been harped on by the
slaveholders, and by their advocates in the free states. The impression
of _constitutional favor_ to the slaveholders would, of itself,
naturally create for them an undue and disproportionate influence in the
control of the government; but when to this is added the arrogance that
the possession of irresponsible power almost invariably engenders in its
possessors--their overreaching assumptions--the contempt that the
slaveholders entertain for the great body of the _people_ of the North,
it has almost delivered over the government, bound neck and heels, into
the hands of slaveholding politicians--to be bound still more
rigorously, or unloosed, as may seem well in their discretion.

Who can doubt that, as a nation, we should have been more honorable and
influential abroad--more prosperous and united at home--if Kentucky, at
the very outset of this matter, had been refused admission to the Union
until she had expunged from her Constitution the covenant with
oppression? She would not have remained out of the Union a single year
on that account. If the worship of Liberty had not been exchanged for
that of Power--if her principles had been successfully maintained in
this first assault, their triumph in every other would have been easy.
We should not have had a state less in the confederacy, and slavery
would have been seen, at this time, shrunk up to the most contemptible
dimensions, if it had not vanished entirely away. But we have furnished
another instance to be added to the long and melancholy list already
existing, to prove that,--

                       "facilis descensus Averni,
       Sed revocare gradum
       Hoc opus hic labor est,"

if _poetry_ is not _fiction_.

Success in the Missouri struggle--late as it was--would have placed the
cause of freedom in our country out of the reach of danger from its
inexorable foe. The principles of liberty would have struck deeper root
in the free states, and have derived fresh vigor from such a triumph. If
these principles had been honored by the government from that period to
the present, (as they would have been, had the free states, even then,
assumed their just preponderance in its administration,) we should now
have, in Missouri herself, a healthful and vigorous ally in the cause of
freedom; and, in Arkansas, a free people--_twice_ her present
numbers--pressing on the confines of slavery, and summoning the keepers
of the southern charnel-house to open its doors, that its inmates might
walk forth, in a glorious resurrection to liberty and life. Although
young, as a people, we should be, among the nations, venerable for our
virtue; and we should exercise an influence on the civilized and
commercial world that we most despair of possessing, as long as we
remain vulnerable to every shaft that malice, or satire, or philanthropy
may find it convenient to hurl against us.[A]

[Footnote A: A comic piece--the production of one of the most popular of
the French writers in his way--had possession of the Paris stage last
winter. When one of the personages SEPARATES HUSBAND AND WIFE, he cries
out, "BRAVO! THIS IS THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED
STATES!" [Bravo! C'est la Declaration d'Independence des Etats Unis.]

One of our distinguished College-professors, lately on a tour in Europe,
had his attention called, while passing along the street of a German
city, to the pictorial representation of a WHITE MAN SCOURGING A
SUPPLICATING COLORED FEMALE, with this allusion underwritten:--"A
SPECIMEN OF EQUALITY--FROM REPUBLICAN AMERICA."

Truly might our countryman have exclaimed in the language, if not with
the generous emotions of the Trojan hero, when he beheld the noble deeds
of his countrymen pencilled in a strange land--

--"Quis jam locus--
Quae regio in terris nostri non plena laboris?"
]

Instead of being thus seated on a "heaven-kissing hill," and seen of all
in its pure radiance; instead of enjoying its delightful airs, and
imparting to them the healthful savor of justice, truth, mercy,
magnanimity, see what a picture we present;--our cannibal burnings of
human beings--our Lynch courts--our lawless scourgings and capital
executions, not only of slaves, but of freemen--our demoniac mobs raging
through the streets of our cities and large towns at midday as well as
at midnight, shedding innocent blood, devastating property, and applying
the incendiaries' torch to edifices erected and dedicated to FREE
DISCUSSION--the known friends of order, of law, of liberty, of the
Constitution--citizens, distinguished for their worth at home, and
reflecting honor on their country abroad, shut out from more than half
our territory, or visiting it at the hazard of their lives, or of the
most degrading and painful personal inflictions--freedom of speech and
of the press overthrown and hooted at--the right of petition struck down
in Congress, where, above all places, it ought to have been maintained
to the last--the people mocked at, and attempted to be gagged by their
own servants--the time the office-honored veteran, who fearlessly
contended for the _right_, publicly menaced for words spoken in his
place as a representative of the people, with an indictment by a
slaveholding grand jury--in fine, the great principles of government
asserted by our fathers in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied
in our Constitution, with which they won for us the sympathy, the
admiration of the world--all forgotten, dishonoured, despised, trodden
under foot! And this for slavery!!

Horrible catalogue!--yet by no means a complete one--for so young a
nation, boasting itself, too, to be the freest on earth! It is the ripe
fruit of that _chef d'oeuvre_ of political skill and patriotic
achievement--the MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

Another such compromise--or any compromise now with slavery--and the
nation is undone.

APPENDIX F.

The following is believed to be a correct exhibit of the legislative
resolutions against the annexation of Texas--of the times at which they
were passed, and of the _votes_ by which they were passed:--

1. VERMONT.

    "1. _Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives_, That our
    Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives
    requested, to use their influence in that body to prevent the
    annexation of Texas to the Union.

    2. _Resolved_, That representing, as we do, the people of Vermont,
    we do hereby, in their name, SOLEMNLY PROTEST against such
    annexation in any form."

[Passed unanimously, Nov. 1, 1837.]

2. RHODE ISLAND.

(_In General Assembly, October Session, A. D. 1837_.)

    "Whereas the compact of the Union between these states was entered
    into by the people thereof in their respective states, 'in order to
    form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic
    tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general
    welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their
    posterity;' and, therefore, a Representative Government was
    instituted by them, with certain limited powers, clearly specified
    and defined in the Constitution--all other powers, not therein
    expressly relinquished, being 'reserved to the states respectively,
    or to the people.'

    And whereas this limited government possesses no power to extend
    its jurisdiction over any foreign nation, and no foreign nation,
    country, or people, can be admitted into this Union but by the
    sovereign will and act of the free people of all and each of these
    United States, nor without the formation of a new compact of
    Union--and another frame of government radically different, in
    objects, principles, and powers, from that which was framed for our
    own self-government, and deemed to be adequate to all the exigencies
    of our own free republic:--

    Therefore, Resolved, That we have witnessed, with deep concern, the
    indications of a disposition to bring into this Union, as a
    constituent member thereof, the foreign province or territory
    of Texas.

    Resolved, That, although we are fully aware of the consequences
    which must follow the accomplishment of such a project, could it be
    accomplished--aware that it would lead speedily to the conquest and
    annexation of Mexico itself, and its fourteen remaining provinces or
    intendencies--which, together with the revolted province of Texas,
    would furnish foreign territories and foreign people for at least
    twenty members of the new Union; that the government of a nation so
    extended and so constructed would soon become radically [changed] in
    character, if not in form--would unavoidably become a military
    government; and, under the plea of necessity, would free itself from
    the restraints of the Constitution and from its accountability to
    the people. That the ties of kindred, common origin and common
    interests, which have so long bound this people together, and would
    still continue to bind them: these ties, which ought to be held
    sacred by all true Americans, would be angrily dissolved, and
    sectional political combinations would be formed with the newly
    admitted foreign states, unnatural and adverse to the peace and
    prosperity of the country. The civil government, with all the
    arbitrary powers it might assume, would be unable to control the
    storm. The usurper would find himself in his proper element; and,
    after acting the patriot and the hero for a due season, as the only
    means of rescuing the country from the ruin which he had chiefly
    contributed to bring upon it, would reluctantly and modestly allow
    himself to be declared 'Protector of the Commonwealth.'

    We are now fully aware of the deep degradation into which the
    republic would sink itself in the eyes of the whole world, should it
    annex to its own vast territories other and foreign territories of
    immense though unknown extent, for the purpose of encouraging the
    propagation of slavery, and giving aid to the raising of slaves
    within its own bosom, the very bosom of freedom, to be esported and
    sold in those unhallowed regions. Although we are fully aware of
    these fearful evils, and numberless others which would come in their
    train, yet we do not here dwell upon them; because we are here
    firmly convinced that the free people of most, and we trust of all
    these states, will never suffer the admission of the foreign
    territory of Texas into this Union as a constituent member
    thereof--will never suffer the integrity of this Republic to be
    violated, either by the introduction and addition to it of foreign
    nations or territories, one or many, or by dismemberment of it by
    the transfer of any one or more of its members to a foreign nation.
    The people will be aware, that should one foreign state or country
    be introduced, another and another may be, without end, whether
    situated in South America, in the West India islands, or in any
    other part of the world; and that a single foreign state, thus
    admitted, might have in its power, by holding the balance between
    contending parties, to wrest their own government from the hands and
    control of the people, by whom it was established for their own
    benefit and self-government. We are firmly convinced, that the free
    people of these states will look upon any attempt to introduce the
    foreign territory of Texas, or any other foreign territory or nation
    into this Union, as a constituent member or members thereof, as
    manifesting a willingness to prostrate the Constitution and dissolve
    the Union.

    Resolved, That His Excellency, the Governor, be requested to
    forward a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each of our Senators
    and Representatives in Congress, and to each of the Executives of
    the several states, with a request that the same may be laid before
    the respective Legislatures of said states."

[The Preamble and Resolutions were unanimously adopted, Nov. 3, 1837.]

3. OHIO.

    "_Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio_, That in
    the name, and on behalf of the people of the State of Ohio, we do
    hereby SOLEMNLY PROTEST against the annexation of Texas to the Union
    of these United States.

    _And be it further resolved_, That the Governor be requested to
    transmit to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress,
    and to the Governors of each of the States, a copy of the foregoing
    resolution, with a statement of the votes by which it was passed in
    each branch of the Legislature."

[Passed by 64 out of 72, the whole number in the House of
Representatives--unanomously in the Senate. Feb. 24, 1838.]

4. MASSACHUSETTS.

    "Resolves against the annexation of Texas to the United States.

    Whereas a proposition to admit into the United States as a
    constituent member thereof, the foreign nation of Texas, has been
    recommended by the legislative resolutions of several States, and
    brought before Congress for its approval and sanction; and whereas
    such a measure would involve great wrong to Mexico, and otherwise be
    of evil precedent, injurious to the interests and dishonorable to
    the character of this country; and whereas its avowed objects are
    doubly fraught with peril to the prosperity and permanence of this
    Union, as tending to disturb and destroy the conditions of those
    compromises and concessions, entered into at the formation of the
    Constitution, by which the relative weights of different sections
    and interests were adjusted, and to strengthen and extend the evils
    of a system which is unjust in itself, in striking contrast with the
    theory of our institutions, and condemned by the moral sentiment of
    mankind; and whereas the people of these United States have not
    granted to any or all of the departments of their Government, but
    have retained in themselves, the only power adequate to the
    admission of a foreign nation into this confederacy; therefore,

    _Resolved_, That we, the Senate and House of Representatives, in
    General Court assembled, do in the name of the people of
    Massachusetts, earnestly and solemnly protest against the
    incorporation of Texas into this Union, and declare, that no act
    done or compact made, for such purpose by the government of the
    United States, will be binding on the States or the People.

    _Resolved_, That his Excellency the Governor be requested to
    forward a copy of these resolutions and the accompanying report to
    the Executive of the United States, and the Executive of each State
    and also to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress,
    with a request that they present the resolves to both Houses of
    Congress."

[Passed MARCH 16, 1838, UNANIMOUSLY, in both Houses.]

       *       *       *       *       *

5. MICHIGAN.

Whereas, propositions have been made for the annexation of Texas to the
United States, with a view to its ultimate incorporation into the Union:

    "And whereas, the extension of this General Government over so large
    a country on the south-west, between which and that of the original
    states, there is little affinity, and less identity of interest,
    would tend, in the opinion of this Legislature, greatly to disturb
    the safe and harmonious operations of the Government of the United
    States, and put in imminent danger the continuance of this happy
    Union: Therefore,

    _Be it resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    State of Michigan_, That in behalf, and in the name of the State of
    Michigan, this Legislature doth hereby dissent from, and solemnly
    protest against the annexation, for any purpose, to this Union, of
    Texas, or of any other territory or district of country, heretofore
    constituting a part of the dominions of Spain in America, lying west
    or south-west of Louisiana.

    And be it further Resolved, by the Authority aforesaid, That the
    Governor of this State be requested to transmit a copy of the
    foregoing preamble and resolve, under the great seal of this state,
    to the President of the United States; also, that he transmit one
    copy thereof, authenticated in manner aforesaid, to the President of
    the Senate of the United States, with the respectful request of this
    Legislature, that the same may be laid before the Senate; also, that
    he transmit one copy thereof to the Speaker of the House of
    Representatives of the United States, authenticated in like manner,
    with the respectful request of this Legislature, that the same may
    be laid before the House of Representatives; and also, that he
    transmit to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress,
    one copy thereof, together with the Report adopted by this
    Legislature, and which accompanies said preamble and resolves."

[Passed nearly if not quite unanimously, April 2, 1838].

       *       *       *       *       *

6. CONNECTICUT.

    "_Resolved_, That we, the Senate and House of Representatives in
    General Assembly convened, do, in the name of the people of this
    State, solemnly _protest_ against the annexation of Texas to
    this Union."

[Passed, it is believed, unanimously in both houses.]

       *       *       *       *       *

(Those which follow were passed by but one branch of the respective
Legislatures in which they were introduced.)

7. PENNSYLVANIA.

    _Resolutions relative to the admission of Texas into the Union._

    "_Whereas_ the annexation of Texas to the United States has been
    advocated and strongly urged by many of our fellow-citizens,
    particularly in the southern part of our country, and the president
    of Texas has received authority to open a correspondence with, and
    appoint, a commissioner to our government to accomplish the
    object;--_And whereas_ such a measure would bring to us a dangerous
    extension of territory, with a population generally not desirable,
    and would probably involve us in war;--_And whereas_ the subject is
    now pressed upon and agitated in Congress; therefore,

    _Resolved_, &c, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and
    our Representatives requested, to use their influence and vote
    against the annexation of Texas to the territory of the
    united States.

    _Resolved_, That the Governor transmit to each of our Senators and
    Representatives a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions."

[Passed the Senate March 9, 1835, by 22 to 6. Postponed indefinitely in
the House of Representatives, April 13, by 41 to 39.]

       *       *       *       *       *

8. MAINE.

    "_Resolved_, That the Legislature of the State of Maine, on behalf
    of the people of said state, do earnestly and solemnly protest
    against the annexation of the Republic of Texas to these United
    States; and that our Senators and Representatives in Congress be,
    and they hereby are, requested to exert their utmost influence to
    prevent the adoption of a measure at once so clearly
    unconstitutional, and so directly calculated to disturb our foreign
    relations, to destroy our domestic peace, and to dismember our
    blessed Union."

[Passed in the House of Representatives, March 22, 1838, by 85 to 30.
Senate (same day) refused to concur by 11 to 10.]

       *       *       *       *       *

9. NEW-YORK.

    "_Resolved_, (if the Senate concur,) That the admission of the
    Republic of Texas into this Union would be entirely repugnant to the
    will of the people of this state, and would endanger the union of
    these United States.

    _Resolved_, (if the Senate concur,) That this Legislature do, in
    the name of the people of the State of New York, solemnly protest
    against the admission of the Republic of Texas into this Union.

    _Resolved_, (if the Senate concur.) That his Excellency the Governor
    be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each
    of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, and also to the
    governors of each of the United States, with a request that the same
    be laid before their respective Legislatures."

[These resolutions passed the House of Representatives in April, by a
large majority--the newspapers say, 83 to 13. They were indefinitely
postponed in the Senate, by a vote of 21 to 9.]

       *       *       *       *       *

APPENDIX G.

The number of petitioners for abolition in the District of Columbia, and
on other subjects allied to it, have been ascertained (in the House of
Representatives) to be as follows:--

                                        Men.     Women.     Total.
For abolition in the District,         51,366    78,882    130,248
Against the annexation of Texas,      104,973    77,419    182,392
Rescinding the gag resolution,         21,015    10,821     31,836
Against admitting any new slave state, 11,770    10,391     22,161
For abolition of the slave-trade
  between the states,                  11,864    11,541     23,405
For abolition of slavery in the
  territories,                          9,129    12,083     21,212
At the extra session for rescinding
the gag resolution of Jan. 21, 1837,    3,377                3,377
                                      ----------------------------
Total,                                213,494   201,137    414,631

The number in the Senate, where some difficulty was interposed that
prevented its being taken, is estimated to have been about two-thirds as
great as that in the House.

       *       *       *       *       *

APPENDIX H.

[On the 1st of December, one of the secretaries of the American
Anti-Slavery Society addressed a note to each of the Governors of the
slave states, in which he informed them, in courteous and respectful
terms, that he had directed the Publishing Agent of this society,
thereafter regularly to transmit to them, free of charge, the periodical
publications issued from the office of the society. To this offer the
following replies were received:--]

GOVERNOR CAMPBELL'S LETTER.

    JAMES G. BIRNEY, Esq., _New York_

    "RICHMOND, _Dec. 4, 1837_.

    SIR,--I received, by yesterday's mail, your letter of the 1st
    instant, in which you state that you had directed the publishing
    agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society, hereafter, regularly to
    transmit, free of charge, by mail, to all the governors of the slave
    states, the periodical publications issued from that office.

    Regarding your society as highly mischievous, I decline receiving
    any communications from it, and must request that no publications
    from your office be transmitted to me.

    I am, &c,

    DAVID CAMPBELL."

       *       *       *       *       *

GOVERNOR BAGBY'S LETTER.

    "TUSCALOOSA, _Jan. 6, 1838_

    SIR,--I received, by due course of mail, your favor of the 1st of
    December, informing me that you had directed the publishing agent of
    the American Anti-Slavery Society to forward to the governors of the
    slaveholding states the periodicals issued from that office. Taking
    it for granted, that the only object which the society or yourself
    could have in view, in adopting this course, is, the dissemination
    of the opinions and principles of the society--having made up my own
    opinion, unalterably, in relation to the whole question of slavery,
    as it exists in a portion of the United States, and feeling
    confident that, in the correctness of this opinion, I am sustained
    by the entire free white population of Alabama, as well as the great
    body of the people of this Union, I must, with the greatest respect
    for yourself, personally but not for the opinions or principles
    advocated by the society--positively decline receiving said
    publications, or any others of a similar character, either
    personally or officially. Indeed, it is presuming a little too much,
    to expect that the chief magistrate of a free people, elected by
    themselves, would hold correspondence or give currency to the
    publications of an organized society, openly engaged in a scheme
    fraught with more mischievous consequences to their interest and
    repose, than any that the wit or folly of mankind has
    heretofore devised.

    I am, very respectfully,

    Your ob't servant,

    A.P. BAGBY"

JAMES G. BIRNEY, _Esq., New York_.

       *       *       *       *       *

GOVERNOR CANNON'S LETTER.

[This letter required so many alterations to bring it up to the ordinary
standard of epistolary, grammatical, and orthographical accuracy, that
it is thought best to give it in _word_ and _letter_, precisely as it
was received at the office.]

    "EXECUTIVE DEPT.--

    NASHVILLE. _Dec. 12th, 1837_.

    Sir

    I have rec'd yours of the 1st Inst notifying me, that you had
    directed, your periodical publications, on the subject of Slavery to
    be sent to me free of charge &c--and you are correct, if sincere, in
    your views, in supposing that we widely differ, on this subject, we
    do indeed widely differ, on it, if the publications said to have
    emanated from you, are honest and sincere, which, I admit,
    is possible.

    My opinions are fix'd and settled, and I seldom Look into or
    examine, the, different vague notions of others who write and
    theorise on that subject. Hence I trust you will not expect me to
    examine, what you have printed on this subject, or cause to have
    printed. If you or any other man are influenced by feelings of
    humanity, and are laboring to relieve the sufferings, of the human
    race, you may find objects enough immediately around you, where you
    are, in any nonslaveholding State, to engage your, attention, and
    all your exertions, in that good cause.

    But if your aim is to make a flourish on the subject, before the
    world, and to gain yourself some notoriety, or distinction, without,
    doing good to any, and evil to many, of the human race, you are,
    pursuing the course calculated to effect. Such an object, in which
    no honest man need envy. Your honours, thus gaind, I know there are
    many such in our country, but would fain hope, you are not one of
    them. If you have Lived, as you state forty years in a Slave holding
    State, you know that, that class of its population, are not the
    most, miserable, degraded, or unhappy, either in their feelings or
    habits, You know they are generally governd, and provided for by men
    of information and understanding sufficient to guard them against
    the most, odious vices, and hibets of the country, from which, you
    know the slaves are in a far greater degree, exempt than, are other
    portions of the population. That the slaves are the most happy,
    moral and contented generally, and free from suffering of any kind,
    having, each full confidence, in his masters, skill means and
    disposition to provide well for him, knowing also at the same time
    that _it is his interest to do it_. Hence in this State of Society
    more than any other, Superior intelligence has the ascendency, in
    governing and provideing, for the wants of those inferior, also in
    giveing direction to their Labour, and industry, as should be the
    case, superior intelligence Should govern, when united with Virtue,
    and interest, that great predominating principle in all human
    affairs. It is my rule of Life, when I see any man labouring to
    produce effects, at a distance from him, while neglecting the
    objects immediately around him, (in doing good) to suspect his
    sincerity, to suspect him for some selfish, or sinister motive, all
    is not gold that glitters, and every man is not what he, endeavours
    to appear to be, is too well known. It is the duty of masters to
    take care of there slaves and provide for them, and this duty I
    believe is as generally and as fully complyd with as any other duty
    enjoind on the human family, for next to their children their own
    offspring, their slaves stand next foremost in their care and
    attention, there are indeed very few instances of a contrary
    character.

    You can find around you, I doubt not a large number of persons
    intemix'd, in your society, who are entirely destitute of that care,
    and attention, towards them that is enjoyed by our slaves, and who
    are destitute of that deep feeling of interest, in guarding their
    morals and habits, and directing them through Life in all things,
    which is here enjoyd by our slaves, to those let your efforts be
    directed immediately around you and do not trouble with your vague
    speculations those who are contented and happy, at a distance
    from you.

    Very respectfully yours,

    N. CANNON."

Mr. JAS. G. BIRNEY, _Cor. Sec._ &c.

       *       *       *       *       *

[The letter of the Secretary to the governor of South Carolina was not
_answered_, but was so inverted and folded as to present the
_subscribed_ name of the secretary, as the _superscription_ of the same
letter to be returned. The addition of _New York_ to the address brought
it back to this office.

Whilst governor Butler was thus refusing the information that was
proffered to him in the most respectful terms from this office, he was
engaged in another affair, having connection with the anti-slavery
movement, as indiscreet, as it was unbecoming the dignity of the office
he holds. The following account of it is from one of the Boston
papers:--]

    "_Hoaxing a Governor_.--The National Aegis says, that Hollis Parker,
    who was sentenced to the state prison at the late term of the
    criminal court for Worcester county, for endeavoring to extort money
    from governor Everett, had opened an extensive correspondence,
    previous to his arrest, with similar intent, with other
    distinguished men of the country. Besides several individuals in New
    York, governor Butler, of South Carolina, was honored with his
    notice. A letter from that gentleman, directed to Parker, was lately
    received at the post office in a town near Worcester, enclosing a
    check for fifty dollars. So far as the character of Parker's letter
    can be inferred from the reply of governor Butler, it would appear,
    that Parker informed the governor, that the design was entertained
    by some of our citizens, of transmitting to South Carolina a
    quantity of 'incendiary publications,' and that with the aid of a
    little money, he (Parker) would be able to unravel the plot, and
    furnish full information concerning it to his excellency. The bait
    took, and the money was forwarded, with earnest appeals to Parker to
    be vigilant and active in thoroughly investigating the supposed
    conspiracy against the peace and happiness of the South.

    The Aegis has the following very just remarks touching this
    case:--'Governor Butler belongs to a state loud in its professions
    of regard for state rights and state sovereignty. We, also, are
    sincere advocates of that good old republican doctrine. It strikes
    us, that it would have comported better with the spirit of that
    doctrine, the dignity, of his own station and character, the respect
    and courtesy due to a sovereign and independent state, if governor
    Butler had made the proper representation, if the subject was
    deserving of such notice, to the acknowledged head and constituted
    authorities of that state, instead of holding official
    correspondence with a citizen of a foreign jurisdiction, and
    employing a secret agent and informer, whose very offer of such
    service was proof of the base and irresponsible character of him who
    made it.'"

       *       *       *       *       *

    GOVERNOR CONWAY'S LETTER.

    EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, _March_ 1, 1838.

    Sir--A newspaper, headed '_The Emancipator_,' in which you are
    announced the 'publishing agent,' has, for some weeks past, arrived
    at the post office in this city, to my address. Not having
    subscribed, or authorized any individual to give my name as a
    subscriber, for that or any such paper, it is entirely _gratuitous_
    on the part of its publishers to send me a copy; and not having a
    favorable opinion of the _intentions_ of the _authors and founders_
    of the '_American Anti-Slavery Society_;' I have to request a
    discontinuance of '_The Emancipator_.'

    Your ob't servant, "J.S. CONWAY."

R. G. WILLIAMS, Esq., New York.

       *       *       *       *       *

[NOTE.--The following extract of a letter, from the late Chief Justice
Jay to the late venerable Elias Boudinot, dated Nov. 17, 1819, might
well have formed part of Appendix E. Its existence, however, was not
known till it was too late to insert it in its most appropriate place.
It shows the view taken of some of the _constitutional_ questions by a
distinguished jurist,--one of the purest patriots too, by whom our early
history was illustrated.]

    "Little can be added to what has been said and written on the
    subject of slavery. I concur in the opinion, that it ought not to be
    _introduced, nor permitted_ in any of the _new_ states; and that it
    ought to be gradually diminished, and finally, abolished, in all
    of them.

    To me, the _constitutional authority_ of the Congress to prohibit
    the _migration_ and _importation_ of slaves into any of the states,
    does not appear questionable.

    The first article of the Constitution specifics the legislative
    powers committed to Congress. The ninth section of that article has
    these words:--'The _migration_ or _importation_ of such persons as
    any of the _now existing_ states shall think proper to admit, shall
    not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808--but a tax
    or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding _ten
    dollars_ for each person.'

    I understand the sense and meaning of this clause to be, That the
    power of the Congress, although _competent to prohibit such
    migration and importation_, was not to be exercised with respect to
    the THEN existing states, and _them only_, until the year 1808; but
    that Congress were at liberty to make such prohibition as to any
    _new state_ which might in the _meantime_ be established. And
    further, that from and after _that_ period, they were authorized to
    make such prohibition as to _all the states, whether new or old_.

    Slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, on
    account of the existing toleration of slavery, and its discordancy
    with the principles of the Revolution; and from a consciousness of
    its being repugnant to those propositions to the Declaration of
    Independence:--'We hold these truths to be self-evident--that all
    men are created equal--that they are endowed by their Creator with
    certain inalienable rights--and that, among these, are life,
    liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'"

       *       *       *       *       *




NO. 9.

THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

       *       *       *       *       *

LETTER

OF

GERRIT SMITH,

TO

HON. HENRY CLAY.

       *       *       *       *       *

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.
----- 1839.

       *       *       *       *       *
This No. contains 3-1/2 sheets.--Postage, under 100 miles, 6 cts. over
100, 10 cts.

_Please Read and circulate_.



LETTER.

       *       *       *       *       *

PETERBORO, MARCH 21, 1839.

HON. HENRY CLAY:

DEAR SIR,

In the Annual Meeting of the American Colonization Society, held in the
Capitol in the city of Washington, December, 1835, you commented on a
speech made by myself, the previous autumn. Your objections to that
speech formed the principal subject matter of your remarks. Does not
this fact somewhat mitigate the great presumption of which I feel myself
guilty, in undertaking, all unhonored and humble as I am, to review the
production of one of the most distinguished statesmen of the age?

Until the appearance of your celebrated speech on the subject of
slavery, I had supposed that you cherished a sacred regard for the right
of petition. I now find, that you value it no more highly than they do,
who make open war upon it. Indeed, you admit, that, in relation to this
right, "there is no substantial difference between" them and yourself.
Instead of rebuking, you compliment them; and, in saying that "the
majority of the Senate" would not "violate the right of petition in any
case, in which, according to its judgment, the object of the petition
could be safely or properly granted," you show to what destructive
conditions you subject this absolute right. Your doctrine is, that in
those cases, where the object of the petition is such, as the
supplicated party can approve, previously to any discussion of its
merits--there, and there only, exists the right of petition. For aught I
see, you are no more to be regarded as the friend of this right, than is
the conspicuous gentleman[A] who framed the Report on that subject,
which was presented to the Senate of my state the last month. That
gentleman admits the sacredness of "the right to petition on any
subject;" and yet, in the same breath, he insists on the equal
sacredness of the right to refuse to attend to a petition. He manifestly
failed to bear in mind, that a right to petition implies the correlative
right to be heard. How different are the statesmen, who insist "on the
right to refuse to attend to a petition," from Him, who says, "Whoso
stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but
shall not be heard." And who are poor, if it be not those for whom the
abolitionists cry? They must even cry by proxy. For, in the language of
John Quincy Adams, the champion of the right of petition, "The slave is
not permitted to cry for mercy--to plead for pardon--to utter the shriek
of perishing nature for relief." It may be well to remark, that the
error, which I have pointed out in the Report in question, lies in the
premises of the principal argument of that paper; and that the
correction of this error is necessarily attended with the destruction of
the premises, and with the overthrow of the argument, which is built
upon them.

[Footnote A: Colonel Young.]

I surely need not stop to vindicate the right of petition. It is a
natural right--one that human laws can guarantee, but can neither create
nor destroy. It is an interesting fact, that the Amendment to the
Federal Constitution, which guarantees the right of petition, was
opposed in the Congress of 1789 as superfluous. It was argued, that this
is "a self-evident, inalienable right, which the people possess," and
that "it would never be called in question." What a change in
fifty years!

You deny the power of Congress to abolish the inter-state traffic in
human beings; and, inasmuch as you say, that the right "to regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states," does not
include the right to prohibit and destroy commerce; and, inasmuch as it
is understood, that it was in virtue of the right to regulate commerce,
that Congress enacted laws to restrain our participation in the "African
slave trade," you perhaps also deny, that Congress had the power to
enact such laws. The history of the times in which the Federal
Constitution was framed and adopted, justifies the belief, that the
clause of that instrument under consideration conveys the power, which
Congress exercised. For instance, Governor Randolph, when speaking in
the Virginia Convention of 1788, of the clause which declares, that "the
migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
Congress prior to the year 1808," said, "This is an exception from the
power of regulating commerce, and the restriction is to continue only
till 1808. Then Congress can, by the exercise of that power, prevent
future importations."

Were I, however, to admit that the right "to regulate commerce," does
not include the right to prohibit and destroy commerce, it nevertheless
would not follow, that Congress might not prohibit or destroy certain
branches of commerce. It might need to do so, in order to preserve our
general commerce with a state or nation. So large a proportion of the
cloths of Turkey might be fraught with the contagion of the plague, as
to make it necessary for our Government to forbid the importation of all
cloths from that country, and thus totally destroy one branch of our
commerce with it, to the end that the other branches might be preserved.
No inconsiderable evidence that Congress has the right to prohibit or
destroy a branch of commerce, is to be found in the fact, that it has
done so. From March, 1794, to May, 1820, it enacted several laws, which
went to prohibit or destroy, and, in the end, did prohibit or destroy
the trade of this country with Africa in human beings. And, if Congress
has the power to pass embargo laws, has it not the power to prohibit or
destroy commerce altogether?

It is, however, wholly immaterial, whether Congress could prohibit our
participation in the "African slave trade," in virtue of the clause
which empowers it "to regulate commerce." That the Constitution does, in
some one or more of its passages, convey the power, is manifest from the
testimony of the Constitution itself. The first clause of the ninth
section says: "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 they year 1808." Now the implication
in this clause of the existence of the power in question, is as
conclusive, as would be the express and positive grant of it. You will
observe, too, that the power of Congress over "migration or
importation," which this clause implies, is a power not merely to
"regulate," as you define the word, but to "prohibit."

It is clear, then, that Congress had the power to interdict our trade in
human beings with Africa. But, in view of what has been said on that
point--in view of the language of the Federal Constitution--of the
proceedings of the Convention, which framed it--and of the cotemporary
public sentiment--is it any less clear, that Congress has the power to
interdict the inter-state traffic in human beings?

There are some, who assert that the words "migration" and "importation,"
instead of referring, as I maintain they do--the former to the removal
of slaves from state to state, and the latter to their introduction from
Africa--are used in the Constitution as synonyms, and refer exclusively
to the "African slave trade." But there is surely no ground for the
imputation of such utter tautology, if we recollect that the
Constitution was written by scholars, and that remarkable pains were
taken to clear it of all superfluous words--a Committee having been
appointed for that special purpose. But, it may be asked, Why, in
reference to the taking of slaves from one state to another, use the
word "migration," which denotes voluntary removal? One answer is--that
it can be used with as much propriety in that case, as in the removal of
slaves from Africa--the removal in the one case being no less
involuntary than in the other. Another answer is--that the framers of
the Constitution selected the word "migration," because of its congruity
with that of "persons," under which their virtuous shame sought to
conceal from posterity the existence of seven hundred thousand slaves
amongst a people, who had but recently entered upon their national
career, with the solemn declaration, that "all men are created equal."

John Jay, whose great celebrity is partly owing to his very able
expositions of the Constitution, says: "To me, the constitutional
authority of the Congress to prohibit the migration _and_ importation of
slaves into any of the states, does not appear questionable." If the
disjunctive between "migration" and "importation" in the Constitution,
argues their reference to the same thing, Mr. Jay's copulative argues
more strongly, that, in his judgment, they refer to different things.

The law of Congress constituting the "Territory of Orleans," was enacted
in 1804. It fully recognizes the power of that body to prohibit the
trade in slaves between a territory and the states. But, if Congress had
this power, why had it not as clear a power to prohibit, at that time,
the trade in slaves between any two of the states? It might have
prohibited it, but for the constitutional suspension of the exercise of
the power. The term of that suspension closed, however, in 1808; and,
since that year, Congress has had as full power to abolish the whole
slave trade between the states, as it had in 1804 to abolish the like
trade between the Territory of Orleans and the states.

But, notwithstanding the conclusive evidence, that the Constitution
empowers Congress to abolish the inter-state slave trade, it is
incomprehensible to many, that such states as Virginia and Maryland
should have consented to deprive themselves of the benefit of selling
their slaves into other states. It is incomprehensible, only because
they look upon such states in the light of their present character and
present interests. It will no longer be so, if they will bear in mind,
that slave labor was then, as it is now, unprofitable for ordinary
agriculture, and that Whitney's cotton-gin, which gave great value to
such labor, was not yet invented, and that the purchase of Louisiana,
which has had so great an effect to extend and perpetuate the dominion
of slavery, was not yet made. It will no longer be incomprehensible to
them, if they will recollect, that, at the period in question, American
slavery was regarded as a rapidly decaying, if not already expiring
institution. It will no longer be so, if they will recollect, how small
was the price of slaves then, compared with their present value; and
that, during the ten years, which followed the passage of the Act of
Virginia in 1782, legalizing manumissions, her citizens emancipated
slaves to the number of nearly one-twentieth of the whole amount of her
slaves in that year. To learn whether your native Virginia clung in the
year 1787 to the inter-state traffic in human flesh, we must take our
post of observation, not amongst her degenerate sons, who, in 1836, sold
men, women, and children, to the amount of twenty-four millions of
dollars--not amongst her President Dews, who write books in favor of
breeding human stock for exportation--but amongst her Washingtons, and
Jeffersons, and Henrys, and Masons, who, at the period when the
Constitution was framed, freely expressed their abhorrence of slavery.

But, however confident you may be, that Congress has not the lawful
power to abolish the branch of commerce in question; nevertheless, would
the abolition of it be so clearly and grossly unconstitutional, as to
justify the contempt with which the numerous petitions for the measure
are treated, and the impeachment of their fidelity to the Constitution,
and of their patriotism and purity, which the petitioners are made
to endure?

I was about to take it for granted, that, although you deny the power of
Congress to abolish the inter-state traffic in human beings, you do not
justify the traffic--when I recollected the intimation in your speech,
that there is no such traffic. For, when you speak of "the slave trade
between the states," and add--"or, as it is described in abolition
petitions, the traffic in human beings between the states"--do you not
intimate there is no such traffic? Whence this language? Do you not
believe slaves are human beings? And do you not believe that they suffer
under the disruption of the dearest earthly ties, as human beings
suffer? I will not detain you to hear what we of the North think of this
internal slave trade. But I will call your attention to what is thought
of it in your own Kentucky and in your native Virginia. Says the
"Address of the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky to the Churches in
1835:"--"Brothers and sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives,
are torn asunder, and permitted to see each other no more. Those acts
are daily occurring in the midst of us. The shrieks and the agony often
witnessed on such occasions, proclaim with a trumpet tongue the iniquity
and cruelty of the system. There is not a neighborhood where these
heart-rending scenes are not displayed. There is not a village or road
that does not behold the sad procession of manacled outcasts, whose
chains and mournful countenances tell that they are exiled by force from
all that their hearts hold dear." Says Thomas Jefferson Randolph, in the
Virginia Legislature in 1832, when speaking of this trade: "It is a
practice, and an increasing practice, in parts of Virginia, to rear
slaves for market. How can an honourable mind, a patriot, and a lover of
his country, bear to see this ancient dominion, rendered illustrious by
the noble devotion and patriotism of her sons in the cause of liberty,
converted into one grand menagerie, where men are to be reared for the
market like oxen for the shambles. Is it better--is it not worse than
the (foreign) slave trade--that trade which enlisted the labor of the
good and wise of every creed and every clime to abolish? The (foreign)
trader receives the slave, a stranger in language, aspect, and manner,
from the merchant who has brought him from the interior. The ties of
father, mother, husband, and child, have already been rent in twain;
before he receives him, his soul has become callous. But here, sir,
individuals whom the master has known from infancy, whom he has seen
sporting in the innocent gambols of childhood--who have been accustomed
to look to him for protection, he tears from the mother's arms, and
sells into a strange country--among strange people, subject to cruel
taskmasters."

You are in favor of increasing the number of slave states. The terms of
the celebrated "Missouri compromise" warrant, in your judgment, the
increase. But, notwithstanding you admit, that this unholy compromise,
in which tranquillity was purchased at the expense of humanity and
righteousness, does not "in terms embrace the case," and "is not
absolutely binding and obligatory;" you, nevertheless, make no attempt
whatever to do away any one of the conclusive objections, which are
urged against such increase. You do not attempt to show how the
multiplication of slave states can consist with the constitutional duty
of the "United States to guarantee to every state in the Union a
republican form of government," any more than if it were perfectly
clear, that a government is republican under which one half of the
people are lawfully engaged in buying and selling the other half; or
than if the doctrine that "all men are created equal" were not the
fundamental and distinctive doctrine of a republican government. You no
more vindicate the proposition to enlarge the realm of slavery, than if
the proposition were as obviously in harmony with, as it is opposed to
the anti-slavery tenor and policy of the Constitution--the rights of
man--and the laws of God.

You are perhaps of the number of those, who, believing, that a state can
change its Constitution as it pleases, deem it futile in Congress to
require, that States, on entering the Union, shall have anti-slavery
Constitutions. The Framers of the Federal Constitution doubtless foresaw
the possibility of treachery, on the part of the new States, in the
matter of slavery: and the restriction in that instrument to the old
States--"the States now existing"--of the right to participate in the
internal and "African slave trade" may be ascribed to the motive of
diminishing, if not indeed of entirely preventing, temptation to such
treachery. The Ordinance concerning the North-west Territory, passed by
the Congress of 1787, and ratified by the Congress of 1790, shows, so
far as those bodies can be regarded as correct interpreters of the
Constitution which was framed in 1787, and adopted in 1789, that slavery
was not to have a constitutional existence in the new States. The
Ordinance continues the privilege of recapturing fugitive slaves in the
North-west Territory to the "existing States." Slaves in that territory,
to be the subjects of lawful recapture, must in the language of the
Ordinance, owe "labour or service in one of the _original_ States."

I close what I have to say on this topic, with the remark, that were it
admitted, that the reasons for the increase of the number of slave
States are sound and satisfactory, it nevertheless would not follow,
that the moral and constitutional wrong of preventing that increase is
so palpable, as to justify the scorn and insult, which are heaped by
Congress upon this hundred thousand petitioners for this measure.

It has hitherto been supposed, that you distinctly and fully admitted
the Constitutional power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District
of Columbia. But, on this point, as on that of the right of petition,
you have for reasons known to yourself, suddenly and greatly changed
your tone. Whilst your speech argues, at no small length, that Congress
has not the right to abolish slavery in the District, all that it says
in favor of the Constitutional power to abolish it, is that "the
language (of the Constitution) may _possibly_ be sufficiently
comprehensive to include a power of abolition." "Faint praise dams;" and
your very reluctant and qualified concession of the Constitutional power
under consideration, is to be construed, rather as a denial than a
concession.

Until I acquire the skill of making white whiter, and black blacker, I
shall have nothing to say in proof of the Constitutional power of
Congress over slavery in the District of Columbia, beyond referring to
the terms, in which the Constitution so plainly conveys this power. That
instrument authorises Congress "to exercise exclusive legislation in all
cases whatsoever over such District." If these words do not confer the
power, it is manifest that no words could confer it. I will add that,
never, until the last few years, had doubts been expressed, that these
words do fully confer that power.

You will, perhaps, say, that Virginia and Maryland made their cessions
of the territory, which constitutes the District of Columbia, with
reservations on the subject of slavery. We answer, that none were
expressed;[A] and that if there had been, Congress would not, and in
view of the language of the Constitution, could not, have accepted the
cessions. You may then say, that they would not have ceded the
territory, had it occurred to them, that Congress would have cleared it
of slavery; and that, this being the fact, Congress could not thus clear
it, without being guilty of bad faith, and of an ungenerous and
unjustifiable surprise on those States. There are several reasons for
believing, that those States, not only did not, at the period in
question, cherish a dread of the abolition of slavery; but that the
public sentiment within them was decidedly in favor of its speedy
abolition. At that period, their most distinguished statesmen were
trumpet-tongued against slavery. At that period, there was both a
Virginia and a Maryland society "for promoting the abolition of
slavery;" and, it was then, that, with the entire consent of Virginia
and Maryland, effectual measures were adopted to preclude slavery from
that large territory, which has since given Ohio and several other
States to the Union. On this subject, as on that of the inter-state
slave trade, we misinterpret Virginia and Maryland, by not considering,
how unlike was their temper in relation to slavery, amidst the decays
and dying throes of that institution half a century ago, to what it is
now, when slavery is not only revivified, but has become the predominant
interest and giant power of the nation. We forget, that our whole
country was, at that time, smitten with love for the holy cause of
impartial and universal liberty. To judge correctly of the view, which
our Revolutionary fathers took of oppression, we must go back and stand
by their side, in their struggles against it,--we must survey them
through the medium of the anti-slavery sentiment of their own times, and
not impute to them the pro-slavery spirit so rampant in ours.

[Footnote A: There is a proviso in the Act of Virginia. It was on this,
that three years ago, in the Senate of the United States, Benjamin
Watkins Leigh built his argument against the constitutional power of
Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. I well remember
that you then denied the soundness of his argument. This superfluous
proviso virtually forbids Congress to pass laws, which shall "affect the
rights of individuals" in the ceded territory. Amongst the inviolable
"rights" was that of holding slaves, as Mr. Leigh contended. I regret,
that, in replying to him, you did not make use of the fact, that all the
members of Congress from Virginia voted in favor of the Ordinance, which
abolished slavery in the North-West Territory; and this too,
notwithstanding, that, in the Act of 1784, by which she ceded the
North-West Territory to the Confederacy, she provided, that the
"citizens of Virginia" in the said Territory, many of whom held slaves,
should "be protected in the enjoyment of their rights." This fact
furnishes striking evidence that at, or about, the time of the cession
by Virginia of her portion of the District of Columbia, her statesmen
believed, that the right to hold slaves in those portions of our country
under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, was not beyond the reach
of the controlling power of Congress.]

I will, however, suppose it true, that Virginia and Maryland would not
have made the cessions in question, had they foreseen, that Congress
would abolish slavery in the District of Columbia:--and yet, I affirm,
that it would be the duty of Congress to abolish it. Had there been
State Prisons in the territory, at the time Congress acquired
jurisdiction over it, and had Congress immediately opened their doors,
and turned loose hundreds of depraved and bloody criminals, there would
indeed have been abundant occasion for complaint. But, had the exercise
of its power in the premises extended no farther than to the liberation
of such convicts, as, on a re-examination of their cases, were found to
be clearly guiltless of the crimes charged upon them; the sternest
justice could not have objected to such an occasion for the rejoicing of
mercy. And are not the thousands in the District, for whose liberation
Congress is besought, unjustly deprived of their liberty? Not only are
they guiltless, but they are even unaccused of such crimes, as in the
judgment of any, justly work a forfeiture of liberty. And what do
Virginia and Maryland ask? Is it, that Congress shall resubject to their
control those thousands of deeply wronged men? No--for this Congress
cannot do. They ask, that Congress shall fulfil the tyrant wishes of
these States. They ask, that the whole people of the United
States--those who hate, as well as those who love slavery, shall, by
their representatives, assume the guilty and awful responsibility of
perpetuating the enslavement of their innocent fellow men:--of chaining
the bodies and crushing the wills, and blotting out the minds of such,
as have neither transgressed, nor even been accused of having
transgressed, a single human law. And the crime, which Virginia and
Maryland, and they, who sympathise with them, would have the nation
perpetrate, is, not simply that of prolonging the captivity of those,
who were slaves before the cession--for but a handful of them are now
remaining in the District. Most of the present number became slaves
under the authority of this guilty nation. Their wrongs originated with
Congress: and Congress is asked, not only to perpetuate their
oppression, but to fasten the yoke of slavery on generations yet unborn.

There are those, who advocate the recession of the District of Columbia.
If the nation were to consent to this, without having previously
exercised her power to "break every yoke" of slavery in the District,
the blood of those so cruelly left there in "the house of bondage,"
would remain indelible and damning upon her skirts:--and this too,
whether Virginia and Maryland did or did not intend to vest Congress
with any power over slavery. It is enough, that the nation has the power
"to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to
be slain," to make her fearfully guilty before God, if she "forbear" to
exercise it.

Suppose, I were to obtain a lease of my neighbor's barn for the single
and express purpose of securing my crops; and that I should find,
chained up in one of its dark corners, an innocent fellow man, whom that
neighbor was subjecting to the process of a lingering death; ought I to
pause and recall President Wayland's, "Limitations of Human
Responsibility," and finally let the poor sufferer remain in his chains;
or ought I not rather, promptly to respond to the laws of my nature and
my nature's God, and let him go free? But, to make this case analogous
to that we have been considering--to that, which imposes its claims on
Congress--we must strike out entirely the condition of the lease, and
with it all possible doubts of my right to release the victim of my
neighbor's murderous hate.

I am entirely willing to yield, for the sake of argument, that Virginia
and Maryland, when ceding the territory which constitutes the District
of Columbia, did not anticipate, and did not choose the abolition of
slavery in it. To make the admission stronger, I will allow, that these
States were, at the time of the cession, as warmly opposed to the
abolition of slavery in the District as they are said to be now: and to
make it stronger still, I will allow, that the abolition of slavery in
the District would prove deeply injurious, not only to Virginia and
Maryland but to the nation at large. And, after all these admissions, I
must still insist, that Congress is under perfectly plain moral
obligation to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.

They, who are deterred from favoring the abolition of slavery in the
District by the apprehension, that Virginia and Maryland, if not,
indeed, the nation at large, might suffer injurious consequences from
the measure, overlook the fact, that there is a third party in the case.
It is common to regard the nation as constituting one of the
parties--Virginia and Maryland another, and the only other. But in point
of fact, there is a third party. Of what does it consist? Of horses,
oxen, and other brutes? Then we need not be greatly concerned about
it--since its rights in that case, would be obviously subordinate to
those of the other parties. Again, if such be the composition of this
third party, we are not to be greatly troubled, that President Wayland
and thousands of others entirely overlook its rights and interests;
though they ought to be somewhat mindful even of brutes. But, this third
party is composed, not of brutes--but of men--of the seven thousand men
in the District, who have fallen under the iron hoofs of slavery--and
who, because they are men, have rights equal to, and as sacred as the
rights of any other men--rights, moreover, which cannot be innocently
encroached on, even to the breadth of one hair, whether under the plea
of "state necessity"--of the perils of emancipation--or under any other
plea, which conscience-smitten and cowardly tyranny can suggest.

If these lines shall ever be so favored, as to fall under the eye of the
venerable and beloved John Quincy Adams, I beg, that, when he shall have
read them, he will solemnly inquire of his heart, whether, if he should
ever be left to vote against the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia, and thus stab deeply the cause of civil liberty, of humanity,
and of God; the guilty act would not result from overlooking the rights
and interests, and even the existence itself, of a third party in the
case--and from considering the claims of the nation and those of
Virginia and Maryland, as the only claims on which he was called to
pass, because they were the claims of the only parties, of which he
was aware.

You admit that "the first duty of Congress in relation to the District,
of Columbia, is to render it available, comfortable, and convenient as a
seat of the government of the whole Union." I thank you for an
admission, which can be used, with great effect, against the many, who
maintain, that Congress is as much bound to consult the interests and
wishes of the inhabitants of the District, and be governed by them, as a
State Legislature is to study and serve the interests and wishes of its
constituents. The inhabitants of the District have taken up their
residence in it, aware, that the paramount object of Congressional
legislation is not their, but the nation's advantage. They judge, that
their disfranchisement and the other disadvantages attending their
residence are more than balanced by their favorable position for
participating in Governmental patronage and other benefits. They know,
that they have no better right to complain, that the legislation of
Congress is not dictated by a primary regard to their interests, than
has the Colonization Society, of which you are President, to complain,
that the Capitol, in which it holds its annual meetings, is not
constructed and fitted up in the best possible manner for such
occasions. They know, that to sacrifice the design and main object of
that building to its occasional and incidental uses, would be an
absurdity no greater than would Congress be guilty of in shaping its
legislation to the views of the thirty thousand white inhabitants of the
District of Columbia, at the expense of neglecting the will and
interests of the nation.

You feel, that there is no hazard in your admission, that the paramount
object in relation to the District of Columbia, is its suitableness for
a seat of Government, since you accompany that admission with the
denial, that the presence of slavery interferes with such suitableness.
But is it not a matter of deep regret, that the place, in which our
national laws are made--that the place from which the sentiment and
fashion of the whole country derive so much of their tone and
direction--should cherish a system, which you have often admitted, is at
war with the first principles of our religion and civil polity;[A] and
the influences of which are no less pervading and controlling than
corrupting? Is it not a matter of deep regret, that they, whom other
governments send to our own, and to whom, on account of their superior
intellect and influence, it is our desire, as it is our duty, to commend
our free institutions, should be obliged to learn their lessons of
practical republicanism amidst the monuments and abominations of
slavery? Is it no objection to the District of Columbia, as the seat of
our Government, that slavery, which concerns the political and moral
interests of the nation, more than any other subject coming within the
range of legislation, is not allowed to be discussed there--either
within or without the Halls of Congress? It is one of the doctrines of
slavery, that slavery shall not be discussed. Some of its advocates are
frank enough to avow, as the reason for this prohibition, that slavery
cannot bear to be discussed. In your speech before the American
Colonization Society in 1835, to which I have referred, you distinctly
take the ground, that slavery is a subject not open to general
discussion. Very far am I from believing, that you would employ, or
intentionally countenance violence, to prevent such discussion.
Nevertheless, it is to this doctrine of non-discussion, which you and
others put forth, that the North is indebted for her pro-slavery mobs,
and the South for her pro-slavery Lynchings. The declarations of such
men as Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, that slavery is a question not to
be discussed, are a license to mobs to burn up halls and break up
abolition meetings, and destroy abolition presses, and murder abolition
editors. Had such men held the opposite doctrine, and admitted, yea, and
insisted, as it was their duty to do, that every question in morals and
politics is a legitimate subject of free discussion--the District of
Columbia would be far less objectionable, as the seat of our Government.
In that case the lamented Dr. Crandall would not have been seized in the
city of Washington on the suspicion of being an abolitionist, and thrown
into prison, and subjected to distresses of mind and body, which
resulted in his premature death. Had there been no slavery in the
District, this outrage would not have been committed; and the murders,
chargeable on the bloodiest of all bloody institutions, would have been
one less than they now are. Talk of the slaveholding District of
Columbia being a suitable locality for the seat of our Government! Why,
Sir, a distinguished member of Congress was threatened there with an
indictment for the _crime_ of presenting, or rather of proposing to
present, a petition to the body with which he was connected! Indeed the
occasion of the speech, on which I am now commenting, was the _impudent_
protest of inhabitants of that District against the right of the
American people to petition their own Congress, in relation to matters
of vital importance to the seat of their own Government! I take occasion
here to admit, that I have seen but references to this protest--not the
protest itself. I presume, that it is not dissimilar, in its spirit, to
the petition presented about the same time by Mr. Moore in the other
House of Congress--his speech on which, he complains was ungenerously
anticipated by yours on the petition presented by yourself. As the
petition presented by Mr. Moore is short, I will copy it, that I may say
to you with the more effect--how unfit is the spirit of a slaveholding
people, as illustrated in this petition, to be the spirit of the people
at the seat of a free Government!

[Footnote A: "It (slavery) is a sin and a curse both to the master and
the slave:"--_Henry Clay_.]

"_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:

The petition of the undersigned, citizens of the District of Columbia
represents--That they have witnessed with deep regret the attempts which
are making _to disturb the integrity_ of the Union by a BAND OF
FANATICS, embracing men, women, and children, who cease not day and
night to crowd the tables of your halls with SEDITIOUS MEMORIALS--and
solicit your honorable bodies that you will, in your wisdom, henceforth
give neither support nor countenance to such UNHALLOWED ATTEMPTS, but
that you will, in the most emphatic manner, set the seal of your
disapprobation upon all such FOUL AND UNNATURAL EFFORTS, by refusing not
only to READ and REFER, but also to RECEIVE any papers which either
directly or indirectly, or by implication, aim at any interference with
the rights of your petitioners, or of those of any citizen of any of the
States or Territories of the United States, or of this District of which
we are inhabitants."

A Legislature should be imbued with a free, independent, fearless
spirit. But it cannot be, where discussion is overawed and interdicted,
or its boundaries at all contracted. Wherever slavery reigns, the
freedom of discussion is not tolerated: and whenever slavery exists,
there slavery reigns;--reigns too with that exclusive spirit of Turkish
despotism, that, "bears no brother near the throne."

You agree with President Wayland, that it is as improper for Congress to
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, as to create it in some
place in the free States, over which it has jurisdiction. As improper,
in the judgment of an eminent statesman, and of a no less eminent
divine, to destroy what they both admit to be a system of
unrighteousness, as to establish it! As improper to restrain as to
practice, a violation of God's law! What will other countries and coming
ages think of the politics of our statesmen and the ethics of
our divines?

But, besides its immorality, Congress has no Constitutional right to
create slavery. You have not yet presumed to deny positively, that
Congress has the right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia;
and, notwithstanding the intimation in your speech, you will not presume
to affirm, that Congress has the Constitutional right to enact laws
reducing to, or holding in slavery, the inhabitants of West Point, or
any other locality in the free States, over which it has exclusive
jurisdiction. I would here remark, that the law of Congress, which
revived the operation of the laws of Virginia and Maryland in the
District of Columbia, being, so far as it respects the slave laws of
those States, a violation of the Federal Constitution, should be held of
no avail towards legalizing slavery in the District--and the subjects of
that slavery, should, consequently, be declared by our Courts
unconditionally free.

You will admit that slavery is a system of surpassing injustice:--but
an avowed object of the Constitution is to "establish justice." You will
admit that it utterly annihilates the liberty of its victims:--but
another of the avowed objects of the Constitution is to "secure the
blessings of liberty." You will admit, that slavery does, and
necessarily must, regard its victims as _chattels_. The Constitution, on
the contrary, speaks of them as nothing short of _persons_. Roger
Sherman, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a framer of the
Federal Constitution, and a member of the first Congress under it,
denied that this instrument considers slaves "as a species of property."
Mr. Madison, in the 54th No. of the Federalist admits, that the
Constitution "regards them as inhabitants." Many cases might be cited,
in which Congress has, in consonance with the Constitution, refused to
recognize slaves as property. It was the expectation, as well as the
desire of the framers of the Constitution, that slavery should soon
cease to exist is our country; and, but for the laws, which both
Congress and the slave States, have, in flagrant violation of the letter
and spirit and obvious policy of the Constitution, enacted in behalf of
slavery, that vice would, ere this, have disappeared from our land.
Look, for instance, at the laws enacted in the fact of the clause: "The
citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several States"--laws too, which the
States that enacted them, will not consent to repeal, until they consent
to abandon slavery. It is by these laws, that they shut out the colored
people of the North, the presence of a single individual of whom so
alarms them with the prospect of a servile insurrection, that they
immediately imprison him. Such was the view of the Federal Constitution
taken by James Wilson one of its framers, that, without, as I presume,
claiming for Congress any direct power over slavery in the slave States,
he declared that it possessed "power to exterminate slavery from within
our borders." It was probably under a like view, that Benjamin Franklin,
another of its framers, and Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration
of Independence, and other men of glorious and blessed memory,
petitioned the first Congress under the Constitution to "countenance the
restoration to liberty of those unhappy men," (the slaves of our
country). And in what light that same Congress viewed the Constitution
may be inferred from the fact, that, by a special act, it ratified the
celebrated Ordinance, by the terms of which slavery was forbidden for
ever in the North West Territory. It is worthy of note, that the avowed
object of the Ordinance harmonizes with that of the Constitution: and
that the Ordinance was passed the same year that the Constitution was
drafted, is a fact, on which we can strongly rely to justify a reference
to the spirit of the one instrument for illustrating the spirit of the
other. What the spirit of the Ordinance is, and in what light they who
passed it, regarded "republics, their laws and constitutions," may be
inferred from the following declaration in the Ordinance of its grand
object: "For extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious
liberty, which form the basis wherever these Republics, their laws and
constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the
basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever
hereafter shall be formed in the said territory, &c.; it is hereby
ordained and declared that the following articles, &c." One of these
articles is that, which has been referred to, and which declares that
"there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said
Territory."

You will perhaps make light of my reference to James Wilson and Benjamin
Franklin, for I recollect you say, that, "When the Constitution was
about going into operation, its powers were not well understood by the
community at large, and remained to be accurately interpreted and
defined." Nevertheless, I think it wise to repose more confidence in the
views, which the framers of the Constitution took of the spirit and
principles of that instrument, than in the definitions and
interpretations of the pro-slavery generation, which has succeeded them.

It should be regarded as no inconsiderable evidence of the anti-slavery
genius and policy of the Constitution, that Congress promptly
interdicted slavery in the first portion of territory, and that, too, a
territory of vast extent, over which it acquired jurisdiction. And is it
not a perfectly reasonable supposition, that the seat of our Government
would not have been polluted by the presence of slavery, had Congress
acted on that subject by itself, instead of losing sight of it in the
wholesale legislation, by which the laws of Virginia and Maryland were
revived in the District?

If the Federal Constitution be not anti-slavery in its general scope and
character; if it be not impregnated with the principles of universal
liberty; why was it necessary, in order to restrain Congress, for a
limited period, from acting against the slave trade, which is but a
branch or incident of slavery, to have a clause to that end in the
Constitution? The fact that the framers of the Constitution refused to
blot its pages with the word "slave" or "slavery;" and that, by
periphrase and the substitution of "persons" for "slaves," they sought
to conceal from posterity and the world the mortifying fact, that
slavery existed under a government based on the principle, that
governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
contains volumes of proof, that they looked upon American slavery as a
decaying institution; and that they would naturally shape the
Constitution to the abridgment and the extinction, rather than the
extension and perpetuity of the giant vice of the country.

It is not to be denied, that the Constitution tolerates a limited
measure of slavery: but it tolerates this measure only as the exception
to its rule of impartial and universal liberty. Were it otherwise, the
principles of that instrument could be pleaded to justify the holding of
men as property, in cases, other than those specifically provided for in
it. Were it otherwise, these principles might be appealed to, as well to
sanction the enslavement of men, as the capture of wild beasts. Were it
otherwise, the American people might be Constitutionally realizing the
prophet's declaration: "they all lie in wait for blood: they hunt every
man his brother with a net." But mere principles, whether in or out of
the Constitution, do not avail to justify and uphold slavery. Says Lord
Mansfield in the famous Somerset case: "The state of slavery is of such
a nature, that it is incapable of being now introduced by courts of
justice upon mere reasoning or inferences from any principles, natural
or political; it must take its rise from _positive law_; the origin of
it can in no country or age be traced back to any other source. A case
so odious as the condition of slaves, must be taken strictly." Grotius
says, that "slavery places man in an unnatural relation to man--a
relation which nothing but positive law can sustain." All are aware,
that, by the common law, man cannot have property in man; and that
wherever that law is not counteracted on this point by positive law,
"slaves cannot breathe," and their "shackles fall." I scarcely need add,
that the Federal Constitution does, in the main, accord with the common
law. In the words of a very able writer: "The common law is the grand
element of the United States Constitution. All its fundamental
provisions are instinct with its spirit; and its existence, principles,
and paramount authority, are presupposed and assumed throughout
the whole."

To argue the anti-slavery character of the Federal Constitution, it is
not necessary to take the high ground of some, that whatever in the
Constitution favors slavery is void, because opposed to the principles
and general tenor of that instrument. Much less is it necessary to take
the still higher ground, that every law in favor of slavery, in whatever
code or connection it may be found, is utterly invalid because of its
plain contravention of the law of nature. To maintain my position, that
the Constitution is anti-slavery in its general character, and that
constitutional slavery is, at the most, but an exception to that general
character, it was not necessary to take either of these grounds; though,
had I been disposed to take even the higher of them, I should not have
lacked the countenance of the most weighty authorities. "The law of
nature," says Blackstone, "being coeval with mankind, and dictated by
God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is
binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human
laws are of any validity if contrary to this." The same writer says,
that "The law of nature requires, that man should pursue his own true
and substantial happiness." But that slavery allows this pursuit to its
victims, no one will pretend. "There is a law," says Henry Brougham,
"above all the enactments of human codes. It is the law written by the
finger of God on the heart of man; and by that law, unchangeable and
eternal, while men despise fraud, and loathe rapine, and abhor blood,
they shall reject with indignation the wild and guilty phantasy, that
man can hold property in man."

I add no more to what I have said on the subject of slavery in the
District of Columbia, than to ask, as I have done in relation to the
inter-state slave trade and the annexation of slave states, whether
petitions for its abolition argue so great a contempt of the
Constitution, and so entire a recklessness of propriety, as to merit the
treatment which they receive at the hands of Congress. Admitting that
Congress has not the constitutional power to abolish slavery in the
District--admitting that it has not the constitutional power to destroy
what itself has established--admitting, too, that if it has the power,
it ought not to exercise it;--nevertheless, is the case so perfectly
clear, that the petitioners for the measure deserve all the abuse and
odium which their representatives in Congress heap upon them? In a word,
do not the three classes of petitions to which you refer, merit, at the
hands of those representatives, the candid and patient consideration
which, until I read your acknowledgment, that, in relation to these
petitions, "there is no substantial difference between" yourself and
those, who are in favor of thrusting them aside undebated, unconsidered,
and even unread, I always supposed you were willing to have bestowed
on them?

I pass to the examination of your charges against the abolitionists.

_They contemn the "rights of property."_

This charge you prefer against the abolitionists, not because they
believe that a Legislature has the right to abolish slavery, nor because
they deny that slaves are legally property; for this obvious truth they
do not deny. But you prefer it, because they believe that man cannot
rightfully be a subject of property.

Abolitionists believe, to use words, which I have already quoted, that
it is "a wild and guilty phantasy, that man can hold property in man."
They believe, that to claim property in the exalted being, whom God has
made in His own image, and but "a little lower than the angels," is
scarcely less absurd than to claim it in the Creator himself. You take
the position, that human laws can rightfully reduce a race of men to
property; and that the outrage, to use your own language, is "sanctioned
and sanctified" by "two hundred years" continuance of it. Abolitionists,
on the contrary, trace back man's inalienable self-ownership to
enactments of the Divine Legislator, and to the bright morning of time,
when he came forth from the hand of his Maker, "crowned with glory and
honor," invested with self-control, and with dominion over the brute and
inanimate creation. You soothe the conscience of the slaveholder, by
reminding him, that the relation, which he has assumed towards his
down-trodden fellow-man, is lawful. The abolitionist protests, that the
wickedness of the relation is none the less, because it is legalized. In
charging abolitionists with condemning "the rights of property," you
mistake the innocent for the guilty party. Were you to be so unhappy as
to fall into the hands of a kidnapper, and be reduced to a slave, and
were I to remonstrate, though in vain, with your oppressor, who would
you think was the despiser of "the rights of property"--myself, or the
oppressor? As you would judge in that case, so judges every slave in his
similar case.

The man-stealer's complaint, that his "rights of property" in his stolen
fellow men are not adequately respected by the abolitionist, recalls to
my mind a very similar, and but little more ludicrous case of
conscientious regard for the "rights of property." A traveler was
plundered of the whole of his large sum of money. He pleaded
successfully with the robber for a little of it to enable him to reach
his home. But, putting his hand rather deeper into the bag of stolen
coins than comported with the views of the robber, he was arrested with
the cry, "Why, man, have you no conscience?" You will perhaps inquire,
whether abolitionists regard all the slaves of the South as stolen--as
well those born at the South, as those, who were confessedly stolen from
Africa? I answer, that we do--that every helpless new-born infant, on
which the chivalry of the South pounces, is, in our judgment, the owner
of itself--that we consider, that the crime of man-stealing which is so
terribly denounced in the Bible, does not consist, as is alleged, in
stealing a slave from a third person, but in stealing him from
himself--in depriving him of self control, and subjecting him, as
property, to the absolute control of another. Joseph's declaration, that
he "was stolen," favors this definition of man-stealing. Jewish
Commentators authorise it. Money, as it does not own itself, cannot be
stolen from itself But when we reflect, that man is the owner of
himself, it does not surprise us, that wresting away his inalienable
rights--his very manhood--should have been called man-stealing.

Whilst on this subject of "the rights of property," I am reminded of
your "third impediment to abolition." This "impediment" consists in the
fact of the great value of the southern slaves--which, according to your
estimation, is not less than "twelve hundred millions of dollars." I
will adopt your estimate, and thus spare myself from going into the
abhorrent calculation of the worth in dollars and cents of immortal
man--of the worth of "the image of God." I thank you for your virtual
admission, that this wealth is grasped with a tenacity proportioned to
its vast amount. Many of the wisest and best men of the North have been
led into the belief that the slaveholders of the South are too humane
and generous to hold their slaves fur the sake of gain. Even Dr.
Channing was a subject of this delusion; and it is well remembered, that
his too favorable opinions of his fellow men, made it difficult to
disabuse him of it. Northern Christians have been ready to believe, that
the South would give up her slaves, because of her conscious lack of
title to them. But in what age of the world have impenitent men failed
to cling as closely to that, which they had obtained by fraud, as to
their honest acquisitions? Indeed, it is demonstrable on philosophical
principles, that the more stupendous the fraud, the more tenacious is
the hold upon that, which is gotten by it. I trust, that your admission
to which I have just referred, will have no small effect to prevent the
Northern apologist for slavery from repeating the remark that the South
would gladly liberate her slaves, if she saw any prospect of bettering
the condition of the objects of her tender and solicitous benevolence. I
trust, too, that this admission will go far to prove the emptiness of
your declaration, that the abolitionists "have thrown back for half a
century the prospect of any species of emancipation of the African race,
gradual or immediate, in any of the states," and the emptiness of your
declaration, that, "prior to the agitation of this subject of abolition,
there was a progressive melioration in the condition of slaves
throughout all the slave states," and that "in some of them, schools of
instruction were opened," &c.; and I further trust, that this admission
will render harmless your intimation, that this "melioration" and these
"schools" were intended to prepare the slaves for freedom. After what
you have said of the great value of the slaves, and of the obstacle it
presents to emancipation, you will meet with little success in your
endeavors to convince the world, that the South was preparing to give up
the "twelve hundred millions of dollars," and that the naughty
abolitionists have postponed her gratification "for half a century." If
your views of the immense value of the slaves, and of the consequent
opposition to their freedom, be correct, then the hatred of the South
towards the abolitionists must be, not because their movements tend to
lengthen, but because they tend to shorten the period of her possession
of the "twelve hundred millions of dollars." May I ask you, whether,
whilst the South clings to these "twelve hundred millions of dollars,"
it is not somewhat hypocritical in her to be complaining, that the
abolitionists are fastening the "twelve hundred millions of dollars" to
her? And may I ask you, whether there is not a little inconsistency
between your own lamentations over this work of the abolitionists, and
your intimation that the South will never consent to give up her slaves,
until the impossibility, of paying her "twelve hundred millions of
dollars" for them, shall have been accomplished? Puerile and insulting
as is your proposition to the abolitionists to raise "twelve hundred
millions of dollars" for the purchase of the slaves, it is nevertheless
instructive; inasmuch as it shows, that, in your judgment, the South is
as little willing to give up her slaves, as the abolitionists are able
to pay "twelve hundred millions of dollars" for them; and how unable the
abolitionists are to pay a sum of money far greater than the whole
amount of money in the world, I need not explain.

But if the South must have "twelve hundred millions of dollars" to
induce her to liberate her present number of slaves, how can you expect
success fur your scheme of ridding her of several times the present
number, "in the progress of some one hundred and fifty, or two hundred
years?" Do you reply, that, although she must have "four hundred
dollars" a-piece for them, if she sell them to the abolitionists, she
is, nevertheless, willing to let the Colonization Society have them
without charge? There is abundant proof, that she is not. During the
twenty-two years of the existence of that Society, not so many slaves
have been emancipated and given to it for expatriation, as are born in a
single week. As a proof that the sympathies of the South are all with
the slaveholding and _real_ character of this two-faced institution, and
not at all with the abolition purposes and tendencies, which it
professes at the North, none of its Presidents, (and slave-holders only
are deemed worthy to preside over it,) has ever contributed from his
stock of slaves to swell those bands of emigrants, who, leaving our
shores in the character of "nuisances," are instantly transformed, to
use your own language, into "missionaries, carrying with them
credentials in the holy cause of Christianity, civilization, and free
institutions." But you were not in earnest, when you held up the idea in
your recent speech, that the rapidly multiplying millions of our colored
countrymen would be expatriated. What you said on that point was but to
indulge in declamation, and to round off a paragraph. It is in that part
of your speech where you say that "no practical scheme for their removal
or separation from us has yet been devised or proposed," that you
exhibit your real sentiments on this subject, and impliedly admit the
deceitfulness of the pretensions of the American Colonization Society.

Before closing my remarks on the topic of "the rights of property," I
will admit the truth of your charge, that _Abolitionists deny, that the
slaveholder is entitled to "compensation" for his slaves_.

Abolitionists do not know, why he, who steals men is, any more than he,
who steals horses, entitled to "compensation" for releasing his plunder.
They do not know, why he, who has exacted thirty years' unrequited toil
from the sinews of his poor oppressed brother, should be paid for
letting that poor oppressed brother labor for himself the remaining ten
or twenty years of his life. But, it is said, that the South bought her
slaves of the North, and that we of the North ought therefore to
compensate the South for liberating them. If there are individuals at
the North, who have sold slaves, I am free to admit, that they should
promptly surrender their ill-gotten gains; and no less promptly should
the inheritors of such gains surrender them. But, however this may be,
and whatever debt may be due on this score, from the North to the South,
certain it is, that on no principle of sound ethics, can the South hold
to the persons of the innocent slaves, as security for the payment of
the debt. Your state and mine, and I would it were so with all others,
no longer allow the imprisonment of the debtor as a means of coercing
payment from him. How much less, then, should they allow the creditor to
promote the security of his debt by imprisoning a third person--and one
who is wholly innocent of contracting the debt? But who is imprisoned,
if it be not he, who is shut up in "the house of bondage?" And who is
more entirely innocent than he, of the guilty transactions between his
seller and buyer?

Another of your charges against abolitionists is, _that, although
"utterly destitute of Constitutional or other rightful power--living in
totally distinct communities--as alien to the communities in which the
subject on which they would operate resides, so far as concerns
political power over that subject, as if they lived in Africa or Asia;
they nevertheless promulgate to the world their purpose to be, to
manumit forthwith, and without compensation, and without moral
preparation, three millions of negro slaves, under jurisdictions
altogether separated from those under which they live."_

I will group with this charge several others of the same class.

_1._ _Abolitionists neglect the fact, that "the slavery which exists
amongst us (southern people) is our affair--not theirs--and that they
have no more just concern with it, than they have with slavery as it
exists throughout the world."_

_2._ _They are regardless of the "deficiency of the powers of the
General Government, and of the acknowledged and incontestable powers of
the States."_

_3._ "Superficial men (meaning no doubt abolitionists) confound the
totally different cases together of the powers of the British Parliament
and those of the Congress of the United States in the matter of
slavery."_

Are these charges any thing more than the imagery of your own fancy, or
selections from the numberless slanders of a time-serving and corrupt
press? If they are founded on facts, it is in your power to state the
facts. For my own part, I am utterly ignorant of any, even the least,
justification for them. I am utterly ignorant that the abolitionists
hold any peculiar views in relation to the powers of the General or
State Governments. I do not believe, that one in a hundred of them
supposes, that slavery in the states is a legitimate subject of federal
legislation. I believe, that a majority of the intelligent men amongst
them accord much more to the claims of "state sovereignty," and approach
far more nearly to the character of "strict constructionists," than does
the distinguished statesman, who charges them with such latitudinarian
notions. There may be persons in our country, who believe that Congress
has the absolute power over all American slavery, which the British
Parliament had over all British slavery; and that Congress can abolish
slavery in the slave states, because Great Britain abolished it in her
West India Islands; but, I do not know them; and were I to look for
them, I certainly should not confine my search to abolitionists--for
abolitionists, as it is very natural they should be, are far better
instructed in the subject of slavery and its connections with civil
government, than are the community in general.

It is passing strange, that you, or any other man, who is not playing a
desperate game, should, in the face of the Constitution of the American
Anti-Slavery Society, which "admits, that each state, in which slavery
exists, has, by the Constitution of the United States, the exclusive
right to legislate in regard to the abolition of slavery in said state;"
make such charges, as you have done.

In an Address "To the Public," dated September 3, 1835, and subscribed
by the President, Treasurer, the three Secretaries, and the other five
members of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society,
we find the following language. 1. "We hold that Congress has no more
right to abolish slavery in the Southern states than in the French West
India Islands. Of course we desire no national legislation on the
subject. 2. We hold that slavery can only be lawfully abolished by the
legislatures of the several states in which it prevails, and that the
exercise of any other than moral influence to induce such abolition is
unconstitutional."

But what slavery is it that the abolitionists call on Congress to
abolish? Is it that in the slave states? No--it is that in the District
of Columbia and in the territories--none other. And is it not a fair
implication of their petitions, that this is the only slavery, which, in
the judgment of the petitioners, Congress has power to abolish?
Nevertheless, it is in the face of this implication, that you make your
array of charges.

Is it true, however, that the North has nothing more to do with slavery
in the states, than with slavery in a foreign country? Does it not
concern the North, that, whilst it takes many thousands of her voters to
be entitled to a representative in Congress, there are districts at the
South, where, by means of slavery, a few hundred voters enjoy this
benefit. Again, since the North regards herself as responsible in common
with the South, for the continuance of slavery in the District of
Columbia and in the Territories, and for the continuance of the
interstate traffic in human beings; and since she believes slavery in
the slave states to be the occasion of these crimes, and that they will
all of necessity immediately cease when slavery ceases--is it not right,
that she should feel that she has a "just concern with slavery?" Again,
is it nothing to the people of the North, that they may be called on, in
obedience to a requirement of the federal constitution, to shoulder
their muskets to quell "domestic violence?" But, who does not know, that
this requirement owes its existence solely to the apprehension of
servile insurrections?--or, in other words, to the existence of slavery
in the slave states? Again, when our guiltless brothers escape from the
southern prison-house, and come among us, we are under constitutional
obligation to deliver them up to their stony-hearted pursuers. And is
not slavery in the slave states, which is the occasion of our obligation
to commit this outrage on humanity and on the law of God, a matter of
"just concern to us?" To what too, but slavery, in the slave states, is
to be ascribed the long standing insult of our government towards that
of Hayti? To what but that, our national disadvantages and losses from
the want of diplomatic relations between the two governments? To what so
much, as to slavery in the slave states, are owing the corruption in our
national councils, and the worst of our legislation? But scarcely any
thing should go farther to inspire the North with a sense of her "just
concern" in the subject of slavery in the slave states, than the fact,
that slavery is the parent of the cruel and murderous prejudice, which
crushes and kills her colored people; and, that it is but too probable,
that the child will live as long as its parent. And has the North no
"just concern" with the slavery of the slave states, when there is so
much reason to fear that our whole blood-guilty nation is threatened
with God's destroying wrath on account of it?

There is another respect in which we of the North have a "just concern"
with the slavery of the slave states. We see nearly three millions of
our fellow men in those states robbed of body, mind, will, and
soul--denied marriage and the reading of the Bible, and marketed as
beasts. We see them in a word crushed in the iron folds of slavery. Our
nature--the laws written upon its very foundations--the Bible, with its
injunctions "to remember them that are in bonds as bound with them," and
to "open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are
appointed to destruction"--all require us to feel and to express what we
feel for these wretched millions. I said, that we see this misery. There
are many amongst us--they are anti-abolitionists--who do not see it; and
to them God says; "but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse."

I add, that we of the North must feel concerned about slavery in the
slave states, because of our obligation to pity the deluded,
hard-hearted, and bloody oppressors in those states: and to manifest our
love for them by rebuking their unsurpassed sin. And, notwithstanding
pro-slavery statesmen at the North, who wink at the iniquity of slave
holding, and pro-slavery clergymen at the North, who cry, "peace, peace"
to the slaveholder, and sew "pillows to armholes," tell us, that by our
honest and open rebuke of the slaveholder, we shall incur his enduring
hatred; we, nevertheless, believe that "open rebuke is better than
secret love," and that, in the end, we shall enjoy more Southern favor
than they, whose secret love is too prudent and spurious to deal
faithfully with the objects of its regard. "He that rebuketh a man,
afterward shall find more favor than he that flattereth with the
tongue." The command, "thou shall in any wise rebuke thy neighbor and
not suffer sin upon him," is one, which the abolitionist feels, that he
is bound to obey, as well in the case of the slaveholder, as in that of
any other sinner. And the question: "who is my neighbor," is so answered
by the Savior, as to show, that not he of our vicinity, nor even he of
our country, is alone our "neighbor."

The abolitionists of the North hold, that they have certainly as much
"just concern" with slavery in the slave states, as the temperance men
of the North have with "intemperance" at the South. And I would here
remark, that the weapons with which the abolitionists of the North
attack slavery in the slave states are the same, and no other than the
same, with those, which the North employs against the vice of
intemperance at the South. I add too, that were you to say, that
northern temperance men disregard "the deficiency of the powers of the
General Government," and also "the acknowledged and incontestable powers
of the states;" your charge would be as suitable as when it is applied
to northern abolitionists.

You ascribe to us "the purpose to manumit the three millions of negro
slaves." Here again you greatly misrepresent us, by holding us up as
employing coercive, instead of persuasive, means for the accomplishment
of our object. Our "purpose" is to persuade others to "manumit." The
slaveholders themselves are to "manumit." It is evident, that others
cannot "manumit" for them. If the North were endeavoring to persuade the
South to give up the growing of cotton, you would not say, it is the
purpose of the North to give it up. But, as well might you, as to say,
that it is the "purpose" of the abolitionists to "manumit." It is very
much by such misrepresentations, that the prejudices against
abolitionists are fed and sustained. How soon they would die of atrophy,
if they, who influence the public mind and mould public opinion, would
tell but the simple truth about abolitionists.

You say, that the abolitionists would have the slaves manumitted
"without compensation and without moral preparation." I have already
said enough on the point of "compensation." It is true, that they would
have them manumitted immediately:--for they believe slavery is sin, and
that therefore the slaveholder has no right to protract the bondage of
his slaves for a single year, or for a single day or hour;--not even,
were he to do so to afford them "a moral preparation" for freedom, or to
accomplish any other of the kindest and best purposes. They believe,
that the relation of slaveholder, as it essentially and indispensably
involves the reduction of men to chattelship, cannot, under any plea
whatever, be continued with innocence, for a single moment. If it can
be--if the plain laws of God, in respect to marriage and religious
instruction and many other blessings, of which chattelized man is
plundered, can be innocently violated--why credit any longer the
assertion of the Bible, that "sin is the transgression of the law?"--why
not get a new definition of sin?

Another reason with abolitionists in favor of immediate manumission, is,
that the slaves do not, as a body, acquire, whilst in slavery, any
"moral preparation" for freedom. To learn to swim we must be allowed the
use of water. To learn the exercises of a freeman, we must enjoy he
element of liberty. I will not say, that slaves cannot be taught, to
some extent, the duties of freemen. Some knowledge of the art of
swimming may be acquired before entering the water. I have not forgotten
what you affirm about the "progressive melioration in the condition of
slaves," and the opening of "schools of instruction" for them "prior to
the agitation of the subject of abolition;" nor, have I forgotten, that
I could not read it without feeling, that the creations of your fancy,
rather than the facts of history, supplied this information. Instances,
rare instances, of such "melioration" and of such "schools of
instruction," I doubt not there have been: but, I am confident, that the
Southern slaves have been sunk in depths of ignorance proportioned to
the profits of their labor. I have not the least belief, that the
proportion of readers amongst them is one half so great, as it was
before the invention of Whitney's cotton gin.

Permit me to call your attention to a few of the numberless evidences,
that slavery is a poor school for "moral preparation" for freedom. 1st.
Slavery turns its victims into thieves. "Who should be astonished," says
Thomas S. Clay, a very distinguished slaveholder of Georgia, "if the
negro takes from the field or corn-house the supplies necessary for his
craving appetite and then justifies his act, and denies that it is
stealing?" What debasement in the slave does the same gentleman's remedy
for theft indicate? "If," says he, "the negro is informed, that if he
does not steal, he shall receive rice as an allowance; and if he does
steal, he shall not, a motive is held out which will counteract the
temptation to pilfer." 2nd. Slavery reeks with licentiousness. Another
son of the South says, that the slaveholder's kitchen is a brothel, and
a southern village a Sodom. The elaborate defence of slavery by
Chancellor Harper of South Carolina justifies the heaviest accusations,
that have been brought against it on the score of licentiousness. How
could you blame us for deeply abhorring slavery, even were we to view it
in no other light than that in which the Dews and Harpers and its other
advocates present it? 3rd. Slavery puts the master in the place of God,
and the master's law in the place of God's law! "The negro," says Thomas
S. Clay, "is seldom taught to feel, that he is punished for breaking
God's law! He only knows his master as law-giver and executioner, and
the sole object held up to his view is to make him a more obedient and
profitable slave. He oftener hears that he shall be punished if he
steals, than if he breaks the Sabbath or swears; and thus he sees the
very threatenings of God brought to bear on his master's interests. It
is very manifest to him, that his own good is very far from forming the
primary reason for his chastisement: his master's interests are to be
secured at all events;--God's claims are secondary, or enforced merely
for the purpose of advancing those of his owner. His own benefit is the
residuum after this double distillation of moral motive--a mere
accident." 4th. The laws of nearly all the slave-states forbid the
teaching of the slaves to read. The abundant declarations, that those
laws are without exception, a consequence of the present agitation of
the question of slavery are glaringly false. Many of these laws were
enacted long before this agitation; and some of them long before you and
I were born. Say the three hundred and fifty-three gentlemen of the
District of Abbeville and Edgefield in South Carolina, who, the last
year, broke up a system of oral religious instruction, which the
Methodist Conference of that State had established amongst their slaves:
"Intelligence and slavery have no affinity for each other." And when
those same gentlemen declare, that "verbal and lecturing instruction
will increase a desire with the black population to learn"--that "the
progress and diffusion of knowledge will be a consequence"--and that "a
progressive system of improvement will be introduced, that will
ultimately revolutionize our civil institutions," they admit, that the
prohibition of "intelligence" to the slaves is the settled and necessary
policy of slavery, and not, as you would have us believe, a temporary
expedient occasioned by the present "agitation of this subject of
abolition." 5th. Slavery--the system, which forbids marriage and the
reading of the Bible--does of necessity turn its subjects into heathens.
A Report of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, made five years
ago, says: "Who could credit it, that in these years of revival and
benevolent effort--that, in this Christian Republic, there are over two
millions of human beings in the condition of heathen, and in some
respects in a worse condition? They may be justly considered the heathen
of this Christian country, and will bear comparison with heathen in any
country in the world." I will finish what I have to say on this point of
"moral preparation" for freedom, with the remark, that the history of
slavery in no country warrants your implication, that slaves acquire
such "moral preparation." The British Parliament substituted an
apprenticeship for slavery with the express design, that it should
afford a "moral preparation" for freedom. And yet, if you will read the
reports of late visitors to the British West Indies, you will find, that
the planters admit, that they made no use of the advantages of the
apprenticeship to prepare their servants for liberty. Their own
gain--not the slaves'--was their ruling motive, during the term of the
apprenticeship, as well as preceding it.

Another of your charges is, _that the abolitionists "have increased the
rigors of legislation against slaves in most if not all the
slave States_."

And suppose, that our principles and measures have occasioned this
evil--are they therefore wrong?--and are we, therefore, involved in sin?
The principles and measures of Moses and Aaron were the occasion of a
similar evil. Does it follow, that those principles and measures were
wrong, and that Moses and Aaron were responsible for the sin of
Pharaoh's increased oppressiveness? The truth, which Jesus Christ
preached on the earth, is emphatically peace: but its power on the
depravity of the human heart made it the occasion of division and
violence. That depravity was the guilty cause of the division and
violence. The truth was but the innocent occasion of them. To make it
responsible for the effects of that depravity would be as unreasonable,
as it is to make the holy principles of the anti-slavery cause
responsible for the wickedness which they occasion: and to make the
great Preacher Himself responsible for the division and violence, would
be but to carry out the absurdity, of which the public are guilty, in
holding abolitionists responsible for the mobs, which are got up against
them. These mobs, by the way, are called "abolition mobs." A similar
misnomer would pronounce the mob, that should tear down your house and
shoot your wife, "Henry Clay's mob." Harriet Martineau, in stating the
fact, that the mobs of 1834, in the city of New York, were set down to
the wrong account, says, that the abolitionists were told, that "they
had no business to scare the city with the sight of their burning
property and demolished churches!"

No doubt the light of truth, which the abolitionists are pouring into
the dark den of slavery, greatly excites the monster's wrath: and it may
be, that he vents a measure of it on the helpless and innocent victims
within his grasp. Be it so;--it is nevertheless, not the Ithuriel spear
of truth, that is to be held guilty of the harm:--it is the monster's
own depravity, which cannot


                              "endure
Touch of celestial temper, but returns
Of force to its own likeness."[A]


[Footnote A: This is a reference to a passage in Milton's Paradise Lost,
in which Satan in disguise is touched by the spear of the archangel
Ithuriel and is thereby forced to return to his own form.]

I am, however, far from believing, that the treatment of the slaves is
rendered any more rigorous and cruel by the agitation of the subject of
slavery. I am very far from believing, that it is any harsher now than
it was before the organization of the American Anti-Slavery Society.
Fugitive slaves tell us, it is not: and, inasmuch as the slaveholders
are, and, by both words and actions, abundantly show, that they feel
that they are, arraigned by the abolitionists before the bar of the
civilized world, to answer to the charges of perpetrating cruelties on
their slaves, it would, unless indeed, they are of the number of those
"whose glory is in their shame," be most unphilosophical to conclude,
that they are multiplying proofs of the truth of those charges, more
rapidly than at any former stage of their barbarities. That slaveholders
are not insensible to public opinion and to the value of a good
character was strikingly exhibited by Mr. Calhoun, in his place in the
Senate of the United States, when he followed his frank disclaimer of
all suspicion, that the abolitionists are meditating a war against the
slaveholder's person, with remarks evincive of his sensitiveness under
the war, which they are waging against the slaveholder's character.

A fact occurs to me, which goes to show, that the slaveholders feel
themselves to be put upon their good behavior by the abolitionists.
Although slaves are murdered every day at the South, yet never, until
very recently, if at all, has the case occurred, in which a white man
has been executed at the South for the murder of a slave. A few months
ago, the Southern newspapers brought us copies of the document,
containing the refusal of Governor Butler of South Carolina to pardon a
man, who had been convicted of the murder of a slave. This document
dwells on the protection due to the slave; and, if I fully recollect its
character, an abolitionist himself could hardly have prepared a more
appropriate paper for the occasion. Whence such a document--whence, in
the editorial captions to this document, the exultation over its
triumphant refutations of the slanders of the abolitionists against the
South--but, that Governor Butler feels--but, that the writes of those
captions feel--that the abolitionists have put the South upon her
good behavior.

Another of your charges is, _that the abolitionists oppose "the project
of colonisation."_

Having, under another head, made some remarks on this "project," I will
only add, that we must oppose the American Colonization Society, because
it denies the sinfulness of slavery, and the duty of immediate,
unqualified emancipation. Its avowed doctrine is, that, unless
emancipation he accompanied by expatriation, perpetual slavery is to be
preferred to it. Not to oppose that Society, would be the guiltiest
treachery to our holy religion, which requires immediate and
unconditional repentance of sin. Not to oppose it, would be to uphold
slavery. Not to oppose it, would be to abandon the Anti-Slavery Society.
Do you ask, why, if this be the character of the American Colonization
Society, many, who are now abolitionists, continued in it so long? I
answer for myself, that, until near the period of my withdrawal from it,
I had very inadequate conceptions of the wickedness, both of that
Society, and of slavery. For having felt the unequalled sin of slavery
no more deeply--for feeling it now no more deeply, I confess myself to
be altogether without excuse. The great criminality of my long
continuance in the Colonization Society is perhaps somewhat palliated by
the fact, that the strongest proofs of the wicked character and
tendencies of the Society were not exhibited, until it spread out its
wing over slavery to shelter the monster from the earnest and effective
blows of the American Anti-Slavery Society.

Another of your charges is, that the abolitionists, in declaring "that
their object is not to stimulate the action of the General Government,
_but to operate upon the States themselves, in which the institution of
domestic slavery exists," are evidently insincere, since the "abolition
societies and movements are all confined to the free Slates_."

I readily admit, that our object is the abolition of slavery, as well in
the slave States, as in other portions of the Nation, where it exists.
But, does it follow, because only an insignificant share of our
"abolition societies and movements" is in those States, that we
therefore depend for the abolition of slavery in them on the General
Government, rather than on moral influence? I need not repeat, that the
charge of our looking to the General Government for such abolition is
refuted by the language of the Constitution of the Anti-Slavery Society.
You may, however, ask--"why, if you do not look to the General
Government for it, is not the great proportion of your means of moral
influence in the slave States, where is the great body of the slaves?" I
answer that, in the first place, the South does not permit us to have
them there; and that, in the words of one of your fellow Senators, and
in the very similar words of another--both uttered on the floor of the
Senate--"if the abolitionists come to the South, the South will hang
them." Pardon the remark, that it seems very disingenuous in you to draw
conclusions unfavorable to the sincerity of the abolitionists from
premises so notoriously false, as are those which imply, that it is
entirely at their own option, whether the abolitionists shall have their
"societies and movements" in the free or slave States. I continue to
answer your question, by saying, in the second place, that, had the
abolitionists full liberty to multiply their "societies and movements"
in the slave States, they would probably think it best to have the great
proportion of them yet awhile in the free States. To rectify public
opinion on the subject of slavery is a leading object with
abolitionists. This object is already realized to the extent of a
thorough anti-slavery sentiment in Great Britain, as poor Andrew
Stevenson, for whom you apologise, can testify. Indeed, the great power
and pressure of that sentiment are the only apology left to this
disgraced and miserable man for uttering a bald falsehood in vindication
of Virginia morals. He above all other men, must feel the truth of the
distinguished Thomas Fowel Buxton's declaration, that "England is turned
into one great Anti-Slavery Society." Now, Sir, it is such a change, as
abolitionists have been the instruments of producing in Great Britain,
that we hope to see produced in the free States. We hope to see public
sentiment in these States so altered, that such of their laws, as uphold
and countenance slavery, will be repealed--so altered, that the present
brutal treatment of the colored population in them will give place to a
treatment dictated by justice, humanity, and brotherly and Christian
love;--so altered, that there will be thousands, where now there are not
hundreds, to class the products of slave labor with other stolen goods,
and to refuse to eat and to wear that, which is wet with the tears, and
red with the blood of "the poor innocents," whose bondage is continued,
because men are more concerned to buy what is cheap, than what is
honestly acquired;--so altered, that our Missionary and other religious
Societies will remember, that God says: "I hate robbery for
burnt-offering," and will forbear to send their agents after that
plunder, which, as it is obtained at the sacrifice of the body and soul
of the plundered, is infinitely more unfit, than the products of
ordinary theft, to come into the Lord's treasury. And, when the warm
desires of our hearts, on these points, shall be realized, the fifty
thousand Southerners, who annually visit the North, for purposes of
business and pleasure, will not all return to their homes,
self-complacent and exulting, as now, when they carry with them the
suffrages of the North in favor of slavery: but numbers of them will
return to pursue the thoughts inspired by their travels amongst the
enemies of oppression--and, in the sequel, they will let their
"oppressed go free."

It were almost as easy for the sun to call up vegetation by the side of
an iceberg, as for the abolitionists to move the South extensively,
whilst their influence is counteracted by a pro-slavery spirit at the
North. How vain would be the attempt to reform the drunkards of your
town of Lexington, whilst the sober in it continue to drink intoxicating
liquors! The first step in the reformation is to induce the sober to
change their habits, and create that total abstinence-atmosphere, in the
breathing of which, the drunkard lives,--and, for the want of which, he
dies. The first step, in the merciful work of delivering the slaveholder
from his sin, is similar. It is to bring him under the influence of a
corrected public opinion--of an anti-slavery sentiment:--and they, who
are to be depended on to contribute to this public opinion--to make up
this anti-slavery sentiment--are those, who are not bound up in the iron
habits, and blinded by the mighty interests of the slaveholder. To
depend on slaveholders to give the lead to public opinion in the
anti-slavery enterprise, would be no less absurd, than to begin the
temperance reformation with drunkards, and to look to them to produce
the influences, which are indispensable to their own redemption.

You say of the abolitionists, _that "they are in favor of
amalgamation."_

The Anti-Slavery Society is, as its name imports, a society to oppose
slavery--not to "make matches." Whether abolitionists are inclined to
amalgamation more than anti-abolitionists are, I will not here take upon
myself to decide. So far, as you and I may be regarded as
representatives of these two parties, and so far as our marriages argue
our tastes in this matter, the abolitionists and anti-abolitionists may
be set down, as equally disposed to couple white with white and black
with black--for our wives, as you are aware, are both white. I will here
mention, as it may further argue the similarity in the matrimonial
tastes of abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, the fact so grateful to
us in the days, when we were "workers together" in promoting the "scheme
of Colonization," that our wives are natives of the same town.

I have a somewhat extensive acquaintance at the North; and I can truly
say, that I do not know a white abolitionist, who is the reputed father
of a colored child. At the South there are several hundred thousand
persons, whose yellow skins testify, that the white man's blood courses
through their veins. Whether the honorable portion of their parentage is
to be ascribed exclusively to the few abolitionists scattered over the
South--and who, under such supposition, must, indeed, be prodigies of
industry and prolificness--or whether anti-abolitionists there have,
notwithstanding all their pious horror of "amalgamation," been
contributing to it, you can better judge than myself.

That slavery is a great amalgamator, no one acquainted with the blended
colors of the South will, for a moment, deny. But, that an increasing
amalgamation would attend the liberation of the slaves, is quite
improbable, when we reflect, that the extensive occasions of the present
mixture are the extreme debasement of the blacks and their entire
subjection to the will of the whites; and that even should the
debasement continue under a state of freedom, the subjection would not.
It is true, that the colored population of our country might in a state
of freedom, attain to an equality with the whites; and that a
multiplication of instances of matrimonial union between the two races
might be a consequence of this equality: but, beside, that this would be
a lawful and sinless union, instead of the adulterous and wicked one,
which is the fruit of slavery, would not the improved condition of our
down-trodden brethren be a blessing infinitely overbalancing all the
violations of our taste, which it might occasion? I say violations of
_our_ taste;--for we must bear in mind that, offensive as the
intermixture of different races may be to us, the country or age, which
practices it, has no sympathy whatever with our feeling on this point.

How strongly and painfully it argues the immorality and irreligion of
the American people, that they should look so complacently on the
"amalgamation," which tramples the seventh commandment under foot, and
yet be so offended at that, which has the sanction of lawful wedlock!
When the Vice President of this Nation was in nomination for his present
office, it was objected to him, that he had a family of colored
children. The defence, set up by his partisans, was, that, although he
had such a family, he nevertheless was not married to their mother! The
defence was successful; and the charge lost all its odiousness; and the
Vice President's popularity was retrieved, when, it turned out, that he
was only the adulterous, and not the married father of his children!

I am aware, that many take the ground, that we must keep the slaves in
slavery to prevent the matrimonial "amalgamation," which, they
apprehend, would be a fruit of freedom. But, however great a good,
abolitionists might deem the separation of the white and black races,
and however deeply they might be impressed with the power of slavery to
promote this separation, they nevertheless, dare not "do evil, that good
may come:"--they dare not seek to promote this separation, at the
fearful expense of upholding, or in anywise, countenancing a
humanity-crushing and God-defying system of oppression.

Another charge against the abolitionists is implied in the inquiry you
make, _whether since they do not "furnish in their own families or
persons examples of intermarriage, they intend to contaminate the
industrious and laborious classes of society of the North by a revolting
admixture of the black element."_

This inquiry shows how difficult it is for southern minds, accustomed as
they have ever been to identify labor with slavery, to conceive the true
character and position of such "classes" at the North; and also how
ignorant they are of the composition of our Anti-Slavery societies. To
correct your misapprehensions on these points, I will briefly say, in
the first place, that the laborers of the North are freemen and not
slaves;--that they marry whom they please, and are neither paired nor
unpaired to suit the interests of the breeder, or seller, or buyer, of
human stock:--and, in the second place, that the abolitionists, instead
of being a body of persons distinct from "the industrious and laborious
classes," do, more than nineteen twentieths of them, belong to those
"classes." You have fallen into great error in supposing, that
_abolitionists_ generally belong to the wealthy and aristocratic
classes. This, to a great extent, is true of _anti-abolitionists_. Have
you never heard the boast, that there have been anti-abolition mobs,
which consisted of "gentlemen of property and standing?"

You charge upon abolitionists "_the purpose to create a pinching
competition between black labor and white labor;" and add, that "on the
supposition of abolition the black class, migrating into the free
states, would enter into competition with the white class, diminishing
the wages of their labor_."

In making this charge, as well as in making that which immediately
precedes it, you have fallen into the error, that abolitionists do not
belong to "the industrious and laborious classes." In point of fact, the
abolitionists belong so generally to these classes, that if your charge
be true, they must have the strange "purpose" of "pinching" themselves.

Whether "the black class" would, or would not migrate, I am much more
pleased to have you say what you do on this point, though it be at the
expense of your consistency, than to have you say, as you do in another
part of your speech, that abolition "would end in the extermination or
subjugation of the one race or the other."

It appears to me highly improbable, that emancipation would be followed
by the migration of the emancipated. Emancipation, which has already
added fifty per cent. to the value of estates in the British West
Indies, would immediately add as much to the value of the soil of the
South. Much more of it would be brought into use; and, notwithstanding
the undoubted truth, that the freedman performs twice as much labor as
when a slave, the South would require, instead of any diminution, a very
great increase of the number of her laborers. The laboring population of
the British West India Islands, is one-third as large as that of the
southern states; and yet, since these islands have got rid of slavery,
and have entered on their career of enterprize and industry, they find
this population, great as it is, insufficient to meet the increased
demand for labor. As you are aware, they are already inviting laborers
of this and other countries to supply the deficiency. But what is the
amount of cultivable land in those islands, compared with that in all
the southern states? It is not so extensive as the like land in your
single state.

But you may suppose, that, in the event of the emancipation of her
slaves, the South would prefer white laborers. I know not why she
should. Such are, for the most part, unaccustomed to her kinds of labor,
and they would exact, because they would need, far greater wages than
those, who had never been indulged beyond the gratification of their
simplest wants. There is another point of view, in which it is still
more improbable, that the black laborers of the South would be displaced
by immigrations of white laborers. The proverbial attachment of the
slave to his "bornin-ground," (the place of his nativity,) would greatly
contribute to his contentment with low wages, at the hands of his old
master. As an evidence of the strong attachment of our southern colored
brethren to their birth-places, I remark, that, whilst the free colored
population of the free states increased from 1820 to 1830 but nineteen
per cent., the like population in the slave states increased, in the
same period, thirty five per cent;--and this, too, notwithstanding the
operation of those oppressive and cruel laws, whose enactment was
dictated by the settled policy of expelling the free blacks from
the South.

That, in the event of the abolition of southern slavery, the emancipated
slaves would migrate to the North, rather than elsewhere, is very
improbable. Whilst our climate would be unfriendly to them, and whilst
they would be strangers to our modes of agriculture, the sugar and
cotton fields of Texas, the West Indies, and other portions of the
earth, would invite them to congenial employments beneath congenial
skies. That, in case southern slavery is abolished, the colored
population of the North would be drawn off to unite with their race at
the South, is, for reasons too obvious to mention, far more probable
than the reverse.

It will be difficult for you to persuade the North, that she would
suffer in a pecuniary point of view by the extirpation of slavery. The
consumption of the laborers at the South would keep pace with the
improvement and elevation of their condition, and would very soon impart
a powerful impulse to many branches of Northern industry.

Another of your charges is in the following words: "The subject of
slavery within the District of Florida," and that "of the right of
Congress to prohibit the removal of slaves from one state to another,"
are, with abolitionists, "but so many masked batteries, concealing the
real and ultimate point of attack. That point of attack is the
institution of domestic slavery, as it exists in those states."

If you mean by this charge, that abolitionists think that the abolition
of slavery in the District of Columbia and in Florida, and the
suppression of the interstate traffic in human beings are, in
themselves, of but little moment, you mistake. If you mean, that they
think them of less importance than the abolition of slavery in the slave
states, you are right; and if you further mean, that they prize those
objects more highly, and pursue them more zealously, because they think,
that success in them will set in motion very powerful, if not indeed
resistless influences against slavery in the slave states, you are right
in this also. I am aware, that the latter concession brings
abolitionists under the condemnation of that celebrated book, written by
a _modern_ limiter of "human responsibility"--not by the _ancient_ one,
who exclaimed, "Am I my brother's keeper?" In that book, to which, by
the way, the infamous Atherton Resolutions are indebted for their
keynote, and grand pervading idea, we find the doctrine, that even if it
were the duty of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of
Columbia, the North nevertheless should not seek for such abolition,
unless the object of it be "ultimate within itself." If it be "for the
sake of something ulterior" also--if for the sake of inducing the
slaveholders of the slave states to emancipate their slaves--then we
should not seek for it. Let us try this doctrine in another
application--in one, where its distinguished author will not feel so
much delicacy, and so much fear of giving offence. His reason why we
should not go for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia,
unless our object in it be "ultimate within itself," and unaccompanied
by the object of producing an influence against slavery in the slave
states, is, that the Federal Constitution has left the matter of slavery
in the slave states to those states themselves. But will President
Wayland say, that it has done so to any greater extent, than it has left
the matter of gambling-houses and brothels in those states to those
states themselves? He will not, if he consider the subject:--though, I
doubt not, that when he wrote his bad book, he was under the prevailing
error, that the Federal Constitution tied up the hands and limited the
power of the American people in respect to slavery, more than to any
other vice.

But to the other application. We will suppose, that Great Britain has
put down the gambling-houses and brothels in her wide dominions--that
Mexico has done likewise; and that the George Thompsons, and Charles
Stuarts, and other men of God, have come from England to beseech the
people of the northern states to do likewise within their respective
jurisdictions;--and we will further suppose, that those foreign
missionaries, knowing the obstinate and infatuated attachment of the
people of the southern states to their gambling-houses and brothels,
should attempt, and successfully, too, to blend with the motive of the
people of the northern states to get rid of their own gambling houses
and brothels, the motive of influencing the people of the southern
states to get rid of theirs--what, we ask, would this eminent divine
advise in such a case? Would he have the people of the northern states
go on in their good work, and rejoice in the prospect, not only that
these polluting and ruinous establishments would soon cease to exist
within all their limits, but that the influence of their overthrow would
be fatal to the like establishments in the southern states? To be
consistent with himself--with the doctrine in question--he must reply in
the negative. To be consistent with himself, he must advise the people
of the northern states to let their own gambling-houses and brothels
stand, until they can make the object of their abolishment "ultimate
within itself;"--until they can expel from their hearts the cherished
hope, that the purification of their own states of these haunts of
wickedness would exert an influence to induce the people of their sister
states to enter upon a similar work of purity and righteousness. But I
trust, that President Wayland would not desire to be consistent with
himself on this point. I trust that he would have the magnanimity to
throw away this perhaps most pernicious doctrine of a pernicious book,
which every reader of it must see was written to flatter and please the
slaveholder and arrest the progress of the anti-slavery cause. How great
the sin of seizing on this very time, when special efforts are being
made to enlist the world's sympathies in behalf of the millions of our
robbed, outraged, crushed countrymen--how great the sin, of seizing on
such a time to attempt to neutralize those efforts, by ascribing to the
oppressors of these millions a characteristic "nobleness"--"enthusiastic
attachment to personal right"--"disinterestedness which has always
marked the southern character"--and a superiority to all others "in
making any sacrifice for the public good!" It is this sin--this heinous
sin--of which President Wayland has to repent. If he pities the slave,
it is because he knows, that the qualities, which he ascribes to the
slaveholder, do not, in fact, belong to him. On the other hand, if he
believes the slaveholder to be, what he represents him to be, he does
not--in the very nature of things, he cannot--pity the slave. He must
rather rejoice, that the slave has fallen into the hands of one, who,
though he has the name, cannot have the heart, and cannot continue in
the relation of a slaveholder. If John Hook, for having mingled his
discordant and selfish cries with the acclamations of victory and then
general joy, deserved Patrick Henry's memorable rebuke, what does he not
deserve, who finds it in his heart to arrest the swelling tide of pity
for the oppressed by praises of the oppressor, and to drown the public
lament over the slave's subjection to absolute power, in the
congratulation, that the slaveholder who exercises that power, is a
being of characteristic "nobleness," "disinterestedness," and
"sacrifice" of self-interest?

President Wayland may perhaps say, that the moral influence, which he is
unwilling to have exerted over the slaveholder, is not that, which is
simply persuasive, but that, which is constraining--not that, which is
simply inducing, but that, which is compelling. I cheerfully admit, that
it is infinitely better to induce men to do right from their own
approbation of the right, than it is to shame them, or in any other wise
constrain them, to do so; but I can never admit, that I am not at
liberty to effect the release of my colored brother from the fangs of
his murderous oppressor, when I can do so by bringing public opinion to
bear upon that oppressor, and to fill him with uneasiness and shame.

I have not, overlooked the distinction taken by the reverend gentleman;
though, I confess that, to a mind no less obtuse than my own, it is very
little better than "a distinction without a difference." Whilst he
denies, that I can, as an American citizen, rightfully labor for the
abolition of slavery in the slave states, or even in the District of
Columbia; he would perhaps, admit that, as a man, I might do so. But am
I not interested, as an American citizen, to have every part of my
country cleared of vice, and of whatever perils its free institutions?
Am I not interested, as such, to promote the overthrow of gambling and
rum drinking establishments in South Carolina?--but why any more than to
promote the overthrow of slavery? In fine, am I not interested, as an
American citizen, to have my country, and my whole country, "right in
the sight of God?" If not, I had better not be an American citizen.

I say no more on the subject of the sophistries of President Wayland's
book on, "The limitations of human responsibility;" nor would I have
said what I have, were it not that it is in reply to the like
sophistries couched in that objection of yours, which I have now been
considering.

Another of your charges against the abolitionists is, _that they seek to
"stimulate the rage of the people of the free states against the people
of the slave states. Advertisements of fugitive slaves and of slaves to
be sold are carefully collected and blazoned forth to infuse a spirit of
detestation and hatred against one entire and the largest section of
the Union."_

The slaveholders of the South represent slavery as a heaven-born
institution--themselves as patriarchs and patterns of benevolence--and
their slaves, as their tenderly treated and happy dependents. The
abolitionists, on the contrary, think that slavery is from hell--that
slaveholders are the worst of robbers--and that their slaves are the
wretched victims of unsurpassed cruelties. Now, how do abolitionists
propose to settle the points at issue?--by fanciful pictures of the
abominations of slavery to countervail the like pictures of its
blessedness?--by mere assertions against slavery, to balance mere
assertions in its favor? No--but by the perfectly reasonable and fair
means of examining slavery in the light of its own code--of judging of
the character of the slaveholder in the light of his own conduct--and of
arguing the condition of the slave from unequivocal evidences of the
light in which the slave himself views it. To this end we publish
extracts from the southern slave code, which go to show that slavery
subjects its victims to the absolute control of their erring fellow
men--that it withholds from them marriage and the Bible--that it classes
them with brutes and things--and annihilates the distinctions between
mind and matter. To this end we republish in part, or entirely,
pamphlets and books, in which southern men exhibit, with their own pens,
some of the horrid features of slavery. To this end we also republish
such advertisements as you refer to--advertisements in which immortal
beings, made in the image of God, and redeemed by a Savior's blood, and
breathed upon by the Holy Spirit, are offered to be sold, at public
auction, or sheriff's sale, in connection with cows, and horses, and
ploughs: and, sometimes we call special attention to the common fact,
that the husband and wife, the parent and infant child, are advertised
to be sold together or separately, as shall best suit purchasers. It is
to this end also, that we often republish specimens of the other class
of advertisements to which you refer. Some of the advertisements of this
class identify the fugitive slave by the scars, which the whip, or the
manacles and fetters, or the rifle had made on his person. Some of them
offer a reward for his head!--and it is to this same end, that we often
refer to the ten thousands, who have fled from southern slavery, and the
fifty fold that number, who have unsuccessfully attempted to fly from
it. How unutterable must be the horrors of the southern prison house,
and how strong and undying the inherent love of liberty to induce these
wretched fellow beings to brave the perils which cluster so thickly and
frightfully around their attempted escape? That love is indeed
_undying_. The three hundred and fifty-three South Carolina gentlemen,
to whom I have referred, admit, that even "the old negro man, whose head
is white with age, raises his thoughts to look through the vista which
will terminate his bondage."

I put it to your candor--can you object to the reasonableness and
fairness of these modes, which abolitionists have adopted for
establishing the truth on the points at issue between themselves and
slaveholders? But, you may say that our republication of your own
representations of slavery proceeds from unkind motives, and serves to
stir up the "hatred," and "rage of the people of the free states against
the people of the slave states." If such be an effect of the
republication, although not at all responsible for it, we deeply regret
it; and, as to our motives, we can only meet the affirmation of their
unkindness with a simple denial. Were we, however, to admit the
unkindness of our motives, and that we do not always adhere to the
apostolic motto, of "speaking the truth in love"--would the admission
change the features of slavery, or make it any the less a system of
pollution and blood? Is the accused any the less a murderer, because of
the improper motives with which his accuser brings forward the
conclusive proof of his blood-guiltiness?

We often see, in the speeches and writings of the South, that
slaveholders claim as absolute and as rightful a property in their
slaves, as in their cattle. Whence then their sensitiveness under our
republication of the advertisements, is which they offer to sell their
human stock? If the south will republish the advertisements of our
property, we will only not be displeased, but will thank her; and any
rebukes she may see fit to pour upon us, for offering particular kinds
of property, will be very patiently borne, in view of the benefit we
shall reap from her copies of our advertisements.

A further charge in your speech is, _that the abolitionists pursue their
object "reckless of all consequences, however calamitous they may be;"
that they have no horror of a "civil war," or "a dissolution of the
Union;" that theirs is "a bloody road," and "their purpose is abolition,
universal abolition, peaceably if it can, forcibly if it must."_

It is true that, the abolitionists pursue their object, undisturbed by
apprehensions of consequences; but it is not true, that they pursue it
"reckless of consequences." We believe that they, who unflinchingly
press the claims of God's truth, deserve to be considered as far less
"reckless of consequences," than they, who, suffering themselves to be
thrown into a panic by apprehensions of some mischievous results, local
or general, immediate or remote, are guilty of compromising the truth,
and substituting corrupt expediency for it. We believe that the
consequences of obeying the truth and following God are good--only
good--and that too, not only in eternity, but in time also. We believe,
that had the confidently anticipated deluge of blood followed the
abolition of slavery in the British West Indies, the calamity would have
been the consequence, not of abolition, but of resistance to it. The
insanity, which has been known to follow the exhibition of the claims of
Christianity, is to be charged on the refusal to fall in with those
claims, and not on our holy religion.

But, notwithstanding, we deem it our duty and privilege to confine
ourselves to the word of the Lord, and to make that word suffice to
prevent all fears of consequences; we, nevertheless, employ additional
means to dispel the alarms of those, who insist on walking "by sight;"
and, in thus accommodating ourselves to their want of faith, we are
justified by the example of Him, who, though he said, "blessed are they
that have not seen and yet have believed," nevertheless permitted an
unbelieving disciple, both to see and to touch the prints of the nails
and the spear. When dealing with such unbelievers, we do not confine
ourselves to the "thus saith the Lord"--to the Divine command, to "let
the oppressed go free and break every yoke"--to the fact, that God is an
abolitionist: but we also show how contrary to all sound philosophy is
the fear, that the slave, on whom have been heaped all imaginable
outrages, will, when those outrages are exchanged for justice and mercy,
turn and rend his penitent master. When dealing with such unbelievers,
we advert to the fact, that the insurrections at the South have been the
work of slaves--not one of them of persons discharged from slavery: we
show how happy were the fruits of emancipation in St. Domingo: and that
the "horrors of St. Domingo," by the parading of which so many have been
deterred from espousing our righteous cause, were the result of the
attempt to re-establish slavery. When dealing with them, we ask
attention to the present peaceful, prosperous, and happy condition of
the British West India Islands, which so triumphantly falsifies the
predictions, that bankruptcy, violence, bloodshed, and utter ruin would
follow the liberation of their slaves. We point these fearful and
unbelieving ones to the fact of the very favorable influence of the
abolition of slavery on the price of real estate in those islands; to
that of the present rapid multiplication of schools and churches in
them; to the fact, that since the abolition of slavery, on the first day
of August 1834, not a white man in all those islands has been struck
down by the arm of a colored man; and then we ask them whether in view
of such facts, they are not prepared to believe, that God connects
safety with obedience, and that it is best to "trust in the Lord with
all thine heart, and lean not to thine own understanding."

On the subject of "a dissolution of the Union," I have only to say,
that, on the one hand, there is nothing in my judgment, which, under
God, would tend so much to preserve our Republic, as the carrying out
into all our social, political and religious institutions of its great
foundation principle, that "all men are created equal;" and that, on the
other hand, the flagrant violation of that principle in the system of
slavery, is doing more than all thing, else to hasten the destruction of
the Republic. I am aware, that one of the doctrines of the South is,
that "slavery is the corner-stone of the republican edifice." But, if it
be true, that our political institutions harmonize with, and are
sustained by slavery, then the sooner we exchange them for others the
better. I am aware, that it is said, both at the North and at the South,
that it is essential to the preservation of the Union. But, greatly as I
love the Union, and much as I would sacrifice for its righteous
continuance, I cannot hesitate to say, that if slavery be an
indispensable cement, the sooner it is dissolved the better.

I am not displeased, that you call ours "a bloody road"--for this
language does not necessarily implicate our motives; but I am greatly
surprised that you charge upon us the wicked and murderous "purpose" of
a forcible abolition. In reply to this imputation, I need only refer you
to the Constitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society--to the
Declaration of the Convention which framed it--and to our characters,
for pledges, that we design no force, and are not likely to stain our
souls with the crime of murder. That Constitution says: "This society
will never, in any way, countenance the oppressed in vindicating their
rights by resorting to physical force." The Declaration says "Our
principles forbid the doing of evil that good may come, and lead us to
reject, and to entreat the oppressed to reject, the use of all carnal
weapons for deliverance from bondage. Our measures shall be such only,
as the opposition of moral purity to moral corruption--the destruction
of error by the potency of truth--the overthrow of prejudice by the
power of love--and the abolition of slavery by the spirit of
repentance." As to our characters they are before the world. You would
probably look in vain through our ranks for a horse-racer, a gambler, a
profane person, a rum-drinker, or a duellist. More than nine-tenths of
us deny the rightfulness of offensive, and a large majority, even that
of defensive national wars. A still larger majority believe, that deadly
weapons should not be used in cases of individual strife. And, if you
should ask, "where in the free States are the increasing numbers of men
and women, who believe, that the religion of the unresisting 'Lamb of
God' forbids recourse to such weapons, in all circumstances, either by
nations or individuals?"--the answer is, "to a man, to a woman, in the
ranks of the abolitionists." You and others will judge for yourselves,
how probable it is, that the persons, whom I have described, will prove
worthy of being held up as murderers.

The last of your charges against the abolitionists, which I shall
examine, is the following: _Having begun "their operations by professing
to employ only persuasive means," they "have ceased to employ the
instruments of reason and persuasion," and "they now propose to
substitute the powers of the ballot box;" and "the inevitable tendency
of their proceedings is if these should be found insufficient, to invoke
finally the more potent powers of the bayonet."_

If the slaveholders would but let us draw on them for the six or eight
thousand dollars, which we expend monthly to sustain our presses and
lecturers, they would then know, from an experience too painful to be
forgotten, how truthless is your declaration, that we "have ceased to
employ the instruments of reason and persuasion."

You and your friends, at first, employed "persuasive means" against "the
sub-treasury system." Afterwards, you rallied voters against it. Now, if
this fail, will you resort to "the more potent powers of the bayonet?"
You promptly and indignantly answer, "No." But, why will you not? Is it
because the prominent opposers of that system have more moral
worth--more religious horror of blood--than Arthur Tappan, William Jay,
and their prominent abolition friends? Were such to be your answer, the
public would judge, whether the men of peace and purity, who compose the
mass of abolitionists, would be more likely than the Clays and Wises and
the great body of the followers of these Congressional leaders to betake
themselves from a disappointment at "the ballot-box" to "the more potent
powers of the bayonet?"

You say, that we "_now_ propose to substitute the powers of the
ballot-box," as if it were only of late, that we had proposed to do so.
What then means the following language in our Constitution: "The society
will also endeavor in a Constitutional way to influence Congress to put
an end to the domestic slave-trade, and to abolish slavery in all those
portions of our common country, which come under its control--especially
in the District of Columbia--and likewise to prevent the extension of it
to any State, that may be hereafter admitted to the Union?" What then
means the following language in the "Declaration" of the Convention,
which framed our Constitution: "We also maintain, that there are at the
present time the highest obligations resting upon the people of the Free
States to remove slavery by moral and political action, as prescribed in
the Constitution of the United States?" If it be for the first time,
that we "_now_ propose" "political action," what means it, that
anti-slavery presses have, from year to year, called on abolitionists to
remember the slave at the polls?

You are deceived on this point; and the rapid growth of our cause has
been the occasion of your deception. You suppose, because it is only
within the last few months, that you have heard of abolitionists in this
country carrying their cause to "the ballot box," that it is only within
the last few months that they have done so. But, in point of fact, some
of them have done so for several years. It was not, however, until the
last year or two, when the number of abolitionists had become
considerable, and their hope of producing an impression on the Elections
proportionately strong, that many of them were seen bringing their
abolition principles to the "ballot-box." Nor was it until the Elections
of the last Autumn, that abolition action at "the ballot-box" had become
so extensive, as to apprise the Nation, that it is a principle with
abolitionists to "remember" in one place as well as in another--at the
polls as well as in the closet--"them that are in bonds." The fact that,
at the last State Election, there were three or four hundred abolition
votes given in the County in which I reside, is no more real because of
its wide spread interest, than the comparatively unheard of fact, that
about one hundred such votes were given the year before. By the way,
when I hear complaints of abolition action at the "ballot-box," I can
hardly refrain from believing, that they are made ironically. When I
hear complaints, that the abolitionists of this State rallied, as such,
at the last State Election, I cannot easily avoid suspecting, that the
purpose of such complaints is the malicious one of reviving in our
breasts the truly stinging and shame-filling recollection, that some
five-sixths of the voters in our ranks, either openly apostatized from
our principles, or took it into their heads, that the better way to vote
for the slave and the anti-slavery cause was to vote for their
respective political parties. You would be less afraid of the
abolitionists, if I should tell you that more than ten thousand of them
in this State voted at the last State Election, for candidates for law
makers, who were openly in favor of the law of this State, which creates
slavery, and of other laws, which countenance and uphold it. And you
would owe me for one of your heartiest laughs, were I to tell you, that
there are abolitionists--professed abolitionists--yes, actual members of
the Anti-Slavery Society--who, carrying out this delusion of helping the
slave by helping their "party," say, that they would vote even for a
slaveholder, if their party should nominate him. Let me remark, however,
that I am happy to be able to inform you, that this delusion--at least
in my own State--is fast passing away; and that thousands of the
abolitionists who, in voting last Autumn for Gov. Marey or Gov. Seward,
took the first step in the way, that leads to voting for the slaveholder
himself, are now not only refusing to take another step in that
inconsistent and wicked way, but are repenting deeply of that, which
they have already taken in it.

Much as you dislike, not to say _dread_, abolition action at "the
ballot-box," I presume, that I need not spend any time in explaining to
you the inconsistency of which an abolitionist is guilty, who votes for
an upholder of slavery. A wholesome citizen would not vote fur a
candidate for a law maker, who is in favor of laws, which authorize
gaming-houses or _groggeries_. But, in the eye of one, who his attempted
to take the "guage and dimensions" of the hell of slavery, the laws,
which authorize slaveholding, far transcend in wickedness, those, which
authorize gaming-houses or _groggeries_. You would not vote for a
candidate for a law-maker, who is in favor of "the sub-treasury system."
But compared with the evil of slavery, what is that of the most
pernicious currency scheme ever devised? It is to be "counted as the
small dust of the balance." If you would withhold your vote in the case
supposed--how gross in your eyes must be the inconsistency of the
abolitionist, who casts his vote on the side of the system of
fathomless iniquity!

I have already remarked on "the third" of the "impediments" or
"obstacles" to emancipation, which you bring to view. _"The first
impediment," you say, "is the utter and absolute want of all power on
the part of the General Government to effect the purpose."_

But because there is this want on the part of the General Government, it
does not follow, that it also exists on the part of the States: nor does
it follow, that it also exists on the part of the slaveholders
themselves. It is a poor plea of your neighbor for continuing to hold
his fellow man in slavery, that neither the Federal Government nor the
State of Kentucky has power to emancipate them. Such a plea is about as
valid, as that of the girl for not having performed the task, which her
mistress had assigned to her. "I was tied to the table." "Who tied you
there?" "I tied myself there."

_"The next obstacle," you say, "in the way of abolition arises out of
the fact of the presence in the slave states of three millions
of slaves."_

This is, indeed a formidable "obstacle:" and I admit, that it is as much
more difficult for the impenitent slaveholder to surmount it, than it
would be if there were but one million of slaves, as it is for the
impenitent thief to restore the money he has stolen, than it would be,
if the sum were one third as great. But, be not discouraged, dear sir,
with this view of the case. Notwithstanding the magnitude of the
obstacle, the warmest desires of your heart for the abolition of
slavery, may yet be realized. Be thankful, that repentance can avail in
every case of iniquity; that it can loosen the grasp of the man-thief,
as well as that of the money-thief: of the oppressors of thousands as
well as of hundreds:--of "three millions," as well as of one million.

But, were I to allow, that the obstacle in question, is as great, as you
regard it--nevertheless will it not increase with the lapse of years,
and become less superable the longer the work of abolition is postponed?
I suppose, however, that it is not to be disguised, that,
notwithstanding the occasional attempts in the course of your speech to
create a different impression, you are in favor of perpetual slavery;
and that all you say about "ultra abolitionists" in distinction from
"abolitionists," and about "gradual emancipation," in distinction from
"immediate emancipation," is said, but to please those, who sincerely
make, and are gulled by, such distinctions. I do not forget, that you
say, that the abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania was proper. But, most
obviously, you say it, to win favor with the anti-slavery portion of the
North, and to sustain the world's opinion of your devotion to the cause
of universal liberty;--for, having made this small concession to that
holy cause--small indeed, since Pennsylvania never at any one time, had
five thousand slaves--you, straightway, renew your claims to the
confidence of slaveholders, by assuring them, that you are opposed to
"any scheme whatever of emancipation, gradual or immediate," in States
where the slave population is extensive;--and, for proof of the
sincerity of your declaration, you refer them to the fact of your recent
open and effective opposition to the overthrow of slavery in your
own State.

The South is opposed to gradual, as well as to immediate emancipation:
and, were she, indeed, to enter upon a scheme of gradual emancipation,
she would speedily abandon it. The objections to swelling the number of
her free colored population, whilst she continued to hold their brethren
of the same race in bondage, would be found too real and alarming to
justify her perseverance in the scheme. How strange, that men at the
North, who think soundly on other subjects, should deduce the
feasibility of gradual emancipation in the slave states--in some of
which the slaves outnumber the free--from the fact of the like
emancipation of the comparative handful of slaves in New York and
Pennsylvania!

You say, "_It is frequently asked, what will become of the African race
among us? Are they forever to remain in bondage? That question was asked
more than half a century ago. It has been answered by fifty years of
prosperity_."

The wicked man, "spreading himself like the green bay tree," would
answer this question, as you have. They, who "walk after their own
lusts, saying, where is the promise of his coming--for since the fathers
fell asleep all things continue as they were from the beginning of the
creation?" would answer it, as you have. They, whose "heart is fully set
in them to do evil, because sentence against an evil work is not
executed speedily," would answer it, as you have. But, however you or
they may answer it, and although God may delay his "coming" and the
execution of his "sentence," it, nevertheless, remains true, that "it
shall be well with them that fear God, but it shall not be well with
the wicked."

"Fifty years of prosperity!" On whose testimony do we learn, that the
last "fifty years" have been "years of prosperity" to the South?--on the
testimony of oppressors or on that of the oppressed?--on that of her two
hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders--for this is the sum total of
the tyrants, who rule the South and rule this nation--or on that of her
two millions and three quarters of bleeding and crushed slaves? It may
well be, that those of the South, who "have lived in pleasure on the
earth and been wanton and have nourished their hearts as in a day of
slaughter," should speak of "prosperity:" but, before we admit, that the
"prosperity," of which they speak, is that of the South, instead of
themselves merely, we must turn our weeping eyes to the "laborers, who
have reaped down" their oppressors' "fields without wages," and the
"cries" of whom "are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth;" and
we must also take into the account the tears, and sweat, and groans, and
blood, of the millions of similar laborers, whom, during the last "fifty
years," death has mercifully released from Southern bondage. Talks the
slaveholder of the "prosperity" of the South? It is but his own
"prosperity"--and a "prosperity," such as the wolf may boast, when
gorging on the flock.

You say, _that the people of the North would not think it "neighborly
and friendly" if "the people of the slave states were to form societies,
subsidize presses, make large pecuniary contributions, &c. to burn the
beautiful capitals, destroy the productive manufactories, and sink the
gallant ships of the northern states_."

Indeed, they would not! But, if you were to go to such pains, and
expense for the purpose of relieving our poor, doubling our wealth, and
promoting the spiritual interests of both rich and poor--then we should
bless you for practising a benevolence towards us, so like that, which
abolitionists practise towards you; and then our children, and
children's children, would bless your memories, even as your children
and children's children will, if southern slavery be peacefully
abolished, bless our memories, and lament that their ancestors had been
guilty of construing our love into hatred, and our purpose of naught but
good into a purpose of unmingled evil.

Near the close of your speech is the remark: "_I prefer the liberty of
my own country to that of any other people_."

Another distinguished American statesman uttered the applauded
sentiment: "My country--my whole country--and nothing but my
country;"--and a scarcely less distinguished countryman of ours
commanded the public praise, by saying: "My country right--but my
country, right or wrong." Such are the expressions of _patriotism_ of
that idolized compound of selfish and base affections!

Were I writing for the favor, instead of the welfare of my fellow-men, I
should praise rather than denounce patriotism. Were I writing in
accordance with the maxims of a corrupt world, instead of the truth of
Jesus Christ, I should defend and extol, rather than rebuke the
doctrine, that we may prefer the interests of one section of the human
family to those of another. If patriotism, in the ordinary acceptation
of the word, be right, then the Bible is wrong--for that blessed book
requires us to love all men, even as we love ourselves. How contrary to
its spirit and precepts, that,

  "Lands intersected by a narrow frith,
  Abhor each other, Mountains interposed
  Make enemies of nations, who had else,
  Like kindred drops, been mingled into one."

There are many, who consider that the doctrine of loving all our fellow
men as ourselves, belongs, to use your words, "to a sublime but
impracticable philosophy." Let them, however, but devoutly ask Him, who
enjoins it, to warm and expand their selfish and contracted hearts with
its influences; and they will know, by sweet experience, that under the
grace of God, the doctrine is no less "practicable" than "sublime." Not
a few seem to suppose, that he, who has come to regard the whole world
as his country, and all mankind as his countrymen, will have less love
of home and country than the patriot has, who makes his own nation, and
no other, the cherished object of his affections. But did the Saviour,
when on earth, love any individual the less, because the love of His
great heart was poured out, in equal tides, over the whole human family?
And would He not, even in the eyes of the patriot himself, be stamped
with imperfection, were it, to appear, that one nation shares less than
another in His "loving-kindness" and that "His tender mercies are (not)
over all his works?" Blessed be His holy name, that He was cast down the
"middle wall of partition" between the Jew and Gentile!--that there is
no respect of persons with Him!--that "Greek" and "Jew, circumcision and
uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond" and "free," are equal
before Him!

Having said, "_I prefer the liberty of my own country to that of any
other people_," you add--"_and the liberty of my own race to that of any
other race."_

How perfectly natural, that the one sentiment should follow the other!
How perfectly natural, that he who can limit his love by state or
national lines, should be also capable of confining it to certain
varieties of the human complexion! How perfectly natural, that, he who
is guilty of the insane and wicked prejudice against his fellow men,
because they happen to be born a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand
miles from the place of his nativity, should foster the no less insane
and wicked prejudice against the "skin not colored like his own!" How
different is man from God! "He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on
the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." But were man
invested with supreme control, he would not distribute blessings
impartially even amongst the "good" and the "just."

You close your speech with advice and an appeal to abolitionists. Are
you sure that an appeal, to exert the most winning influence upon our
hearts, would not have come from some other source better than from one
who, not content with endeavoring to show the pernicious tendency of our
principles and measures, freely imputes to us bloody and murderous
motives? Are you sure, that you, who ascribe to us designs more
diabolical than those of burning "beautiful capitals," and destroying
"productive manufactories," and sinking "gallant ships," are our most
suitable adviser? We have, however, waved all exception on this score to
your appeal and advice, and exposed our minds and hearts to the whole
power and influence of your speech. And now we ask, that you, in turn,
will hear us. Presuming that you are too generous to refuse the
reciprocation, we proceed to call on you to stay your efforts at
quenching the world's sympathy for the slave--at arresting the progress
of liberal, humane, and Christian sentiments--at upholding slavery
against that Almighty arm, which now, "after so long a time," is
revealed for its destruction. We urge you to worthier and more hopeful
employments. Exert your great powers for the repeal of the matchlessly
wicked laws enacted to crush the Saviour's poor. Set a happy and an
influential example to your fellow slaveholders, by a righteous
treatment of those, whom you unrighteously hold in bondage. Set them
this example, by humbling yourself before God and your assembled slaves,
in unfeigned penitence for the deep and measureless wrongs you have done
the guiltless victims of your oppression--by paying those _men_, (speak
of them, think of them, no longer, as _brutes_ and _things_)--by paying
these, who are my brother men and your brother men, the "hire" you have
so long withheld from them, and "which crieth" to Heaven, because it "is
of you kept back"--by breaking the galling yoke from their necks, and
letting them "go free."

Do you shrink from our advice--and say, that obedience to its just
requirements would impoverish you? Infinitely better, that you be
honestly poor than dishonestly rich. Infinitely better to "do justly,"
and be a Lazarus; than to become a Croesus, by clinging to and
accumulating ill-gotten gains. Do you add to the fear of poverty, that
of losing your honors--those which are anticipated, as well as those,
which already deck your brow? Allow us to assure you, that it will be
impossible for you to redeem "Henry Clay, the statesman," and "Henry
Clay, the orator," or even "Henry Clay, the President of the United
States," from the contempt of a slavery-loathing posterity, otherwise
than by coupling with those designations the inexpressibly more
honorable distinction of "HENRY CLAY, THE EMANCIPATOR."

I remain,

Your friend,

GERRIT SMITH.










No. 10 THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

       *     *     *     *     *

AMERICAN SLAVERY

AS IT IS:

TESTIMONY of A THOUSAND WITNESSES.

       *     *     *     *     *

"Behold the wicked abominations that they do!"--Ezekial, viii, 2.

"The righteous considereth the cause of the poor; but the wicked
regardeth not to know it."--Prov. 29, 7.

"True humanity consists not in a squeamish ear, but in listening to
the story of human suffering and endeavoring to relieve it."--Charles
James Fox.

       *     *     *     *     *

NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, OFFICE, No.
143 NASSAU STREET. 1839.

       *     *     *     *     *

This periodical contains 7 sheets--postage, under 100 miles, 10-1/2
cts; over 100 miles, 17-1/2 cents.



ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER. A majority of the facts and testimony
contained in this work rests upon the authority of slaveholders, whose
names and residences are given to the public, as vouchers for the
truth of their statements. That they should utter falsehoods, for the
sake of proclaiming their own infamy, is not probable.

Their testimony is taken, mainly, from recent newspapers, published in
the slave states. Most of those papers will be deposited at the office
of the American Anti-Slavery Society, 143 Nassau street, New York
City. Those who think the atrocities, which they describe, incredible,
are invited to call and read for themselves. We regret that _all_ of
the original papers are not in our possession. The idea of preserving
them on file for the inspection of the incredulous, and the curious,
did not occur to us until after the preparation of the work was in a
state of forwardness, in consequence of this, some of the papers
cannot be recovered. _Nearly all_ of them, however have been
preserved. In all cases the _name_ of the paper is given, and, with
very few exceptions, the place and time, (year, month, and day) of
publication. Some of the extracts, however not being made with
reference to this work, and before its publication was contemplated,
are without date; but this class of extracts is exceedingly small,
probably not a thirtieth of the whole.

The statements, not derived from the papers and other periodicals,
letters, books, &c., published by slaveholders, have been furnished by
individuals who have resided in slave states, many of whom are natives
of those states, and have been slaveholders. The names, residences,
&c. of the witnesses generally are given. A number of them, however,
still reside in slave states;--to publish their names would be, in most
cases, to make them the victims of popular fury.

New York, May 4, 1839.


NOTE.

The Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society, while
tendering their grateful acknowledgments, in the name of American
Abolitionists, and in behalf of the slave, to those who have furnished
for this publication the result of their residence and travel in the
slave states of this Union, announce their determination to publish,
from time to time, as they may have the materials and the funds,
TRACTS, containing well authenticated facts, testimony, personal
narratives, &c. fully setting forth the _condition_ of American
slaves. In order that they may be furnished with the requisite
materials, they invite all who have had personal knowledge of the
condition of slaves in any of the states of this Union, to forward
their testimony with their names and residences. To prevent
imposition, it is indispensable that persons forwarding testimony, who
are not personally known to any of the Executive Committee, or to the
Secretaries or Editors of the American Anti-Slavery Society, should
furnish references to some person or persons of respectability, with
whom, if necessary, the Committee may communicate respecting the
writer.

Facts and testimony respecting the condition of slaves, in _all
respects_, are desired; their food, (kinds, quality, and quantity,)
clothing, lodging, dwellings, hours of labor and rest, kinds of labor,
with the mode of exaction, supervision, &c.--the number and time of
meals each day, treatment when sick, regulations inspecting their
social intercourse, marriage and domestic ties, the system of torture
to which they are subjected, with its various modes; and _in detail_,
their _intellectual_ and _moral_ condition. Great care should be
observed in the statement of facts. Well-weighed testimony and
well-authenticated facts; with a responsible name, the Committee
earnestly desire and call for. Thousands of persons in the free states
have ample knowledge on this subject, derived from their own
observation in the midst of slavery. Will such hold their peace? That
which maketh manifest is _light_; he who keepeth his candle under a
bushel at such a time and in such a cause as this, _forges fetters for
himself_, as well as for the slave. Let no one withhold his testimony
because others have already testified to similar facts. The value of
testimony is by no means to be measured by the _novelty_ of the
horrors which it describes. _Corroborative_ testimony,--facts, similar
to those established by the testimony of others,--is highly valuable.
Who that can give it and has a heart of flesh, will refuse to the
slave so small a boon?

Communications may be addressed to Theodore D. Weld, 143
Nassau-street, New York. New York, May, 1839.


CONTENTS.


INTRODUCTION.

  Twenty-seven hundred thousand free born citizens of the U.S. in
    slavery;
  Tender mercies of slaveholders;
  Abominations of slavery;
  Character of the testimony.



PERSONAL NARRATIVES--PART I.

NARRATIVE of NEHEMIAH CAULKINS;
  North Carolina Slavery;
  Methodist preaching slavedriver, Galloway;
  Women at child-birth;
  Slaves at labor;
  Clothing of slaves;
  Allowance of provisions;
  Slave-fetters;
  Cruelties to slaves;
  Burying a slave alive;
  Licentiousness of Slave-holders;
  Rev. Thomas P. Hunt, with his "hands tied";
  Preachers cringe to slavery;
  Nakedness of slaves;
  Slave-huts;
  Means of subsistence for slaves;
  Slaves' prayer.

NARRATIVE of REV. HORACE MOULTON;
  Labor of the slaves;
  Tasks;
  Whipping posts;
  Food;
  Houses;
  Clothing;
  Punishments;
  Scenes of horror;
  Constables, savage and brutal;
  Patrols;
  Cruelties at night;
  _Paddle-torturing_;
  _Cat-hauling_;
  Branding with hot iron;
  Murder with impunity;
  Iron collars, yokes, clogs, and bells.

NARRATIVE of SARAH M. GRIMKÉ;
  Barbarous Treatment of slaves;
  Converted slave;
  Professor of religion, near death, tortured his slave for visiting
    his companion;
  Counterpart of James Williams' description of Larrimore's wife;
  Head of runaway slave on a pole;
  Governor of North Carolina left his sick slave to perish;
  Cruelty to Women slaves;
  Christian slave a martyr for Jesus.

TESTIMONY of REV. JOHN GRAHAM;
  Twenty-seven slaves whipped.

TESTIMONY of WILLIAM POE;
  Harris whipped a girl to death;
  Captain of the U.S. Navy murdered his boy, was tried and acquitted;
  Overseer burnt a slave;
  Cruelties to slaves.



PRIVATIONS OF THE SLAVES.

FOOD;
  Suffering from hunger;
  Rations in the U.S. Army, &c;
  Prison rations;
  Testimony.
LABOR;
  Slaves are overworked;
  Witnesses;
  Henry Clay;
  Child-bearing prevented;
  Dr. Channing;
  Sacrifice of a set of hands every seven years;
  Testimony;
  Laws of Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia.
CLOTHING;
  Witnesses;
  Advertisements;
  Testimony;
  Field-hands;
  Nudity of slaves;
  John Randolph's legacy to Essex and Hetty.
DWELLINGS;
  Witnesses;
  Slaves are wretchedly sheltered and lodged.
TREATMENT OF THE SICK.



PERSONAL NARRATIVES, PART II.

TESTIMONY of the REV. WILLIAM T. ALLAN;
  Woman delivered of a dead child, being whipped;
  Slaves shot by Hilton;
  Cruelties to slaves;
  Whipping post;
  Assaults, and maimings;
  Murders;
  Puryear, "the Devil,";
  Overseers always armed;
  Licentiousness of Overseers;
  "Bend your backs";
  Mrs. H., a Presbyterian, desirous to cut Arthur Tappan's throat;
  Clothing, Huts, and Herding of slaves;
  Iron yokes with prongs;
  Marriage unknown among slaves;
  Presbyterian minister at Huntsville;
  Concubinage in Preacher's house;
  Slavery, the great wrong.

NARRATIVE of WILLIAM LEFTWICH;
  Slave's life.

TESTIMONY of LEMUEL SAPINGTON;
  Nakedness of slaves;
  Traffic in slaves.

TESTIMONY of MRS. LOWRY;
  Long, a professor of religion killed three men;
  Salt water applied to wounds to keep them from putrefaction.

TESTIMONY of WILLIAM C. GILDERSLEEVE;
  Acts of cruelty.

TESTIMONY of HIRAM WHITE;
  Woman with a child chained to her neck;
  Amalgamation, and mulatto children.

TESTIMONY of JOHN M. NELSON;
  Rev. Conrad Speece influenced Alexander Nelson when dying not to
    emancipate his slaves;
  George Bourne opposed Slavery in 1810.

TESTIMONY of ANGELINA GRIMKÉ WELD;
  House-servants;
  Slave-driving female professors of religion at Charleston, S.C.;
  Whipping women and prayer in the same room;
  Tread-mills;
  _Slaveholding religion_;
  Slave-driving mistress prayed for the divine blessing upon her
    whipping of an aged woman;
  Girl killed with impunity;
  Jewish law;
  Barbarities;
  Medical attendance upon slaves;
  Young man beaten to epilepsy and insanity;
  Mistresses flog their slaves;
  Blood-bought luxuries;
  Borrowing of slaves;
  Meals of slaves;
  All comfort of slaves disregarded;
  Severance of companion lovers;
  Separation of parents and children;
  Slave espionage;
  Sufferings of slaves;
  Horrors of slavery indescribable.

TESTIMONY of CRUELTY INFLICTED UPON SLAVES;
  Colonization Society;
  Emancipation Society of North Carolina;
  Kentucky.

PUNISHMENTS;
  Floggings;
  Witnesses and Testimony.

SLAVE DRIVING;
  Droves of slaves.

CRUELTY TO SLAVES;
  Slaves like Stock without a shelter;
  "Six pound paddle."

TORTURES OF SLAVES.
  Iron collars, chains, fetters, and hand-cuffs;
  Advertisements for fugitive slaves;
  Testimony;
  Iron head-frame;
  Chain coffles;
  Droves of 'human cattle';
  Washington, the National slave market;
  Testimony of James K. Paulding, Secretary of the Navy;
  _Literary fraud and pretended prophecy_ by Mr. Paulding;
  Brandings, Maimings, and Gun-shot wounds;
  Witnesses and Testimony;
  Mr. Sevier, senator of the U.S.;
  Judge Hitchcock, of Mobile;
  Commendable fidelity to truth in the advertisements of slaveholders;
  Thomas Aylethorpe cut off a slave's ear, and sent it to Lewis Tappan;
  Advertisements for runaway slaves with their teeth mutilated;
  Excessive cruelty to slaves;
  Slaves burned alive;
  Mr. Turner, a slave-butcher;
  Slaves roasted and flogged;
  Cruelties common;
  Fugitive slaves;
  Slaves forced to eat tobacco worms;
  Baptist Christians escaping from slavery;
  Christian whipped for praying;
  James K. Paulding's testimony;
  Slave driven to death;
  Coroner's inquest on Harney's murdered female slave;
  Man-stealing encouraged by law;
  Trial for a murdered slave;
  Female slave whipped to death, and during the torture delivered of
    a dead infant;
  Slaves murdered;
  Slave driven to death;
  Slaves killed with impunity;
  George, a slave, chopped piece-meal, and burnt by Lilburn Lewis;
  Retributive justice in the awful death of Lilburn Lewis;
  Trial of Isham Lewis, a slave murderer.


PERSONAL NARRATIVES.--PART III.

NARRATIVE OF REV. FRANCIS HAWLEY;
  Plantations;
  Overseers;
  No appeal from Overseers to Masters.

CLOTHING;
  Nudity of slaves.

WORK;
  Cotton-picking;
  Mothers of slaves;
  Presbyterian minister killed his slave;
  Methodist colored preacher hung;
  Licentiousness;
  Slave-traffic;
  Night in a Slaveholder's house;
  Twelve slaves murdered;
  Slave driving Baptist preachers;
  Hunting of runaways slaves;
  Amalgamation.

TESTIMONY OF REUBEN C. MACY, AND RICHARD MACY.
  Whipping of slaves.
  Testimony of Eleazer Powel;
  Overseer of Hinds Stuart, shot a slave for opposing the torture of
    his female companion.

TESTIMONY OF REV. WILLIAM SCALES.
  Three slaves murdered with impunity;
  Separation of lovers, parents, and children.

TESTIMONY OF JOS. IDE. Mrs. T.
  a Presbyterian kind woman-killer;
  Female slave whipped to death;
  Food;
  Nakedness of slaves;
  Old man flogged after praying for his tyrant;
  Slave-huts not as comfortable as pig-sties.

TESTIMONY OF REV. PHINEAS SMITH.
  Texas;
  Suit for the value of slave 'property';
  Anson Jones, Ambassador from Texas;
  No trial or punishment for the murder of slaves;
  Slave-hunting in Texas;
  Suffering drives the slaves to despair and suicide.

TESTIMONY OF PHIL'N BLISS.
  Ignorance of northern citizens respecting slavery;
  Betting upon crops;
  Extent and cruelty of the punishment of slaves;
  Slaveholders excuse their cruelties by the example of Preachers, and
    professors of religion, and Northern citizens;
  Novel torture, eulogized by a professor of religion;
  Whips as common as the plough;
  _Ladies_ use cowhides, with shovel and tongs.

TESTIMONY OF REV. WM. A. CHAPIN.
  Slave-labor;
  Starvation of slaves;
  Slaves lacerated, without clothing, and without food.

TESTIMONY OF T.M. MACY.
  Cotton plantations on St. Simon's Island;
  Cultivation of rice;
  No time for relaxation;
  Sabbath a nominal rest;
  Clothing;
  Flogging.

TESTIMONY OF F.C. MACY.
  Slave cabins;
  Food;
  Whipping every day;
  Treatment of slaves as brutes;
  Slave-boys fight for slaveholder's amusement;
  Amalgamation common.

TESTIMONY OF A CLERGYMAN.
  Natchez;
  'Lie down,' for whipping;
  Slave-hunting;
  'Ball and chain' men;
  Whipping at the same time, on three plantations;
  Hours of Labor;
  _Christians_ slave-hunting;
  Many runaway slaves annually shot;
  Slaves in the stocks;
  Slave branding.

CONDITION OF SLAVES.
  Slavery is unmixed cruelty;
  Fear the only motive of slaves;
  Pain is the means, not the end of slave-driving;
  Characters of Slave drivers and Overseers, brutal, sensual, and
    violent;
  Ownership of human beings utterly destroys _their_ comfort.


OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED:

I. Such cruelties are incredible.
  Slaves deemed to be working animals, or merchandize; and called
    'Stock,' 'Increase,' 'Breeders,' 'Drivers,' 'Property,' 'Human
    cattle';
  Testimony of Thomas Jefferson;
  Slaves worse treated than quadrupeds;
  Contrast between the usage of slaves and animals;
  Testimony;
  Northern incredulity discreditable to consistency;
  Religious persecutions;
  Recent 'Lynchings,' and Riots, in the United States;
  Many outrageous Felonies perpetrated with impunity;
  Large faith of the objectors who 'can't believe';
  'Doe faces,' and 'Dough faces';
  Slave-drivers acknowledge their own enormities;
  Slave plantations in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi 'second only
    to hell';
  Legislature of North Carolina;
  Incredulity discreditable to intelligence;
  Abuse of power in the state, and churches;
  Legal restraints;
  American slaveholders possess absolute power;
  Slaves deprived of the safe guards of law;
  Mutual aversion between the oppressor and the slave;
  Cruelty the product of arbitrary power;
  Testimony of Thomas Jefferson;
  Judge Tucker;
  Presbyterian Synod of South Carolina, and Georgia;
  General William H. Harrison;
  President Edwards;
  Montesquieu;
  Wilberforce;
  Whitbread;
  Characters.

OBJECTION II.--"Slaveholders protest that they treat their slaves well."
  Not testimony but opinion;
  'Good treatment' of slaves;
  Novel form of cruelty.

OBJECTION III.--"Slaveholders are proverbial for their kindness, and
 generosity."
  Hospitality and benevolence contrasted;
  Slaveholders in Congress, respecting Texas and Hayti;
  'Fictitious kindness and hospitality.'

OBJECTION IV.--"Northern visitors at the south testify that the slaves
 are not cruelly treated."
  Testimony;
  'Gubner poisened';
  Field-hands;
  Parlor slaves;
  Chief Justice Durell.

OBJECTION V.--"It is for the interest of the masters to treat their
 slaves well."
  Testimony;
  Rev. J.N. Maffitt;
  Masters interest to treat cruelly the great body of the slaves;
  Various classes of slaves;
  Hired slaves;
  Advertisements.

OBJECTION VI.--"Slaves multiply; a proof that they are not inhumanly
 treated, and are in a comfortable condition."
  Testimony;
  Martin Van Buren;
  Foreign slave trade;
  'Beware of Kidnappers';
  'Citizens sold as slaves';
  Kidnapping at New Orleans;
  Slave breeders.

OBJECTION VII.--"Public opinion is a protection to the slave."
  Decision of the Supreme Court of North and South Carolina;
  'Protection of slaves';
  Mischievous effects of 'public opinion' concerning slavery;
  Laws of different states;
  Heart of slaveholders;
  Reasons for enacting the laws concerning cruelties to slaves;
  'Moderate correction';
  Hypocrisy and malignity of slave laws;
  Testimony of slaves excluded;
  Capital crimes for slaves;
  'Slaveholding brutality,' worse than that of Caligula;
  Public opinion destroys fundamental rights;
  Character of slaveholders' advertisements;
  Public opinion is diabolical;
  Brutal indecency;
  Murder of slaves by law;
  Judge Lawless;
  Slave-hunting;
  Health of slaves;
  Acclimation of slaves;
  Liberty of Slaves;
  Kidnapping of free citizens;
  Law of Louisiana;
  FRIENDS', memorial;
  Domestic slavery;
  Advertisements;
  Childhood, old age;
  Inhumanity;
  Butchering dead slaves;
  South Carolina Medical college;
  Charleston Medical Infirmary;
  Advertisements;
  Slave murders;
   John Randolph;
  Charleston slave auctions;
  'Never lose a day's work';
  Stocks;
  Slave-breeding;
  Lynch law;
  Slaves murdered;
  Slavery among Christians;
  Licentiousness encouraged by preachers;
  'Fine old preacher who dealt in slaves';
  Cruelty to slaves by professors of religion;
  Slave-breeding;
  Daniel O'Connel, and Andrew Stevenson;
  Virginia a negro raising menagerie;
  Legislature of Virginia;
  Colonization Society;
  Inter-state slave traffic;
  Battles in Congress;
  Duelling;
  Cock-fighting;
  Horse-racing;
  Ignorance of slaveholders;
  'Slaveholding civilization, and morality';
  Arkansas;
  Slave driving ruffians;
  Missouri;
  Alabama;
  Butcheries in Mississippi;
  Louisiana;
  Tennessee;
  Fatal Affray in Columbia;
  Presentment of the Grand Jury of Shelby County;
  Testimony of Bishop Smith of Kentucky.

ATLANTIC SLAVEHOLDING REGION.
  Georgia;
  North Carolina;
  Trading with Negroes;
  Conclusion.


INTRODUCTION.

Reader, you are empannelled as a juror to try a plain case and bring
in an honest verdict. The question at issue is not one of law, but of
facts--"What is the actual condition of the slaves in the United
States?" A plainer case never went to a jury. Look at it. TWENTY-SEVEN
HUNDRED THOUSAND PERSONS in this country, men, women, and children,
are in SLAVERY. Is slavery, as a condition for human beings, good,
bad, or indifferent? We submit the question without argument. You have
common sense, and conscience, and a human heart;--pronounce upon it.
You have a wife, or a husband, a child, a father, a mother, a brother
or a sister--make the case your own, make it theirs, and bring in your
verdict. The case of Human Rights against Slavery has been adjudicated
in the court of conscience times innumerable. The same verdict has
always been rendered--"Guilty;" the same sentence has always been
pronounced, "Let it be accursed;" and human nature, with her million
echoes, has rung it round the world in every language under heaven,
"Let it be accursed. Let it be accursed." His heart is false to human
nature, who will not say "Amen." There is not a man on earth who does
not believe that slavery is a curse. Human beings may be inconsistent,
but human _nature_ is true to herself. She has uttered her testimony
against slavery with a shriek ever since the monster was begotten; and
till it perishes amidst the execrations of the universe, she will
traverse the world on its track, dealing her bolts upon its head, and
dashing against it her condemning brand. We repeat it, every man knows
that slavery is a curse. Whoever denies this, his lips libel his
heart. Try him; clank the chains in his ears, and tell him they are
for _him_; give him an hour to prepare his wife and children for a
life of slavery; bid him make haste and get ready their necks for the
yoke, and their wrists for the coffle chains, then look at his pale
lips and trembling knees, and you have _nature's_ testimony against
slavery.

Two millions seven hundred thousand persons in these States are in
this condition. They were made slaves and are held each by force, and
by being put in fear, and this for no crime! Reader, what have you to
say of such treatment? Is it right, just, benevolent? Suppose I should
seize you, rob you of your liberty, drive you into the field, and make
you work without pay as long as you live, would that be justice and
kindness, or monstrous injustice and cruelty? Now, every body knows
that the slaveholders do these things to the slaves every day, and yet
it is stoutly affirmed that they treat them well and kindly, and that
their tender regard for their slaves restrains the masters from
inflicting cruelties upon them. We shall go into no metaphysics to
show the absurdity of this pretence. The man who _robs_ you every day,
is, forsooth, quite too tender-hearted ever to cuff or kick you! True,
he can snatch your money, but he does it gently lest he should hurt
you. He can empty your pockets without qualms, but if your _stomach_
is empty, it cuts him to the quick. He can make you work a life time
without pay, but loves you too well to let you go hungry. He fleeces
you of your _rights_ with a relish, but is shocked if you work
bareheaded in summer, or in winter without warm stockings. He can make
you go without your _liberty_, but never without a shirt. He can
crush, in you, all hope of bettering your condition, by vowing that
you shall die his slave, but though he can coolly torture your
feelings, he is too compassionate to lacerate your back--he can break
your heart, but he is very tender of your skin. He can strip you of
all protection and thus expose you to all outrages, but if you are
exposed to the _weather_, half clad and half sheltered, how yearn his
tender bowels! What! slaveholders talk of treating men well, and yet
not only rob them of all they get, and as fast as they get it, but rob
them of _themselves_, also; their very hands and feet, all their
muscles, and limbs, and senses, their bodies and minds, their time and
liberty and earnings, their free speech and rights of conscience,
their right to acquire knowledge, and property, and reputation;--and
yet they, who plunder them of all these, would fain make us believe
that their soft hearts ooze out so lovingly toward their slaves that
they always keep them well housed and well clad, never push them too
hard in the field, never make their dear backs smart, nor let their
dear stomachs get empty.

But there is no end to these absurdities. Are slaveholders dunces, or
do they take all the rest of the world to be, that they think to
bandage our eyes with such thin gauzes? Protesting their kind regard
for those whom they hourly plunder of all they have and all they get!
What! when they have seized their victims, and annihilated all their
_rights_, still claim to be the special guardians of their
_happiness_! Plunderers of their liberty, yet the careful suppliers of
their wants? Robbers of their earnings, yet watchful sentinels round
their interests, and kind providers for their comfort? Filching all
their time, yet granting generous donations for rest and sleep?
Stealing the use of their muscles, yet thoughtful of their ease?
Putting them under _drivers_, yet careful that they are not
hard-pushed? Too humane forsooth to stint the stomachs of their
slaves, yet force their _minds_ to starve, and brandish over them
pains and penalties, if they dare to reach forth for the smallest
crumb of knowledge, even a letter of the alphabet!

It is no marvel that slaveholders are always talking of their _kind
treatment_ of their slaves. The only marvel is, that men of sense can
be gulled by such professions. Despots always insist that they are
merciful. The greatest tyrants that ever dripped with blood have
assumed the titles of "most gracious," "most clement," "most
merciful," &c., and have ordered their crouching vassals to accost
them thus. When did not vice lay claim to those virtues which are the
opposites of its habitual crimes? The guilty, according to their own
showing, are always innocent, and cowards brave, and drunkards sober,
and harlots chaste, and pickpockets honest to a fault. Every body
understands this. When a man's tongue grows thick, and he begins to
hiccough and walk cross-legged, we expect him, as a matter of course,
to protest that he is not drunk; so when a man is always singing the
praises of his own honesty, we instinctively watch his movements and
look out for our pocket-books. Whoever is simple enough to be hoaxed
by such professions, should never be trusted in the streets without
somebody to take care of him. Human nature works out in slaveholders
just as it does to other men, and in American slaveholders just as in
English, French, Turkish, Algerine, Roman and Grecian. The Spartans
boasted of their kindness to their slaves, while they whipped them to
death by thousands at the altars of their gods. The Romans lauded
their own mild treatment of their bondmen, while they branded their
names on their flesh with hot irons, and when old, threw them into
their fish ponds, or like Cato "the Just," starved them to death. It
is the boast of the Turks that they treat their slaves as though they
were their children, yet their common name for them is "dogs," and for
the merest trifles, their feet are bastinadoed to a jelly, or their
heads clipped off with the scimetar. The Portuguese pride themselves
on their gentle bearing toward their slaves, yet the streets of Rio
Janeiro are filled with naked men and women yoked in pairs to carts
and wagons, and whipped by drivers like beasts of burden.

Slaveholders, the world over, have sung the praises of their tender
mercies towards their slaves. Even the wretches that plied the African
slave trade, tried to rebut Clarkson's proofs of their cruelties, by
speeches, affidavits, and published pamphlets, setting forth the
accommodations of the "middle passage," and their kind attentions to
the comfort of those whom they had stolen from their homes, and kept
stowed away under hatches, during a voyage of four thousand miles. So,
according to the testimony of the autocrat of the Russias, he
exercises great clemency towards the Poles, though he exiles them by
thousands to the snows of Siberia, and tramples them down by millions,
at home. Who discredits the atrocities perpetrated by Ovando in
Hispaniola, Pizarro in Peru, and Cortez in Mexico,--because they
filled the ears of the Spanish Court with protestations of their
benignant rule? While they were yoking the enslaved natives like
beasts to the draught, working them to death by thousands in their
mines, hunting them with bloodhounds, torturing them on racks, and
broiling them on beds of coals, their representations to the mother
country teemed with eulogies of their parental sway! The bloody
atrocities of Philip II, in the expulsion of his Moorish subjects, are
matters of imperishable history. Who disbelieves or doubts them? And
yet his courtiers magnified his virtues and chanted his clemency and
his mercy, while the wail of a million victims, smitten down by a
tempest of fire and slaughter let loose at his bidding, rose above the
_Te Deums_ that thundered from all Spain's cathedrals. When Louis XIV.
revoked the edict of Nantz, and proclaimed two millions of his
subjects free plunder for persecution,--when from the English channel
to the Pyrennees the mangled bodies of the Protestants were dragged on
reeking hurdles by a shouting populace, he claimed to be "the father
of his people," and wrote himself "His most _Christian_ Majesty."

But we will not anticipate topics, the full discussion of which more
naturally follows than precedes the inquiry into the actual condition
and treatment of slaves in the United States.

As slaveholders and their apologists are volunteer witnesses in their
own cause, and are flooding the world with testimony that their slaves
are kindly treated; that they are well fed, well clothed, well housed,
well lodged, moderately worked, and bountifully provided with all
things needful for their comfort, we propose--first, to disprove their
assertions by the testimony of a multitude of impartial witnesses, and
then to put slaveholders themselves through a course of
cross-questioning which shall draw their condemnation out of their own
mouths. We will prove that the slaves in the United States are treated
with barbarous inhumanity; that they are overworked, underfed,
wretchedly clad and lodged, and have insufficient sleep; that they are
often made to wear round their necks iron collars armed with prongs,
to drag heavy chains and weights at their feet while working in the
field, and to wear yokes, and bells, and iron horns; that they are
often kept confined in the stocks day and night for weeks together,
made to wear gags in their mouths for hours or days, have some of
their front teeth torn out or broken off, that they may be easily
detected when they run away; that they are frequently flogged with
terrible severity, have red pepper rubbed into their lacerated flesh,
and hot brine, spirits of turpentine, &c., poured over the gashes to
increase the torture; that they are often stripped naked, their backs
and limbs cut with knives, bruised and mangled by scores and hundreds
of blows with the paddle, and terribly torn by the claws of cats,
drawn over them by their tormentors; that they are often hunted with
bloodhounds and shot down like beasts, or torn in pieces by dogs; that
they are often suspended by the arms and whipped and beaten till they
faint, and when revived by restoratives, beaten again till they faint,
and sometimes till they die; that their ears are often cut off, their
eyes knocked out, their bones broken, their flesh branded with red hot
irons; that they are maimed, mutilated and burned to death over slow
fires. All these things, and more, and worse, we shall _prove_.
Reader, we know whereof we affirm, we have weighed it well; _more and
worse_ WE WILL PROVE. Mark these words, and read on; we will establish
all these facts by the testimony of scores and hundreds of eye
witnesses, by the testimony of _slaveholders_ in all parts of the
slave states, by slaveholding members of Congress and of state
legislatures, by ambassadors to foreign courts, by judges, by doctors
of divinity, and clergymen of all denominations, by merchants,
mechanics, lawyers and physicians, by presidents and professors in
colleges and _professional_ seminaries, by planters, overseers and
drivers. We shall show, not merely that such deeds are committed, but
that they are frequent; not done in corners, but before the sun; not
in one of the slave states, but in all of them; not perpetrated by
brutal overseers and drivers merely, but by magistrates, by
legislators, by professors of religion, by preachers of the gospel, by
governors of states, by "gentlemen of property and standing," and by
delicate females moving in the "highest circles of society." We know,
full well, the outcry that will be made by multitudes, at these
declarations; the multiform cavils, the flat denials, the charges of
"exaggeration" and "falsehood" so often bandied, the sneers of
affected contempt at the credulity that can believe such things, and
the rage and imprecations against those who give them currency. We
know, too, the threadbare sophistries by which slaveholders and their
apologists seek to evade such testimony. If they admit that such deeds
are committed, they tell us that they are exceedingly rare, and
therefore furnish no grounds for judging of the general treatment of
slaves; that occasionally a brutal wretch in the _free_ states
barbarously butchers his wife, but that no one thinks of inferring
from that, the general treatment of wives at the North and West.

They tell us, also, that the slaveholders of the South are
proverbially hospitable, kind, and generous, and it is incredible that
they can perpetrate such enormities upon human beings; further, that
it is absurd to suppose that they would thus injure their own
property, that self-interest would prompt them to treat their slaves
with kindness, as none but fools and madmen wantonly destroy their own
property; further, that Northern visitors at the South come back
testifying to the kind treatment of the slaves, and that the slaves
themselves corroborate such representations. All these pleas, and
scores of others, are bruited in every corner of the free States; and
who that hath eyes to see, has not sickened at the blindness that saw
not, at the palsy of heart that felt not, or at the cowardice and
sycophancy that dared not expose such shallow fallacies. We are not to
be turned from our purpose by such vapid babblings. In their
appropriate places, we propose to consider these objections and
various others, and to show their emptiness and folly.

The foregoing declarations touching the inflictions upon slaves, are
not hap-hazard assertions, nor the exaggerations of fiction conjured
up to carry a point; nor are they the rhapsodies of enthusiasm, nor
crude conclusions, jumped at by hasty and imperfect investigation, nor
the aimless outpourings either of sympathy or poetry; but they are
proclamations of deliberate, well-weighed convictions, produced by
accumulations of proof, by affirmations and affidavits, by written
testimonies and statements of a cloud of witnesses who speak what they
know and testify what they have seen, and all these impregnably
fortified by proofs innumerable, in the relation of the slaveholder to
his slave, the nature of arbitrary power, and the nature and history
of man.

Of the witnesses whose testimony is embodied in the following pages, a
majority are slaveholders, many of the remainder have been
slaveholders, but now reside in free States.

Another class whose testimony will be given, consists of those who
have furnished the results of their own observation during periods of
residence and travel in the slave States.

We will first present the reader with a few PERSONAL NARRATIVES
furnished by individuals, natives of slave states and others,
embodying, in the main, the results of their own observation in the
midst of slavery--facts and scenes of which they were eye-witnesses.

In the next place, to give the reader as clear and definite a view of
the actual condition of slaves as possible, we propose to make
specific points; to pass in review the various particulars in the
slave's condition, simply presenting sufficient testimony under each
head to settle the question in every candid mind. The examination will
be conducted by stating distinct propositions, and in the following
order of topics.

1. THE FOOD OF THE SLAVES, THE KINDS, QUALITY AND QUANTITY, ALSO, THE
NUMBER AND TIME OF MEALS EACH DAY, &c.

2. THEIR HOURS OF LABOR AND REST.

3. THEIR CLOTHING.

4. THEIR DWELLINGS.

5. THEIR PRIVATIONS AND INFLICTIONS.

6. _In conclusion,_ a variety of OBJECTIONS and ARGUMENTS will be
considered which are used by the advocates of slavery to set
aside the force of testimony, and to show that the slaves are kindly
treated.

Between the larger divisions of the work, brief personal narratives
will be inserted, containing a mass of facts and testimony, both
general and specific.

       *     *     *     *     *



PERSONAL NARRATIVES.

MR. NEHEMIAH CAULKINS, of Waterford, New London Co., Connecticut, has
furnished the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery
Society, with the following statements relative to the condition and
treatment of slaves, in the south eastern part of North Carolina. Most
of the facts related by Mr. Caulkins fell under his personal
observation. The air of candor and honesty that pervades the
narrative, the manner in which Mr. C. has drawn it up, the good sense,
just views, conscience and heart which it exhibits, are sufficient of
themselves to commend it to all who have ears to hear.

The Committee have no personal acquaintance with Mr. Caulkins, but
they have ample testimonials from the most respectable sources, all of
which represent him to be a man whose long established character for
sterling integrity, sound moral principle and piety, have secured for
him the uniform respect and confidence of those who know him.

Without further preface the following testimonials are submitted to
the reader.


This may certify, that we the subscribers have lived for a number of
years past in the neighborhood with Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins, and have no
hesitation in stating that we consider him a man of high
respectability and that his character for truth and veracity is
unimpeachable. PETER COMSTOCK. A.F. PERKINS, M.D. ISAAC BEEBE.
LODOWICK BEEBE. D. G. OTIS. PHILIP MORGAN. JAMES ROGERS, M.D.
_Waterford, Ct., Jan. 16th, 1839._


Mr. Comstock is a Justice of the Peace. Mr. L. Beebe is the Town Clerk
of Waterford. Mr. J. Beebe is a member of the Baptist Church. Mr. Otis
is a member of the Congregational Church. Mr. Morgan is a Justice of
the Peace, and Messrs. Perkins and Rogers are designated by their
titles. All those gentlemen are citizens of Waterford, Connecticut.


To whom it may concern. This may certify that Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins,
of Waterford, in New London County, is a near neighbor to the
subscriber, and has been for many years. I do consider him a man of
_unquestionable veracity_ and certify that he is so considered by
people to whom he is personally known. EDWARD R. WARREN. _Jan. 15th,
1839._


Mr. Warren is a Commissioner (Associate Judge) of the County Court,
for New London County.


This may certify that Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins, of the town of Waterford,
County of New London, and State of Connecticut, is a member of the
first Baptist Church in said Waterford, is in good standing, and is
esteemed by us a man of truth and veracity. FRANCIS DARROW, Pastor of
said Church. _Waterford, Jan. 16th, 1839._



This may certify that Nehemiah Caulkins, of Waterford, lives near me,
and I always esteemed him, and believe him to be a man of truth and
veracity. ELISHA BECKWITH. _Jan. 16th, 1839._


Mr. Beckwith is a Justice of the Peace, a Post Master, and a Deacon of
the Baptist Church.

Mr. Dwight P. Jones, a member of the Second Congregational Church in
the city of New London, in a recent letter, says;

"Mr. Caulkins is a member of the Baptist Church in Waterford, and in
every respect a very worthy citizen. I have labored with him in the
Sabbath School, and know him to be a man of active piety. The most
_entire confidence_ may be placed in the truth of his statements.
Where he is known, no one will call them in question."

We close these testimonials with an extract, of a letter from William
Bolles, Esq., a well known and respected citizen of New London, Ct.

"Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins resides in the town of Waterford, about six
miles from this City. His opportunities to acquire exact knowledge in
relation to Slavery, in that section of our country, to which his
narrative is confined, have been very great. He is a carpenter, and
was employed principally on the plantations, working at his trade,
being thus almost constantly in the company of the slaves as well as
of their masters. His full heart readily responded to the call, [for
information relative to slavery,] for, as he expressed it, he had long
desired that others might know what he had seen, being confident that
a general knowledge of facts as they exist, would greatly promote the
overthrow of the system. He is a man of undoubted character; and where
known, his statements need no corroboration.

Yours, &c. WILLIAM BOLLES."




NARRATIVE OF MR. CAULKINS.

I feel it my duty to tell some things that I know about slavery, in
order, if possible, to awaken more feeling at the North in behalf of
the slave. The treatment of the slaves on the plantations where I had
the greatest opportunity of getting knowledge, _was not so bad_ as
that on some neighboring estates, where the owners were noted for
their cruelty. There were, however, other estates in the vicinity,
where the treatment was better; the slaves were better clothed and
fed, were not worked so hard, and more attention was paid to their
quarters.

The scenes that I have witnessed are enough to harrow up the soul; but
could the slave be permitted to tell the story of his sufferings,
which no white man, not linked with slavery, _is allowed to know,_ the
land would vomit out the horrible system, slaveholders and all, if
they would not unclinch their grasp upon their defenceless victims.

I spent eleven winters, between the years 1824 and 1835, in the state
of North Carolina, mostly in the vicinity of Wilmington; and four out
of the eleven on the estate of Mr. John Swan, five or six miles from
that place. There were on his plantation about seventy slaves, male
and female: some were married, and others lived together as man and
wife, without even a mock ceremony. With their owners generally, it is
a matter of indifference; the marriage of slaves not being recognized
by the slave code. The slaves, however, think much of being married by
a clergyman.

The cabins or huts of the slaves were small, and were built
principally by the slaves themselves, as they could find time on
Sundays and moonlight nights; they went into the swamps, cut the logs,
backed or hauled them to the quarters, and put up their cabins.

When I first knew Mr. Swan's plantation, his overseer was a man who
had been a Methodist minister. He treated the slaves with great
cruelty. His reason for leaving the ministry and becoming an overseer,
as I was informed, was this: his wife died, at which providence he was
so enraged, that he swore he would not preach for the Lord another
day. This man continued on the plantation about three years; at the
close of which, on settlement of accounts, Mr. Swan owed him about
$400, for which he turned him out a negro woman, and about twenty
acres of land. He built a log hut, and took the woman to live with
him; since which, I have been at his hut, and seen four or five
mulatto children. He has been appointed _justice of the peace_, and
his place as overseer was afterwards occupied by a Mr. Galloway.

It is customary in that part of the country, to let the hogs run in
the woods. On one occasion a slave caught a pig about two months old,
which he carried to his quarters. The overseer, getting information of
the fact, went to the field where he was at work, and ordered him to
come to him. The slave at once suspected it was something about the
pig, and fearing punishment, dropped his hoe and ran for the woods. He
had got but a few rods, when the overseer raised his gun, loaded with
duck shot, and brought him down. It is a common practice for overseers
to go into the field armed with a gun or pistols, and sometimes both.
He was taken up by the slaves and carried to the plantation hospital,
and the physician sent for. A physician was employed by the year to
take care of the sick or wounded slaves. In about six weeks this slave
got better, and was able to come out of the hospital. He came to the
mill where I was at work, and asked me to examine his body, which I
did, and counted twenty-six duck shot still remaining in his flesh,
though the doctor had removed a number while he was laid up.

There was a slave on Mr. Swan's plantation, by the name of Harry, who,
during the absence of his master, ran away and secreted himself is the
woods. This the slaves sometimes do, when the master is absent for
several weeks, to escape the cruel treatment of the overseer. It is
common for them to make preparations, by secreting a mortar, a
hatchet, some cooking utensils, and whatever things they can get that
will enable them to live while they are in the woods or swamps. Harry
staid about three months, and lived by robbing the rice grounds, and
by such other means as came in his way. The slaves generally know
where the runaway is secreted, and visit him at night and on Sundays.
On the return of his master, some of the slaves were sent for Harry.
When he came home, he was seized and confined in the stocks. The
stocks were built in the barn, and consisted of two heavy pieces of
timber, ten or more feet in length, and about seven inches wide; the
lower one, on the floor, has a number of holes or places cut in it,
for the ancles; the upper piece, being of the same dimensions, is
fastened at one end by a hinge, and is brought down after the ancles
are placed in the holes, and secured by a clasp and padlock at the
other end. In this manner the person is left to sit on the floor.
Barry was kept in the stocks _day and night for a week_, and flogged
_every morning_. After this, he was taken out one morning, a log chain
fastened around his neck, the two ends dragging on the ground, and he
sent to the field, to do his task with the other slaves. At night he
was again put in the stocks, in the morning he was sent to the field
in the same manner, and thus dragged out another week.

The overseer was a very miserly fellow, and restricted his wife in
what are considered the comforts of life--such as tea, sugar, &c. To
make up for this, she set her wits to work, and, by the help of a
slave, named Joe, used to take from the plantation whatever she could
conveniently, and watch her opportunity during her husband's absence,
and send Joe to sell them and buy for her such things as she directed.
Once when her husband was away, she told Joe to kill and dress one of
the pigs, sell it, and get her some tea, sugar, &c. Joe did as he was
bid, and she gave him the offal for his services. When Galloway
returned, not suspecting his wife, he asked her if she knew what had
become of his pig. She told him she suspected one of the slaves,
naming him, had stolen it, for she had heard a pig squeal the evening
before. The overseer called the slave up, and charged him with the
theft. He denied it, and said he knew nothing about it. The overseer
still charged him with it, and told him he would give him one week to
think of it, and if he did not confess the theft, or find out who did
steal the pig, he would flog every negro on the plantation; before the
week was up it was ascertained that Joe had killed the pig. He was
called up and questioned, and admitted that he had done so, and told
the overseer that he did it by the order of Mrs. Galloway, and that
she directed him to buy some sugar, &c. with the money. Mrs. Galloway
gave Joe the lie; and he was terribly flogged. Joe told me he had been
several times to the smoke-house with Mrs. G, and taken hams and sold
them, which her husband told me he supposed were stolen by the negroes
on a neighboring plantation. Mr. Swan, hearing of the circumstance,
told me he believed Joe's story, but that his statement would not be
taken as proof; and if every slave on the plantation told the same
story it could not be received as evidence against a white person.

To show the manner in which old and worn-out slaves are sometimes
treated, I will state a fact. Galloway owned a man about seventy years
of age. The old man was sick and went to his hut; laid himself down on
some straw with his feet to the fire, covered by a piece of an old
blanket, and there lay four or five days, groaning in great distress,
without any attention being paid him by his master, until death ended
his miseries; he was then taken out and buried with as little ceremony
and respect as would be paid to a brute.

There is a practice prevalent among the planters, of letting a negro
off from severe and long-continued punishment on account of the
intercession of some white person, who pleads in his behalf, that he
believes the negro will behave better, that he promises well, and he
believes he will keep his promise, &c. The planters sometimes get
tired of punishing a negro, and, wanting his services in the field,
they get some white person to come, and, in the presence of the slave,
intercede for him. At one time a negro, named Charles, was confined in
the stocks in the building where I was at work, and had been severely
whipped several times. He begged me to intercede for him and try to
get him released. I told him I would; and when his master came in to
whip him again, I went up to him and told him I had been talking with
Charles, and he had promised to behave better, &c., and requested him
not to punish him any more, but to let him go. He then said to
Charles, "As Mr. Caulkins has been pleading for you, I will let you go
on his account;" and accordingly released him.

Women are generally shown some little indulgence for three or four
weeks previous to childbirth; they are at such times not often
punished if they do not finish the task assigned them; it is, in some
cases, passed over with a severe reprimand, and sometimes without any
notice being taken of it. They ate generally allowed four weeks after
the birth of a child, before they are compelled to go into the field,
they then take the child with them, attended sometimes by a little
girl or boy, from the age of four to six, to take care of it while the
mother is at work. When there is no child that can be spared, or not
young enough for this service, the mother, after nursing, lays it
under a tree, or by the side of a fence, and goes to her task,
returning at stated intervals to nurse it. While I was on this
plantation, a little negro girl, six years of age, destroyed the life
of a child about two months old, which was left in her care. It seems
this little nurse, so called, got tired of her charge and the labor of
carrying it to the quarters at night, the mother being obliged to work
as long as she could see. One evening she nursed the infant at sunset
as usual, and sent it to the quarters. The little girl, on her way
home, had to cross a run or brook, which led down into the swamp; when
she came to the brook she followed it into the swamp, then took the
infant and plunged it head foremost into the water and mud, where it
stuck fast; she there left it and went to the negro quarters. When the
mother came in from the field, she asked the girl where the child was;
she told her she had brought it home, but did not know where it was;
the overseer was immediately informed, search was made, and it was
found as above stated, and dead. The little girl was shut up in the
barn, and confined there two or three weeks, when a speculator came
along and bought her for two hundred dollars.

The slaves are obliged to work from daylight till dark, as long as
they can see. When they have tasks assigned, which is often the case,
a few of the strongest and most expert, sometimes finish them before
sunset; others will be obliged to work till eight or nine o'clock in
the evening. All must finish their tasks or take a flogging. The whip
and gun, or pistol, are companions of the overseer; the former he uses
very frequently upon the negroes, during their hours of labor, without
regard to age or sex. Scarcely a day passed while I was on the
plantation, in which some of the slaves were not whipped; I do not
mean that they were _struck a few blows_ merely, but had a _set
flogging_. The same labor is commonly assigned to men and women,--such
as digging ditches in the rice marshes, clearing up land, chopping
cord-wood, threshing, &c. I have known the women go into the barn as
soon as they could see in the morning, and work as late as they could
see at night, threshing rice with the flail, (they now have a
threshing machine,) and when they could see to thresh no longer, they
had to gather up the rice, carry it up stairs, and deposit it in the
granary.

The allowance of clothing on this plantation to each slave, was given
out at Christmas for the year, and consisted of one pair of coarse
shoes, and enough coarse cloth to make a jacket and trowsers. If the
man has a wife she makes it up; if not, it is made up in the house.
The slaves on this plantation, being near Wilmington, procured
themselves extra clothing by working Sundays and moonlight nights,
cutting cordwood in the swamps, which they had to back about a quarter
of a mile to the ricer; they would then get a permit from their
master, and taking the wood in their canoes, carry it to Wilmington,
and sell it to the vessels, or dispose of it as they best could, and
with the money buy an old jacket of the sailors, some coarse cloth for
a shirt, &c. They sometimes gather the moss from the trees, which they
cleanse and take to market. The women receive their allowance of the
same kind of cloth which the men have. This they make into a frock; if
they have any under garments _they must procure them for themselves_.
When the slaves get a permit to leave the plantation, they sometimes
make all ring again by singing the following significant ditty, which
shows that after all there is a flow of spirits in the human breast
which for a while, at least, enables them to forget their
wretchedness.[1]


Hurra, for good ole Massa,
    He giv me de pass to go to de city
Hurra, for good ole Missis,
    She bile de pot, and giv me de licker.
                        Hurra, I'm goin to de city.


[Footnote 1: Slaves sometimes sing, and so do convicts in jails under
sentence, and both for the same reason. Their singing proves that they
_want_ to be happy not that they _are_ so. It is the _means_ that they
use to make themselves happy, not the evidence that they are so
already. Sometimes, doubtless, the excitement of song whelms their
misery in momentary oblivion. He who argues from this that they have
no conscious misery to forget, knows as little of human nature as of
slavery.--EDITOR.]

Every Saturday night the slaves receive their allowance of provisions,
which must last them till the next Saturday night. "Potatoe time," as
it is called, begins about the middle of July. The slave may measure
for himself, the overseer being present, half a bushel of sweet
potatoes, and heap the measure as long as they will lie on; I have,
however, seen the overseer, if he think the negro is getting too many,
kick the measure; and if any fall off tell him he has got his measure.
No salt is furnished them to eat with their potatoes. When rice or
corn is given, they give them a little salt; sometimes half a pint of
molasses is given, but not often. The quantity of rice, which is of
the small, broken, unsaleable kind, is one peck. When corn is given
them, their allowance is the same, and if they get it ground, (Mr.
Swan had a mill on his plantation,) they must give one quart for
grinding, thus reducing their weekly allowance to seven quarts. When
fish (mullet) were plenty, they were allowed, in addition, one fish.
As to meat, they seldom had any. I do not think they had an allowance
of meat oftener than once in two or three months, and then the
quantity was very small. When they went into the field to work, they
took some of the meal or rice and a pot with them; the pots were given
to an old woman, who placed two poles parallel, set the pots on them,
and kindled a fire underneath for cooking; she took salt with her and
seasoned the messes as she thought proper. When their breakfast was
ready, which was generally about ten or eleven o'clock, they were
called from labor, ate, and returned to work; in the afternoon, dinner
was prepared in the same way. They had but two meals a day while in
the field; if they wanted more, they cooked for themselves after they
returned to their quarters at night. At the time of killing hogs on
the plantation, the pluck, entrails, and blood were given to the
slaves.

When I first went upon Mr. Swan's plantation, I saw a slave in
shackles or fetters, which were fastened around each ankle and firmly
riveted, connected together by a chain. To the middle of this chain he
had fastened a string, so as in a manner to suspend them and keep them
from galling his ankles. This slave, whose name was Frank, was an
intelligent, good looking man, and a very good mechanic. There was
nothing vicious in his character, but he was one of those
high-spirited and daring men, that whips, chains, fetters, and all the
means of cruelty in the power of slavery, could not subdue. Mr. S. had
employed a Mr. Beckwith to repair a boat, and told him Frank was a
good mechanic, and he might have his services. Frank was sent for, his
_shackles still on_. Mr. Beckwith set him to work making _trundels_,
&c. I was employed in putting up a building, and after Mr. Beckwith
had done with Frank, he was sent for to assist me. Mr. Swan sent him
to a blacksmith's shop and had his shackles cut off with a cold
chisel. Frank was afterwards sold to a cotton planter.

I will relate one circumstance, which shows the little regard that is
paid to the feelings of the slave. During the time that Mr. Isaiah
Rogers was superintending the building of a rice machine, one of the
slaves complained of a severe toothache. Swan asked Mr. Rogers to take
his hammer and _knock out the tooth_.

There was a slave on the plantation named Ben, a waiting man. I
occupied a room in the same hut, and had frequent conversations with
him. Ben was a kind-hearted man, and, I believe, a Christian; he would
always ask a blessing before he sat down to eat, and was in the
constant practice of praying morning and night.--One day when I was at
the hut, Ben was sent for to go to the house. Ben sighed deeply and
went. He soon returned with a girl about seventeen years of age, whom
one of Mr. Swan's daughters had ordered him to flog. He brought her
into the room where I was, and told her to stand there while he went
into the next room: I heard him groan again as he went. While there I
heard his voice, and he was engaged in prayer. After a few minutes he
returned with a large cowhide, and stood before the girl, without
saying a word. I concluded he wished me to leave the hut, which I did;
and immediately after I heard the girl scream. At every blow she would
shriek, "Do, Ben! oh do, Ben!" This is a common expression of the
slaves to the person whipping them: "Do, Massa!" or, "Do, Missus!"

After she had gone, I asked Ben what she was whipped for: he told me
she had done something to displease her young missus; and in boxing
her ears, and otherwise beating her, she had scratched her finger by a
pin in the girl's dress, for which she sent her to be flogged. I asked
him if he stripped her before flogging; he said, yes; he did not like
to do this, but was _obliged_ to: he said he was once ordered to whip
a woman, which he did without stripping her: on her return to the
house, her mistress examined her back; and not seeing any marks, he
was sent for, and asked why he had not whipped her: he replied that he
had; she said she saw no marks, and asked him if he had made her pull
her clothes off; he said, No. She then told him, that when he whipped
any more of the women, he must make them strip off their clothes, as
well as the men, and flog them on their bare backs, or he should be
flogged himself.

Ben often appeared very gloomy and sad: I have frequently heard him,
when in his room, mourning over his condition, and exclaim, "Poor
African slave! Poor African slave!" Whipping was so common an
occurrence on this plantation, that it would be too great a repetition
to state the _many_ and _severe_ floggings I have seen inflicted on
the slaves. They were flogged for not performing their tasks, for
being careless, slow, or not in time, for going to the fire to warm,
&c. &c.; and it often seemed as if occasions were sought as an excuse
for punishing them.

On one occasion, I heard the overseer charge the hands to be at a
certain place the next morning at sun-rise. I was present in the
morning, in company with my brother, when the hands arrived. Joe, the
slave already spoken of, came running, all out of breath, about five
minutes behind the time, when, without asking any questions, the
overseer told him to take off his jacket. Joe took off his jacket. He
had on a piece of a shirt; he told him to take it off: Joe took it
off: he then whipped him with a heavy cowhide full six feet long. At
every stroke Joe would spring from the ground, and scream, "O my God!
Do, Massa Galloway!" My brother was so exasperated; that he turned to
me and said, "If I were Joe, I would kill the overseer if I knew I
should be shot the next minute."

In the winter the horn blew at about four in the morning, and all the
threshers were required to be at the threshing floor in fifteen
minutes after. They had to go about a quarter of a mile from their
quarters. Galloway would stand near the entrance, and all who did not
come in time would get a blow over the back or head as heavy as he
could strike. I have seen him, at such times, follow after them,
striking furiously a number of blows, and every one followed by their
screams. I have seen the women go to their work after such a flogging,
crying and taking on most piteously.

It is almost impossible to believe that human nature can endure such
hardships and sufferings as the slaves have to go through: I have seen
them driven into a ditch in a rice swamp to bail out the water, in
order to put down a flood-gate, when they had to break the ice, and
there stand in the water among the ice until it was bailed out. I have
_often_ known the hands to be taken from the field, sent down the
river in flats or boats to Wilmington, absent from twenty-four to
thirty hours, _without any thing to eat,_ no provision being made for
these occasions.

Galloway kept medicine on hand, that in case any of the slaves were
sick, he could give it to them without sending for the physician; but
he always kept a good look out that they did not sham sickness. When
any of them excited his suspicions, he would make them take the
medicine in his presence, and would give them a rap on the top of the
head, to make them swallow it. A man once came to him, of whom he said
he was suspicious: he gave him two potions of salts, and fastened him
in the stocks for the night. His medicine soon began to operate; and
_there he lay in all his filth till he was taken out the next day._

One day, Mr. Swan beat a slave severely, for alleged carelessness in
letting a boat get adrift. The slave was told to secure the boat:
whether he took sufficient means for this purpose I do not know; he
was not allowed to make any defence. Mr. Swan called him up, and asked
why he did not secure the boat: he pulled off his hat and began to
tell his story. Swan told him he was a damned liar, and commenced
beating him over the head with a hickory cane, and the slave retreated
backwards; Swan followed him about two rods, threshing him over the
head with the hickory as he went.

As I was one day standing near some slaves who were threshing, the
driver, thinking one of the women did not use her flail quick enough,
struck her over the head: the end of the whip hit her in the eye. I
thought at the time he had put it out; but, after poulticing and
doctoring for some days, she recovered. Speaking to him about it, he
said that he once struck a slave so as to put one of her eyes entirely
out.

A patrol is kept upon each estate, and every slave found off the
plantation without a pass is whipped on the spot. I knew a slave who
started without a pass, one night, for a neighboring plantation, to
see his wife: he was caught, tied to a tree, and flogged. He stated
his business to the patrol, who was well acquainted with him but all
to no purpose. I spoke to the patrol about it afterwards: he said he
knew the negro, that he was a very clever fellow, but he had to whip
him; for, if he let him pass, he must another, &c. He stated that he
had sometimes caught and flogged four in a night.

In conversation with Mr. Swan about runaway slaves, he stated to me
the following fact:--A slave, by the name of Luke, was owned in
Wilmington; he was sold to a speculator and carried to Georgia. After
an absence of about two months the slave returned; he watched an
opportunity to enter his old master's house when the family were
absent, no one being at home but a young waiting man. Luke went to the
room where his master kept his arms; took his gun, with some
ammunition, and went into the woods. On the return of his master, the
waiting man told him what had been done: this threw him into a violent
passion; he swore he would kill Luke, or lose his own life. He loaded
another gun, took two men, and made search, but could not find him: he
then advertised him, offering a large reward if delivered to him or
lodged in jail. His neighbors, however, advised him to offer a reward
of two hundred dollars for him _dead or alive_, which he did. Nothing
however was heard of him for some months. Mr. Swan said, one of his
slaves ran away, and was gone eight or ten weeks; on his return he
said he had found Luke, and that he had a rifle, two pistols, and a
sword.

I left the plantation in the spring, and returned to the north; when I
went out again, the next fall, I asked Mr. Swan if any thing had been
heard of Luke; he said he was _shot_, and related to me the manner of
his death, as follows:--Luke went to one of the plantations, and
entered a hut for something to eat. Being fatigued, he sat down and
fell asleep. There was only a woman in the hut at the time: as soon as
she found he was asleep, she ran and told her master, who took his
rifle, and called two white men on another plantation: the three, with
their rifles, then went to the hut, and posted themselves in different
positions, so that they could watch the door. When Luke waked up he
went to the door to look out, and saw them with their rifles, he
stepped back and raised his gun to his face. They called to him to
surrender; and stated that they had him in their power, and said he
had better give up. He said he would not: and if they tried to take
him, he would kill one of them; for, if he gave up, he knew they would
kill him, and he was determined to sell his life as dear as he could.
They told him, if he should shoot one of them, the other two would
certainly kill him: he replied, he was determined not to give up, and
kept his gun moving from one to the other; and while his rifle was
turned toward one, another, standing in a different direction, shot
him through the head, and he fell lifeless to the ground.

There was another slave shot while I was there; this man had run away,
and had been living in the woods a long time, and it was not known
where he was, till one day he was discovered by two men, who went on
the large island near Belvidere to hunt turkeys; they shot him and
carried his head home.

It is common to keep dogs on the plantations, to pursue and catch
runaway slaves. I was once bitten by one of them. I went to the
overseer's house, the dog lay in the piazza, as soon as I put my foot
upon the floor, he sprang and bit me just above the knee, but not
severely; he tore my pantaloons badly. The overseer apologized for his
dog, saying he never knew him to bite a _white_ man before. He said he
once had a dog, when he lived on another plantation, that was very
useful to him in hunting runaway negroes. He said that a slave on the
plantation once ran away; as soon as he found the course he took, he
put the dog on the track, and he soon came so close upon him that the
man had to climb a tree, he followed with his gun, and brought the
slave home.

The slaves have a great dread of being sold and carried south. It is
generally said, and I have no doubt of its truth, that they are much
worse treated farther south.

The following are a few among the many facts related to me while I
lived among the slaveholder. The names of the planters and
plantations, I shall not give, _as they did not come under my own
observation_. I however place the fullest confidence in their truth.

A planter not far from Mr. Swan's employed an overseer to whom he paid
$400 a year; he became dissatisfied with him, because he did not drive
the slaves hard enough, and get more work out of them. He therefore
sent to South Carolina, or Georgia, and got a man to whom he paid I
believe $800 a year. He proved to be a cruel fellow, and drove the
slaves almost to death. There was a slave on this plantation, who had
repeatedly run away, and had been severely flogged every time. The
last time he was caught, a hole was dug in the ground, and he buried
up to the chin, his arms being secured down by his sides. He was kept
in this situation four or five days.

The following was told me by an intimate friend; it took place on a
plantation containing about one hundred slaves. One day the owner
ordered the women into the barn, he then went in among them, whip in
hand, and told them he meant to flog them all to death; they began
immediately to cry out "What have I done Massa? What have I done
Massa?" He replied; "D--n you, I will let you know what you have done,
you don't breed, I haven't had a young one from one of you for several
months." They told him they could not breed while they had to work in
the rice ditches. (The rice grounds are low and marshy, and have to be
drained, and while digging or clearing the ditches, the women had to
work in mud and water from one to two feet in depth; they were obliged
to draw up and secure their frocks about their waist, to keep them out
of the water, in this manner they frequently had to work from daylight
in the morning till it was so dark they could see no longer.) After
swearing and threatening for some time, he told them to tell the
overseer's wife, when they got in that way, and he would put them upon
the land to work.

This same planter had a female slave who was a member of the Methodist
Church; for a slave she was intelligent and conscientious. He proposed
a criminal intercourse with her. She would not comply. He left her and
sent for the overseer, and told him to have her flogged. It was done.
Not long after, he renewed his proposal. She again refused. She was
again whipped. He then told her why she had been twice flogged, and
told her he intended to whip her till she should yield. The girl,
seeing that her case was hopeless, her back smarting with the
scourging she had received, and dreading a repetition, gave herself up
to be the victim of his brutal lusts.

One of the slaves on another plantation, gave birth to a child which
lived but two or three weeks. After its death the planter called the
woman to him, and asked her how she came to let the child die; said it
was all owing to her carelessness, and that he meant to flog her for
it. She told, him with all the feeling of a mother, the circumstances
of its death. But her story availed her nothing against the savage
brutality of her master. She was severely whipped. A healthy child
four months old was then considered worth $100 in North Carolina.

The foregoing facts were related to me by white persons of character
and respectability. The following fact was related to me on a
plantation where I have spent considerable time and where the
punishment was inflicted. I have no doubt of its truth. A slave ran
away from his master, and got as far as Newbern. He took provisions
that lasted him a week; but having eaten all, he went to a house to
get something to satisfy his hunger. A white man suspecting him to be
a runaway, demanded his pass; as he had none he was seized and put in
Newbern jail. He was there advertised, his description given, &c. His
master saw the advertisement and sent for him; when he was brought
back, his wrists were tied together and drawn over his knees. A stick
was then passed over his arms and under his knees, and he secured in
this manner, his trowsers were then stripped down, and he turned over
on his side, and severely beaten with the paddle, then turned over and
severely beaten on the other side, and then turned back again, and
tortured by another bruising and beating. He was afterwards kept in
the stocks a week, and whipped every morning.

To show the disgusting pollutions of slavery, and how it covers with
moral filth every thing it touches, I will state two or three facts,
which I have on such evidence I cannot doubt their truth. A planter
offered a white man of my acquaintance twenty dollars for every one of
his female slaves, whom he would get in the family way. This offer was
no doubt made for the purpose of improving the stock, on the same
principle that farmers endeavour to improve their cattle by crossing
the breed.

Slaves belonging to merchants and others in the city, often hire their
own time, for which they pay various prices per week or month,
according to the capacity of the slave. The females who thus hire
their time, pursue various modes to procure the money; their masters
making no inquiry how they get it, provided the money comes. If it is
not regularly paid they are flogged. Some take in washing, some cook
on board vessels, pick oakum, sell peanuts, &c., while others, younger
and more comely, often resort to the vilest pursuits. I knew a man
from the north who, though married to a respectable southern woman,
kept two of these mulatto girls in an upper room at his store; his
wife told some of her friends that he had not lodged at home for two
weeks together, I have seen these two _kept misses_, as they are there
called, at his store; he was afterwards stabbed in an attempt to
arrest a runaway slave, and died in about ten days.

The clergy at the north cringe beneath the corrupting influence of
slavery, and their moral courage is borne down by it. Not the
hypocritical and unprincipled alone, but even such as can hardly be
supposed to be destitute of sincerity.

Going one morning to the Baptist Sunday School, in Wilmington, in
which I was engaged, I fell in with the Rev. Thomas P. Hunt, who was
going to the Presbyterian school. I asked him how he could bear to see
the little negro children beating their hoops, hallooing, and running
about the streets, as we then saw them, their moral condition entirely
neglected, while the whites were so carefully gathered into the
schools. His reply was substantially this:--"I can't bear it, Mr.
Caulkins. I feel as deeply as any one can on this subject, but what
can I do? MY HANDS ARE TIED."

Now, if Mr. Hunt was guilty of neglecting his duty, as a servant of
HIM who never failed to rebuke sin in high places, what shall be said
of those clergymen at the north, where the power that closed his mouth
is comparatively unfelt, who refuse to tell their people how God
abhors oppression, and who seldom open their mouth on this subject,
but to denounce the friends of emancipation, thus giving the strongest
support to the accursed system of slavery. I believe Mr. Hunt has
since become an agent of the Temperance Society.

In stating the foregoing facts, my object has been to show the
practical workings of the system of slavery, and if possible to
correct the misapprehension on this subject, so common at the north.
In doing this I am not at war with slave-holders. No, my soul is moved
for them as well as for the poor slaves. May God send them repentance
to the acknowledgment of the truth! Principle, on a subject of this
nature, is dearer to me than the applause of men, and should not be
sacrificed on any subject, even though the ties of friendship may be
broken. We have too long been silent on this subject, the slave has
been too much considered, by our northern states, as being kept by
necessity in his present condition.--Were we to ask, in the language
of Pilate, "what evil have they done"--we may search their history, we
cannot find that they have taken up arms against our government, nor
insulted us as a nation--that they are thus compelled to drag out a
life in chains! subjected to the most terrible inflictions if in any
way they manifest a wish to be released.--Let us reverse the question.
What evil has been done to them by those who call themselves masters?
First let us look at their persons, "neither clothed nor naked"--I
have seen instances where this phrase would not apply to boys and
girls, and that too in winter. I knew one young man seventeen years of
age, by the name of Dave, on Mr. J. Swan's plantation, worked day
after day in the rice machine as naked as when he was born. The reason
of his being so, his master said in my hearing, was, that he could not
keep clothes on him--he would get into the fire and burn them off.

Follow them next to their huts; some with and some without floors:--Go
at night, view their means of lodging, see them lying on benches, some
on the floor or ground, some sitting on stools, dozing away the
night:--others, of younger age, with a bare blanket wrapped about
them; and one or two lying in the ashes. These things _I have often
seen with my own eyes._

Examine their means of subsistence, which consists generally of seven
quarts of meal or eight quarts of small rice for one week; then follow
them to their work, with driver and overseer pushing them to the
utmost of their strength, by threatening and whipping.

If they are sick from fatigue and exposure, go to their huts, as I
have often been, and see them groaning under a burning fever or
pleurisy, lying on some straw, their feet to the fire with barely a
blanket to cover them; or on some boards nailed together in form of a
bedstead.

And after seeing all this, and hearing them tell of their sufferings,
need I ask, is there any evil connected with their condition? and if
so; upon whom is it to be charged? I answer for myself, and the reader
can do the same. Our government stands first chargeable for allowing
slavery to exist, under its own jurisdiction. Second, the states for
enacting laws to secure their victim. Third, the slaveholder for
carrying out such enactments, in horrid form enough to chill the
blood. Fourth, every person who knows what slavery is, and does not
raise his voice against this crying sin, but by silence gives consent
to its continuance, is chargeable with guilt in the sight of God. "The
blood of Zacharias who was slain between the temple and altar," says
Christ, "WILL I REQUIRE OF THIS GENERATION."

Look at the slave, his condition but little, if at all, better than
that of the brute; chained down by the law, and the will of his
master; and every avenue closed against relief; and the names of those
who plead for him, cast out as evil;--must not humanity let its voice
be heard, and tell Israel their transgressions and Judah their sins?

May God look upon their afflictions, and deliver them from their cruel
task-masters! I verily believe he will, if there be any efficacy in
prayer. I have been to their prayer meetings and with them offered
prayer in their behalf. I have heard some of them in their huts before
day-light praying in their simple broken language, telling their
heavenly Father of their trials in the following and similar language.

"Fader in heaven, look upon de poor slave, dat have to work all de day
long, dat cant have de time to pray only in de night, and den massa
mus not know it.[2] Fader, have mercy on massa and missus. Fader, when
shall poor slave get through de world! when will death come, and de
poor slave go to heaven;" and in their meetings they frequently add,
"Fader, bless de white man dat come to hear de slave pray, bless his
family," and so on. They uniformly begin their meetings by singing the
following--


"And are we yet alive
 To see each other's face," &c.

[Footnote 2: At this time there was some fear of insurrection and the
slaves were forbidden to hold meetings.]

Is the ear of the Most High deaf to the prayer of the slave? I do
firmly believe that their deliverance will come, and that the prayer
of this poor afflicted people will be answered.

Emancipation would be safe. I have had eleven winters to learn the
disposition of the slaves, and am satisfied that they would peaceably
and cheerfully work for pay. Give them education, equal and just laws,
and they will become a most interesting people. Oh, let a cry be
raised which shall awaken the conscience of this guilty nation, to
demand for the slaves immediate and unconditional emancipation.
                                   NEHEMIAH CAULKINS.


       *     *     *     *     *




NARRATIVE AND TESTIMONY OF REV. HORACE MOULTON.

Mr. Moulton is an esteemed minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
in Marlborough, Mass. He spent five years in Georgia, between 1817 and
1824. The following communication has been recently received from him.

MARLBOROUGH, MASS., Feb. 18, 1839.

DEAR BROTHER--

Yours of Feb. 2d, requesting me to write out a few facts on the
subject of slavery, as it exists at the south, has come to hand. I
hasten to comply with your request. Were it not, however, for the
claims of those "who are drawn unto death," and the responsibility
resting upon me, in consequence of this request, I should forever hold
my peace. For I well know that I shall bring upon myself a flood of
persecution, for attempting to speak out for the dumb. But I am
willing to be set at nought by men, if I can be the means of promoting
the welfare of the oppressed of our land. I shall not relate many
particular cases of cruelty, though I might a great number; but shall
give some general information as to their mode of treatment, their
food, clothing, dwellings, deprivations, &c.

Let me say, in the first place, that I spent nearly five years in
Savannah, Georgia, and in its vicinity, between the years 1817 and
1824. My object in going to the south, was to engage in making and
burning brick; but not immediately succeeding, I engaged in no
business of much profit until late in the winter, when I took charge
of a set of hands and went to work. During my leisure, however, I was
an observer, at the auctions, upon the plantations, and in almost
every department of business. The next year, during the cold months, I
had several two-horse teams under my care, with which we used to haul
brick, boards, and other articles from the wharf into the city, and
cotton, rice, corn, and wood from the country. This gave me an
extensive acquaintance with merchants, mechanics and planters. I had
slaves under my control some portions of every year when at the south.
All the brick-yards, except one, on which I was engaged, were
connected either with a corn field, potatoe patch, rice field, cotton
field, tan-works, or with a wood lot. My business, usually, was to
take charge of the brick-making department. At those jobs I have
sometimes taken in charge both the field and brick-yard hands. I have
been on the plantations in South Carolina, but have never been an
overseer of slaves in that state, as has been said in the public
papers.

I think the above facts and explanations are necessary to be connected
with the account I may give of slavery, that the reader may have some
knowledge of my acquaintance with _practical_ slavery: for many
mechanics and merchants who go to the South, and stay there for years,
know but little of the dark side of slavery. My account of slavery
will apply to _field hands_, who compose much the largest portion of
the black population, (probably nine-tenths,) and not to those who are
kept for kitchen maids, nurses, waiters, &c., about the houses of the
planters and public hotels, where persons from the north obtain most
of their knowledge of the evils of slavery. I will now proceed to take
up specific points.

THE LABOR OF THE SLAVES

Males and females work together promiscuously on all the plantations.
On many plantations _tasks_ are given them. The best working hands can
have some leisure time; but the feeble and unskilful ones, together
with slender females, have indeed a hard time of it, and very often
answer for non-performance of tasks at the _whipping-posts_. None who
worked with me had tasks at any time. The rule was to work them from
sun to sun. But when I was burning brick, they were obliged to take
turns, and _sit up all night_ about every other night, and work all
day. On one plantation, where I spent a few weeks, the slaves were
called up to work long before daylight, when business pressed, and
worked until late at night; and sometimes some of them _all night_. A
large portion of the slaves are owned by masters who keep them on
purpose to hire out--and they usually let them to those who will give
the highest wages for them, irrespective of their mode of treatment;
and those who hire them, will of course try to get the greatest
possible amount of work performed, with the least possible expense.
Women are seen bringing their infants into the field to their work,
and leading others who are not old enough to stay at the cabins with
safety. When they get there, they must set them down in the dirt and
go to work. Sometimes they are left to cry until they fall asleep.
Others are left at home, shut up in their huts. Now, is it not
barbarous, that the mother, with her child of children around her,
half starved, must be whipped at night if she does not perform her
task? But so it is. Some who have very young ones, fix a little sack,
and place the infants on their backs, and work. One reason, I presume
is, that they will not cry so much when they can hear their mother's
voice. Another is, the mothers fear that the poisonous vipers and
snakes will bite them. Truly, I never knew any place where the land is
so infested with all kinds of the most venomous snakes, as in the low
lands round about Savannah. The moccasin snakes, so called, and water
rattle-snakes--the bites of both of which are as poisonous as our
upland rattlesnakes at the north,--are found in myriads about the
stagnant waters and swamps of the South. The females, in order to
secure their infants from these poisonous snakes, do, as I have said,
often work with their infants on their backs. Females are sometimes
called to take the hardest part of the work. On some brick yards where
I have been, the women have been selected as the _moulders_ of brick,
instead of the men.

II. THE FOOD OF THE SLAVES.

It was a general custom, wherever I have been, for the masters to give
each of his slaves, male and female, _one peck of corn per week_ for
their food. This at fifty cents per bushel, which was all that it was
worth when I was there, would amount to twelve and a half cents per
week for board per head.

It cost me upon an average, when at the south, one dollar per day for
board. The price of fourteen bushels of corn per week. This would make
my board equal in amount to the board of _forty-six slaves!_ This is
all that good or bad masters allow their slaves round about Savannah
on the plantations. One peck of gourd-seed corn is to be measured out
to each slave once every week. One man with whom I labored, however,
being desirous to get all the work out of his hands he could, before I
left, (about fifty in number,) bought for them every week, or twice a
week, a beef's head from market. With this, they made a soup in a
large iron kettle, around which the hands came at meal-time, and
dipping out the soup, would mix it with their hommony, and eat it as
though it were a feast. This man permitted his slaves to eat twice a
day while I was doing a job for him. He promised me a beaver hat and
as good a suit of clothes as could be bought in the city, if I would
accomplish so much for him before I returned to the north; giving me
the entire control over his slaves. Thus you may see the temptations
overseers sometimes have, to get all the work they can out of the poor
slaves. The above is an exception to the general rule of feeding. For
in all other places where I worked and visited; the slaves had
_nothing from their masters but the corn_, or its equivalent in
potatoes or rice, and to this, they were not permitted to come but
_once a day_. The custom was to blow the horn early in the morning,
as a signal for the hands to rise and go to work, when commenced; they
continued work until about eleven o'clock, A.M., when, at the signal,
all hands left off and went into their huts, made their fires, made
their corn-meal into hommony or cake, ate it, and went to work again
at the signal of the horn, and worked until night, or until their
tasks were done. Some cooked their breakfast in the field while at
work. Each slave must grind his own corn in a hand-mill after he has
done his work at night. There is generally one hand-mill on every
plantation for the use of the slaves.

Some of the planters have no corn, others often get out. The
substitute for it is, the equivalent of one peek of corn either in
rice or sweet potatoes; neither of which is as good for the slaves as
corn. They complain more of being faint, when fed on rice or potatoes,
than when fed on corn. I was with one man a few weeks who gave me his
hands to do a job of work, and to save time one cooked for all the
rest. The following course was taken,--Two crotched sticks were driven
down at one end of the yard, and a small pole being laid on the
crotches, they swung a large iron kettle on the middle of the pole;
then made up a fire under the kettle and boiled the hommony; when
ready, the hands were called around this kettle with their wooden
plates and spoons. They dipped out and ate standing around the kettle,
or sitting upon the ground, as best suited their convenience. When
they had potatoes they took them out with their hands, and ate them.
As soon as it was thought they had had sufficient time to swallow
their food they were called to their work again. _This was the only
meal they ate through the day._ now think of the little, almost naked
and half starved children, nibbling upon a piece of cold Indian cake,
or a potato! Think of the poor female, just ready to be confined,
without any thing that can be called convenient or comfortable! Think
of the old toil-worn father and mother, without anything to eat but
the coarsest of food, and not half enough of that! then think of
_home_. When sick, their physicians are their masters and overseers,
in most cases, whose skill consists in bleeding and in administering
large potions of Epsom salts, when the whip and _cursing_ will not
start them from their cabins.

III. HOUSES.

The huts of the slaves are mostly of the poorest kind. They are not as
good as those temporary shanties which are thrown up beside railroads.
They are erected with posts and crotches, with but little or no
frame-work about them. They have no stoves or chimneys; some of them
have something like a fireplace at one end, and a board or two off at
that side, or on the roof, to let off the smoke. Others have nothing
like a fireplace in them; in these the fire is sometimes made in the
middle of the hut. These buildings have but one apartment in them; the
places where they pass in and out, serve both for doors and windows;
the sides and roofs are covered with coarse, and in many instances
with refuse boards. In warm weather, especially in the spring, the
slaves keep up a smoke, or fire and smoke, all night, to drive away
the gnats and musketoes, which are very troublesome in all the low
country of the south; so much so that the whites sleep under frames
with nets over them, knit so fine that the musketoes cannot fly
through them.

Some of the slaves have rugs to cover them in the coldest weather, but
I should think _more have not_. During driving storms they frequently
have to run from one hut to another for shelter. In the coldest
weather, where they can get wood or stumps, they keep up fires all
night in their huts, and lay around them, with their feet towards the
blaze. Men, women and children all lie down together, in most
instances. There may be exceptions to the above statements in regard
to their houses, but so far as my observations have extended, I have
given a fair description, and I have been on a large number of
plantations in Georgia and South Carolina up and down the Savannah
river. Their huts are generally built compactly on the plantations,
forming villages of huts, their size proportioned to the number of
slaves on them. In these miserable huts the poor blacks are herded at
night like swine, _without any conveniences of beadsteads, tables or
chairs._ O Misery to the full! to see the aged sire beating off the
swarms of gnats and musketoes in the warm weather, and shivering in
the straw, or bending over a few coals in the winter, clothed in rags.
I should think males and females, both lie down at night with their
working clothes on them. God alone knows how much the poor slaves
suffer for the want of convenient houses to secure them from the
piercing winds and howling storms of winter, almost as much in Georgia
as I do in Massachusetts.

IV. CLOTHING.

The masters [in Georgia] make a practice of getting two suits of
clothes for each slave per year, a thick suit for winter, and a thin
one for summer. They provide also one pair of northern made sale shoes
for each slave in _winter_. These shoes usually begin to rip in a few
weeks. The negroes' mode of mending them is, to _wire_ them together,
in many instances. Do our northern shoemakers know that they are
augmenting the sufferings of the poor slaves with their almost good
for nothing sale shoes? Inasmuch as it is done unto one of those poor
sufferers it is done unto our Saviour. The above practice of clothing
the slave is customary to some extent. How many, however, fail of
this, God only knows. The children and old slaves are, I should think,
_exceptions_ to the above rule. The males and females have their suits
from the same cloth for their winter dresses. These winter garments
appear to be made of a mixture of cotton and wool, very coarse and
_sleazy_. The whole suit for the men consists of a pair of pantaloons
and a short sailor-jacket, _without shirt, vest, hat, stockings, or
any kind of loose garments!_ These, if worn steadily when at work,
would not probably last more than one or two months; therefore, for
the sake of saving them, many of them work, especially in the summer,
with no clothing on them except a cloth tied round their waist, and
_almost all_ with nothing more on them than pantaloons, and these
frequently so torn that they do not serve the purposes of common
decency. The women have for clothing a short petticoat, and a short
loose gown, something like the male's sailor-jacket, _without any
under garment, stockings, bonnets, hoods, caps, or any kind of
over-clothes._ When at work in the warm weather, they usually strip
off the loose gown, and have nothing on but a short petticoat with
some kind of covering over their breasts. Many children may be seen in
the summer months _as naked as they came into the world_. I think, as
a whole, they suffer more for the want of comfortable bed clothes,
than they do for wearing apparel. It is true, that some by begging or
buying have more clothes than above described, but the _masters
provide them with no more_. They are miserable objects of pity. It may
be said of many of them, "I was _naked_ and ye clothed me not." It is
enough to melt the hardest heart to see the ragged mothers nursing
their almost naked children, with but a morsel of the coarsest food to
eat. The Southern horses and dogs have enough to eat and good care
taken of them, but Southern negroes, who can describe their misery?

V. PUNISHMENTS.

The ordinary mode of punishing the slaves is both cruel and barbarous.
The masters seldom, if ever, try to govern their slaves by moral
influence, but by whipping, kicking, beating, starving, branding,
_cat-hauling_, loading with irons, imprisoning, or by some other cruel
mode of torturing. They often boast of having invented some new mode
of torture, by which they have "tamed the rascals," What is called a
moderate flogging at the south is horribly cruel. Should we whip our
horses for any offence as they whip their slaves for small offences,
we should expose ourselves to the penalty of the law. The masters whip
for the smallest offences, such as not performing their tasks, being
caught by the guard or patrol by night, or for taking any thing from
the master's yard without leave. For these, and the like crimes, the
slaves are whipped thirty-nine lashes, and sometimes seventy or a
hundred, on the bare back. One slave, who was under my care, was
whipped, I think one hundred lashes, for getting a small handful of
wood from his master's yard without leave. I heard an overseer
boasting to this same master that he gave one of the boys seventy
lashes, for not doing a job of work just as he thought it ought to be
done. The owner of the slave appeared to be pleased that the overseer
had been so faithful. The apology they make for whipping so cruelly
is, that it is to frighten the rest of the gang. The masters say, that
what we call an ordinary flogging will not subdue the slaves; hence
the most cruel and barbarous scourgings ever witnessed by man are
daily and _hourly_ inflicted upon the naked bodies of these miserable
bondmen; not by masters and negro-drivers only, but by the constables
in the common markets and jailors in their yards.

When the slaves are whipped, either in public or private, they have
their hands fastened by the wrists, with a rope or cord prepared for
the purpose: this being thrown over a beam, a limb of a tree, or
something else, the culprit is drawn up and stretched by the arms as
high as possible, without raising his feet from the ground or floor:
and sometimes they are made to stand on tip-toe; then the feet are
made fast to something prepared for them. In this distorted posture
the monster flies at them, sometimes in great rage, with his
implements of torture, and cuts on with all his might, over the
shoulders, under the arms, and sometimes over the head and ears, or on
parts of the body where he can inflict the greatest torment.
Occasionally the whipper, especially if his victim does not beg enough
to suit him, while under the lash, will fly into a passion, uttering
the most horrid oaths; while the victim of his rage is crying, at
every stroke, "Lord have mercy! Lord have mercy!" The scenes exhibited
at the whipping post are awfully terrific and frightful to one whose
heart has not turned to stone; I never could look on but a moment.
While under the lash, the bleeding victim writhes in agony, convulsed
with torture. Thirty-nine lashes on the bare back, which tear the skin
at almost every stroke, is what the South calls a very _moderate
punishment!_ Many masters whip until they are tired--until the back is
a gore of blood--then rest upon it: after a short cessation, get up
and go at it again; and after having satiated their revenge in the
blood of their victims, they sometimes _leave them tied, for hours
together, bleeding at every wound_.--Sometimes, after being whipped,
they are bathed with a brine of salt and water. Now and then a master,
but more frequently a mistress who has no husband, will send them to
jail a few days, giving orders to have them whipped, so many lashes,
once or twice a day. Sometimes, after being whipped, some have been
shut up in a dark place and deprived of food, in order to increase
their torments: and I have heard of some who have, in such
circumstances, died of their wounds and starvation.

Such scenes of horror as above described are so common in Georgia that
they attract no attention. To threaten them with death, with breaking
in their teeth or jaws, or cracking their heads, is _common talk_,
when scolding at the slaves.--Those who run away from their masters
and are caught again generally fare the worst. They are generally
lodged in jail, with instructions from the owner to have them cruelly
whipped. Some order the constables to whip them publicly in the
market. Constables at the south are generally savage, brutal men. They
have become so accustomed to catching and whipping negroes, that they
are as fierce as tigers. Slaves who are absent from their yards, or
plantations, after eight o'clock P.M., and are taken by the guard in
the cities, or by the patrols in the country, are, if not called for
before nine o'clock A.M. the next day, secured in prisons; and hardly
ever escape, until their backs are torn up by the cowhide. On
plantations, the _evenings_ usually present scenes of horror. Those
slaves against whom charges are preferred for not having performed
their tasks, and for various faults, must, after work-hours at night,
undergo their torments. I have often heard the sound of the lash, the
curses of the whipper, and the cries of the poor negro rending the
air, late in the evening, and long before day-light in the morning.

It is very common for masters to say to the overseers or drivers, "put
it on to them," "don't spare that fellow," "give that scoundrel one
hundred lashes," &c. Whipping the women when in delicate
circumstances, as they sometimes do, without any regard to their
entreaties or the entreaties of their nearest friends, is truly
barbarous. If negroes could testify, they would tell you of instances
of women being whipped until they have miscarried at the
whipping-post. I heard of such things at the south--they are
undoubtedly facts. Children are whipped unmercifully for the smallest
offences, and that before their mothers. A large proportion of the
blacks have their shoulders, backs, and arms all scarred up, and not a
few of them have had their heads laid open with clubs, stones, and
brick-bats, and with the butt-end of whips and canes--some have had
their jaws broken, others their teeth knocked in or out; while others
have had their ears cropped and the sides of their cheeks gashed out.
Some of the poor creatures have lost the sight of one of their eyes by
the careless blows of the whipper, or by some other violence.

But punishing of slaves as above described, is not the only mode of
torture. Some tie them up in a very uneasy posture, where they must
stand _all night_, and they will then work them hard all day--that is,
work them hard all day and torment them all night. Others punish by
fastening them down on a log, or something else, and strike them on
the bare skin with a board paddle full of holes. This breaks the skin,
I should presume, at every hole where it comes in contact with it.
Others, when other modes of punishment will not subdue them,
_cat-haul_ them--that is, take a cat by the nape of the neck and tail,
or by the hind legs, and drag the claws across the back until
satisfied. This kind of punishment poisons the flesh much worse than
the whip, and is more dreaded by the slave. Some are branded by a hot
iron, others have their flesh cut out in large gashes, to mark them.
Some who are prone to run away, have iron fetters riveted around their
ancles, sometimes they are put only on one foot, and are dragged on
the ground. Others have on large iron collars or yokes upon their
necks, or clogs riveted upon their wrists or ancles. Some have bells
put upon them, hung upon a sort of frame to an iron collar. Some
masters fly into a rage at trifles and knock down their negroes with
their fists, or with the first thing that they can get hold of. The
whiplash-knots, or rawhide, have sometimes by a reckless stroke
reached round to the front of the body and cut through to the bowels.
One slaveholder with whom I lived, whipped one of his slaves one day,
as many, I should think, as one hundred lashes, and then turned the
_butt-end_ and went to beating him over the head and ears, and truly I
was amazed that the slave was not killed on the spot. Not a few
slaveholders whip their slaves to death, and then say that they died
under a "moderate correction." I wonder that ten are not killed where
one is! Were they not much hardier than the whites many more of them
must die than do. One young mulatto man, with whom I was well
acquainted, was killed by his master in his yard with _impunity_. I
boarded at the same time near the place where this glaring murder was
committed, and knew the master well. He had a plantation, on which he
enacted, almost daily, cruel barbarities, some of them, I was
informed, more terrific, if possible, than death itself. Little notice
was taken of this murder, and it all passed off without any action
being taken against the murderer. The masters used to try to make me
whip their negroes. They said I could not get along with them without
flogging them--but I found I could get along better with them by
coaxing and encouraging them than by beating and flogging them. I had
not a heart to beat and kick about those beings; although I had not
grace in my heart the three first years I was there, yet I sympathised
with the slaves. I never was guilty of having but one whipped, and he
was whipped but eight or nine blows. The circumstances were as
follows: Several negroes were put under my care, one spring, _who were
fresh from Congo and Guinea_. I could not understand them, neither
could they me, in one word I spoke. I therefore pointed to them to go
to work; all obeyed me willingly but one--he refused. I told the
driver that he must tie him up and whip him. After he had tied him, by
the help of some others, we struck him eight or nine blows, and he
yielded. I told the driver not to strike him another blow. We untied
him, and he went to work, and continued faithful all the time he was
with me. This one was not a sample, however--many of them have such
exalted views of freedom that it is hard work for the masters to whip
them into brutes, that is to subdue their noble spirits. The negroes
being put under my care, did not prevent the masters from whipping
them when they pleased. But they never whipped much in my presence.
This work was usually left until I had dismissed the hands. On the
plantations, the masters chose to have the slaves whipped in the
presence of all the hands, to strike them with terror.

VI. RUNAWAYS

Numbers of poor slaves run away from their masters; some of whom
doubtless perish in the swamps and other secret places, rather than
return back again to their masters; others stay away until they almost
famish with hunger, and then return home rather than die, while others
who abscond are caught by the negro-hunters, in various ways.
Sometimes the master will hire some of his most trusty negroes to
secure any stray negroes, who come on to their plantations, for many
come at night to beg food of their friends on the plantations. The
slaves assist one another usually when they can, and not be found out
in it. The master can now and then, however, get some of his hands to
betray the runaways. Some obtain their living in hunting after lost
slaves. The most common way is to train up young dogs to follow them.
This can easily be done by obliging a slave to go out into the woods,
and climb a tree, and then put the young dog on his track, and with a
little assistance he can be taught to follow him to the tree, and when
found, of course the dog would bark at such game as a poor negro on a
tree. There was a man living in Savannah when I was there, who kept a
large number of dogs for no other purpose than to hunt runaway
negroes. And he always had enough of this work to do, for hundreds of
runaways are never found, but could he get news soon after one had
fled, he was almost sure to catch him. And this fear of the dogs
restrains multitudes from running off.

When he went out on a hunting excursion, to be gone several days, he
took several persons with him, armed generally with rifles and
followed by the dogs. The dogs were as true to the track of a negro,
if one had passed recently, as a hound is to the track of a fox when
he has found it. When the dogs draw near to their game, the slave must
turn and fight them or climb a tree. If the latter, the dogs will stay
and bark until the pursuer come. The blacks frequently deceive the
dogs by crossing and recrossing the creeks. Should the hunters who
have no dogs, start a slave from his hiding place, and the slave not
stop at the hunter's call, he will shoot at him, as soon as he would
at a deer. Some masters advertise so much for a runaway slave, dead or
alive. It undoubtedly gives such more satisfaction to know that their
property is dead, than to know that it is alive without being able to
get it. Some slaves run away who never mean to be taken alive. I will
mention one. He run off and was pursued by the dogs, but having a
weapon with him he succeeded in killing two or three of the dogs; but
was afterwards shot. He had declared, that he never would be taken
alive. The people rejoiced at the death of the slave, but lamented the
death of the dogs, they were such ravenous hunters. Poor fellow, he
fought for life and liberty like a hero; but the bullets brought him
down. A negro can hardly walk unmolested at the south.--Every colored
stranger that walks the streets is suspected of being a runaway slave,
hence he must be interrogated by every negro hater whom he meets, and
should he not have a pass, he must be arrested and hurried off to
jail. Some masters boast that their slaves would not be free if they
could. How little they know of their slaves! They are all sighing and
groaning for freedom. May God hasten the time!

VII. CONFINEMENT AT NIGHT.

When the slaves have done their day's work, they must be herded
together like sheep in their yards, or on their plantations. They have
not as much liberty as northern men have, who are sent to jail for
debt, for they have liberty to walk a larger yard than the slaves
have. The slaves must all be at their homes precisely at eight
o'clock, P.M. At this hour the drums beat in the cities, as a signal
for every slave to be in his den. In the country, the signal is given
by firing guns, or some other way by which they may know the hour when
to be at home. After this hour, the guard in the cities, and patrols
in the country, being well armed, are on duty until daylight in the
morning. If they catch any negroes during the night without a pass,
they are immediately seized and hurried away to the guard-house, or if
in the country to some place of confinement, where they are kept until
nine o'clock, A.M., the next day, if not called for by that time, they
are hurried off to jail, and there remain until called for by their
master and his jail and guard house fees paid. The guards and patrols
receive one dollar extra for every one they can catch, who has not a
pass from his master, or overseer, but few masters will give their
slaves passes to be out at night unless on some special business:
notwithstanding, many venture out, watching every step they take for
the guard or patrol, the consequence is, some are caught almost every
night, and some nights many are taken; some, fleeing after being
hailed by the watch, are shot down in attempting their escape, others
are crippled for life. I find I shall not be able to write out more at
present. My ministerial duties are pressing, and if I delay this till
the next mail, I fear it will not be in season. Your brother for those
who are in bonds,

HORACE MOULTON

       *     *     *     *     *



NARRATIVE AND TESTIMONY OF SARAH M. GRIMKÉ.

Miss Grimké is a daughter of the late Judge Grimké, of the Supreme
Court of South Carolina, and sister of the late Hon. Thomas S. Grimké.

As I left my native state on account of slavery, and deserted the home
of my fathers to escape the sound of the lash and the shrieks of
tortured victims, I would gladly bury in oblivion the recollection of
those scenes with which I have been familiar; but this may not, cannot
be; they come over my memory like gory spectres, and implore me with
resistless power, in the name of a God of mercy, in the name of a
crucified Savior, in the name of humanity; for the sake of the
slaveholder, as well as the slave, to bear witness to the horrors of
the southern prison house. I feel impelled by a sacred sense of duty,
by my obligations to my country, by sympathy for the bleeding victims
of tyranny and lust, to give my testimony respecting the system of
American slavery,--to detail a few facts, most of which came under my
_personal observation_. And here I may premise, that the actors in
these tragedies were all men and women of the highest respectability,
and of the first families in South Carolina, and, with one exception,
citizens of Charleston; and that their cruelties did not in the
slightest degree affect their standing in society.

A handsome mulatto woman, about 18 or 20 years of age, whose
independent spirit could not brook the degradation of slavery, was in
the habit of running away: for this offence she had been repeatedly
sent by her master and mistress to be whipped by the keeper of the
Charleston work-house. This had been done with such inhuman severity,
as to lacerate her back in a most shocking manner; a finger could not
be laid between the cuts. But the love of liberty was too strong to be
annihilated by torture; and, as a last resort, she was whipped at
several different times, and kept a close prisoner. A heavy iron
collar, with three long prongs projecting from it, was placed round
her neck, and a strong and sound front tooth was extracted, to serve
as a mark to describe her, in case of escape. Her sufferings at this
time were agonizing; she could lie in no position but on her back,
which was sore from scourgings, as I can testify, from personal
inspection, and her only place of rest was the floor, on a blanket.
These outrages were committed in a family where the mistress daily
read the scriptures, and assembled her children for family worship.
She was accounted, and was really, so far as almsgiving was concerned,
a charitable woman, and tender hearted to the poor; and yet this
suffering slave, who was the seamstress of the family, was continually
in her presence, sitting in her chamber to sew, or engaged in her
other household work, with her lacerated and bleeding back, her
mutilated mouth, and heavy iron collar, without, so far as appeared,
exciting any feelings of compassion.

A highly intelligent slave, who panted after freedom with ceaseless
longings, made many attempts to get possession of himself. For every
offence he was punished with extreme severity. At one time he was tied
up by his hands to a tree, and whipped until his back was one gore of
blood. To this terrible infliction he was subjected at intervals for
several weeks, and kept heavily ironed while at his work. His master
one day accused him of a fault, in the usual terms dictated by passion
and arbitrary power; the man protested his innocence, but was not
credited. He again repelled the charge with honest indignation. His
master's temper rose almost to frenzy; and seizing a fork, he made a
deadly plunge at the breast of the slave. The man being far his
superior in strength, caught the arm, and dashed the weapon on the
floor. His master grasped at his throat, but the slave disengaged
himself, and rushed from the apartment, having made his escape, he
fled to the woods; and after wandering about for many months, living
on roots and berries, and enduring every hardship, he was arrested and
committed to jail. Here he lay for a considerable time, allowed
scarcely food enough to sustain life, whipped in the most shocking
manner, and confined in a cell so loathsome, that when his master
visited him, he said the stench was enough to knock a man down. The
filth had never been removed from the apartment since the poor
creature had been immured in it. Although a black man, such had been
the effect of starvation and suffering, that his master declared he
hardly recognized him--his complexion was so yellow, and his hair,
naturally thick and black, had become red and scanty; an infallible
sign of long continued living on bad and insufficient food. Stripes,
imprisonment, and the gnawings of hunger, had broken his lofty spirit
for a season; and, to use his master's own exulting expression, he was
"as humble as a dog." After a time he made another attempt to escape,
and was absent so long, that a reward was offered for him, _dead or
alive_. He eluded every attempt to take him, and his master,
despairing of ever getting him again, offered to pardon him if he
would return home. It is always understood that such intelligence will
reach the runaway; and accordingly, at the entreaties of his wife and
mother, the fugitive once more consented to return to his bitter
bondage. I believe this was the last effort to obtain his liberty. His
heart became touched with the power of the gospel; and the spirit
which no inflictions could subdue, bowed at the cross of Jesus, and
with the language on his lips--"the cup that my father hath given me,
shall I not drink it?" submitted to the yoke of the oppressor, and
wore his chains in unmurmuring patience till death released him. The
master who perpetrated these wrongs upon his slave, was one of the
most influential and honored citizens of South Carolina, and to his
equals was bland, and courteous, and benevolent even to a proverb.

A slave who had been separated from his wife, because it best suited
the convenience of his owner, ran away. He was taken up on the
plantation where his wife, to whom he was tenderly attached, then
lived. His only object in running away was to return to her--no other
fault was attributed to him. For this offence he was confined in the
stocks _six weeks_, in a miserable hovel, not weather-tight. He
received fifty lashes weekly during that time, was allowed food barely
sufficient to sustain him, and when released from confinement, was not
permitted to return to his wife. His master, although himself a
husband and a father, was unmoved by the touching appeals of the
slave, who entreated that he might only remain with his wife,
promising to discharge his duties faithfully; his master continued
inexorable, and he was torn from his wife and family. The owner of
this slave was a professing Christian, in full membership with the
church, and this circumstance occurred when he was confined to his
chamber during his last illness.

A punishment dreaded more by the slaves than whipping, unless it is
unusually severe, is one which was invented by a female acquaintance
of mine in Charleston--I heard her say so with much satisfaction. It
is standing on one foot and holding the other in the hand. Afterwards
it was improved upon, and a strap was contrived to fasten around the
ankle and pass around the neck; so that the least weight of the foot
resting on the strap would choke the person. The pain occasioned by
this unnatural position was great; and when continued, as it sometimes
was, for an hour or more, produced intense agony. I heard this same
woman say, that she had the ears of her waiting maid _slit_ for some
petty theft. This she told me in the presence of the girl, who was
standing in the room. She often had the helpless victims of her
cruelty severely whipped, not scrupling herself to wield the
instrument of torture, and with her own hands inflict severe
chastisement. Her husband was less inhuman than his wife, but he was
often goaded on by her to acts of great severity. In his last illness
I was sent for, and watched beside his death couch. The girl on whom
he had so often inflicted punishment, haunted his dying hours; and
when at length the king of terrors approached, he shrieked in utter
agony of spirit, "Oh, the blackness of darkness, the black imps, I can
see them all around me--take them away!" and amid such exclamations he
expired. These persons were of one of the first families in
Charleston.

A friend of mine, in whose veracity I have entire confidence, told me
that about two years ago, a woman in Charleston with whom I was well
acquainted, had starved a female slave to death. She was confined in a
solitary apartment, kept constantly tied, and condemned to the slow
and horrible death of starvation. This woman was notoriously cruel. To
those who have read the narrative of James Williams I need only say,
that the character of young Larrimore's wife is an exact description
of this female tyrant, whose countenance was ever dressed in smiles
when in the presence of strangers, but whose heart was as the nether
millstone toward her slaves.

As I was traveling in the lower country in South Carolina, a number of
years since, my attention was suddenly arrested by an exclamation of
horror from the coachman, who called out, "Look there, Miss Sarah,
don't you see?"--I looked in the direction he pointed, and saw a human
head stuck up on a high pole. On inquiry, I found that a runaway
slave, who was outlawed, had been shot there, his head severed from
his body, and put upon the public highway, as a terror to deter slaves
from running away.

On a plantation in North Carolina, where I was visiting, I happened
one day, in my rambles, to step into a negro cabin; my compassion was
instantly called forth by the object which presented itself. A slave,
whose head was white with age, was lying in one corner of the hovel;
he had under his head a few filthy rags but the boards were his only
bed, it was the depth of winter, and the wind whistled through every
part of the dilapidated building--he opened his languid eyes when I
spoke, and in reply to my question, "What is the matter?" He said, "I
am dying of a cancer in my side."--As he removed the rags which
covered the sore, I found that it extended half round the body, and
was shockingly neglected. I inquired if he had any nurse. "No,
missey," was his answer, "but de people (the slaves) very kind to me,
dey often steal time to run and see me and fetch me some ting to eat;
if dey did not, I might starve." The master and mistress of this man,
who had been worn out in their service, were remarkable for their
intelligence, and their hospitality knew no bounds towards those who
were of their own grade in society: the master had for some time held
the highest military office in North Carolina, and not long previous
to the time of which I speak, was the Governor of the State.

On a plantation in South Carolina, I witnessed a similar case of
suffering--an aged woman suffering under an incurable disease in the
same miserably neglected situation. The "owner" of this slave was
proverbially kind to her negroes; so much so, that the planters in the
neighborhood said she spoiled them, and set a bad example, which might
produce discontent among the surrounding slaves; yet I have seen this
woman tremble with rage, when her slaves displeased her, and heard her
use language to them which could only be expected from an inmate of
Bridewell; and have known her in a gust of passion send a favorite
slave to the workhouse to be severely whipped.

Another fact occurs to me. A young woman about eighteen, stated some
circumstances relative to her young master, which were thought
derogatory to his character; whether true or false, I am unable to
say; she was threatened with punishment, but persisted in affirming
that she had only spoken the truth. Finding her incorrigible, it was
concluded to send her to the Charleston workhouse and have her whipt;
she pleaded in vain for a commutation of her sentence, not so much
because she dreaded the actual suffering, as because her delicate mind
shrunk from the shocking exposure of her person to the eyes of brutal
and licentious men; she declared to me that death would be preferable;
but her entreaties were vain, and as there was no means of escaping
but by running away, she resorted to it as a desperate remedy, for her
timid nature never could have braved the perils necessarily
encountered by fugitive slaves, had not her mind been thrown into a
state of despair.--She was apprehended after a few weeks, by two
slave-catchers, in a deserted house, and as it was late in the evening
they concluded to spend the night there. What inhuman treatment she
received from them has never been revealed. They tied her with cords
to their bodies, and supposing they had secured their victim, soon
fell into a deep sleep, probably rendered more profound by
intoxication and fatigue; but the miserable captive slumbered not; by
some means she disengaged herself from her bonds, and again fled
through the lone wilderness. After a few days she was discovered in a
wretched hut, which seemed to have been long uninhabited; she was
speechless; a raging fever consumed her vitals, and when a physician
saw her, he said she was dying of a disease brought on by over
fatigue; her mother was permitted to visit her, but ere she reached
her, the damps of death stood upon her brow, and she had only the sad
consolation of looking on the death-struck form and convulsive agonies
of her child.

A beloved friend in South Carolina, the wife of a slaveholder, with
whom I often mingled my tears, when helpless and hopeless we deplored
together the horrors of slavery, related to me some years since the
following circumstance.

On the plantation adjoining her husband's, there was a slave of
pre-eminent piety. His master was not a professor of religion, but the
superior excellence of this disciple of Christ was not unmarked by
him, and I believe he was so sensible of the good influence of his
piety that he did not deprive him of the few religious privileges
within his reach. A planter was one day dining with the owner of this
slave, and in the course of conversation observed, that all profession
of religion among slaves was mere hypocrisy. The other asserted a
contrary opinion, adding, I have a slave who I believe would rather
die than deny his Saviour. This was ridiculed, and the master urged to
prove the assertion. He accordingly sent for this man of God, and
peremptorily ordered him to deny his belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The slave pleaded to be excused, constantly affirming that he would
rather die than deny the Redeemer, whose blood was shed for him. His
master, after vainly trying to induce obedience by threats, had him
terribly whipped. The fortitude of the sufferer was not to be shaken;
he nobly rejected the offer of exemption from further chastisement at
the expense of destroying his soul, and this blessed martyr _died in
consequence of this severe infliction_. Oh, how bright a gem will this
victim of irresponsible power be, in that crown which sparkles on the
Redeemer's brow; and that many such will cluster there, I have not the
shadow of a doubt.


SARAH M. GRIMKÉ. _Fort Lee, Bergen County, New Jersey, 3rd Month,
26th_, 1830.





TESTIMONY OF THE LATE REV. JOHN GRAHAM of Townsend, Mass., who resided
in S. Carolina, from 1831, to the latter part of 1833. Mr. Graham
graduated at Amherst College in 1829, spent some time at the
Theological Seminary, in New Haven, Ct., and went to South Carolina,
for his health in 1830. He resided principally on the island of St.
Helena, S.C., and most of the time in the family of James Tripp, Esq.,
a wealthy slave holding planter. During his residence at St. Helena,
he was engaged as an instructer, and was most of the time the stated
preacher on the island. Mr. G. was extensively known in Massachusetts;
and his fellow students and instructers, at Amherst College, and at
Yale Theological Seminary, can bear testimony to his integrity and
moral worth. The following are extracts of letters, which he wrote
while in South Carolina, to an intimate friend in Concord,
Massachusetts, who has kindly furnished them for publication.

EXTRACTS.

_Springfield, St. Helena Isl., S.C., Oct. 22, 1832._

"Last night, about one o'clock, I was awakened by the report of a
musket. I was out of bed almost instantly. On opening my window, I
found the report proceeded from my host's chamber. He had let off his
pistol, which he usually keeps by him night and day, at a slave, who
had come into the yard, and as it appears, had been with one of his
house servants. He did not hit him. The ball, taken from a pine tree
the next morning, I will show you, should I be spared by Providence
ever to return to you. The house servant was called to the master's
chamber, where he received 75 lashes, very severe too; and I could not
only hear every lash, but each groan which succeeded very distinctly
as I lay in my bed. What was then done with the servant I know not.
Nothing was said of this to me in the morning and I presume it will
ever be kept from me with care, if I may judge of kindred acts. I
shall make no comment."

In the same letter, Mr. Graham says:--

"You ask me of my hostess"--then after giving an idea of her character
says: "To day, she has I verily believe laid, in a very severe manner
too, more than 300 _stripes_, upon the house servants," (17 in
number.)

_Darlington, Court Moons. S.C. March, 28th, 1838._

"I walked up to the Court House to day, where I heard one of the most
interesting cases I ever heard. I say interesting, on account of its
novelty to me, though it had no novelty for the people, as such cases
are of frequent occurrence. The case was this: To know whether two
ladies, present in court, were _white_ or _black_. The ladies were
dressed well, seemed modest, and were retiring and neat in their look,
having blue eyes, black hair, and appeared to understand much of the
etiquette of southern behaviour.

"A man, more avaricious than humane, as is the case with most of the
rich planters, laid a remote claim to those two modest, unassuming,
innocent and free young ladies as his property, with the design of
putting them into the field, and thus increasing his STOCK! As well as
the people of Concord are known to be of a peaceful disposition, and
for their love of good order, I verily believe if a similar trial
should be brought forward there and conducted as this was, the good
people would drive the lawyers out of the house. Such would be their
indignation at their language, and at the mean under-handed manner of
trying to ruin those young ladies, as to their standing in society in
this district, if they could not succeed in dooming them for life to
the degraded condition of slavery, and all its intolerable cruelties.
Oh slavery! if statues of marble could curse you, they would speak. If
bricks could speak, they would all surely thunder out their anathemas
against you, accursed thing! How many white sons and daughters have
bled and groaned under the lash in this sultry climate," &c.

Under date of March, 1832, Mr. G. writes, "I have been doing what I
hope never to be called to do again, and what I fear I have badly
done, though performed to the best of my ability, namely, sewing up a
very bad wound made by a wild hog. The slave was hunting wild hogs,
when one, being closely pursued, turned upon his pursuer, who turning
to run, was caught by the animal, thrown down, and badly wounded in
the thigh. The wound is about five inches long and very deep. It was
made by the tusk of the animal. The slaves brought him to one of the
huts on Mr. Tripp's plantation and made every exertion to stop the
blood by filling the wound with ashes, (their remedy for stopping
blood) but finding this to fail they came to me (there being no other
white person on the plantation, as it is now holidays) to know if I
could stop the blood. I went and found that the poor creature must
bleed to death unless it could be stopped soon. I called for a needle
and succeeded in sewing it up as well as I could, and in stopping the
blood. In a short time his master, who had been sent for came; and
oh, you would have shuddered if you had heard the awful oaths that
fell from his lips, threatening in the same breath "_to pay him for
that_!" I left him as soon as decency would permit, with his hearty
thanks that I had saved him $500! Oh, may heaven protect the poor,
suffering, fainting slave, and show his master his wanton cruelty--oh
slavery! slavery!"

Under date of July, 1832, Mr. G. writes, "I wish you could have been
at the breakfast table with me this morning to have seen and heard
what I saw and heard, not that I wish your ear and heart and soul
pained as mine is, with every day's observation 'of wrong and outrage'
with which this place is filled, but that you might have auricular and
ocular evidence of the cruelty of slavery, of cruelties that mortal
language can never describe--that you might see the tender mercies of
a hardened slaveholder, one who bears the name of being _one of the
mildest and most merciful masters of which this island can boast_. Oh,
my friend, another is screaming under the lash, in the shed-room, but
for what I know not. The scene this morning was truly distressing to
me. It was this:--_After the blessing was asked_ at the breakfast
table, one of the servants, a woman grown, in giving one of the
children some molasses, happened to pour out a little more than usual,
though not more than the child usually eats. Her master was angry at
the petty and indifferent mistake, or slip of the hand. He rose from
the table, took both of her hands in one of his, and with the other
began to beat her, first on one side of her head and then on the
other, and repeating this, till, as he said on sitting down at table,
it hurt his hand too much to continue it longer. He then took off his
_shoe_, and with the heel began in the same manner as with his hand,
till the poor creature could no longer endure it without screeches and
raising her elbow as it is natural to ward off the blows. He then
called a great overgrown negro _to hold her hands behind her_ while he
should wreak his vengeance upon the poor servant. In this position he
began again to beat the poor suffering wretch. It now became
intolerable to bear; she _fell, screaming to me for help_. After she
fell, he beat her until I thought she would have died in his hands.
She got up, however, went out and washed off the blood and came in
before we rose from table, one of the most pitiable objects I ever saw
till I came to the South. Her ears were almost as thick as my hand,
her eyes awfully blood-shotten, her lips, nose, cheeks, chin, and
whole head swollen so that no one would have known it was Etta--and
for all this, she had to turn round as she was going out and _thank
her master!_ Now, all this was done while I was sitting at breakfast
with the rest of the family. Think you not I wished myself sitting
with the peaceful and happy circle around your table? Think of my
feelings, but pity the poor negro slave, who not only fans his cruel
master when he eats and sleeps, but bears the stripes his caprice may
inflict. Think of this, and let heaven hear your prayers."

In a letter dated St. Helena Island, S.C., Dec. 3, 1832, Mr. G.
writes, "If a slave here complains to his master, that his task is too
great, his master at once calls him a scoundrel and tells him it is
only because he has not enough to do, and orders the driver to
increase his task, however unable he may be for the performance of it.
I saw TWENTY-SEVEN _whipped at one time_ just because they did not do
more, when the poor creatures were so tired that they could scarcely
drag one foot after the other."




TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM POE


Mr. Poe is a native of Richmond, Virginia, and was formerly a
slaveholder. He was for several years a merchant in Richmond, and
subsequently in Lynchburg, Virginia. A few years since, he emancipated
his slaves, and removed to Hamilton County, Ohio, near Cincinnati;
where he is a highly respected ruling elder in the Presbyterian
church. He says,--

"I am pained exceedingly, and nothing but my duty to God, to the
oppressors, and to the poor down-trodden slaves, who go mourning all
their days, could move me to say a word. I will state to you a _few_
cases of the abuse of the slaves, but time would fail, if I had
language to tell how many and great are the inflictions of slavery,
even in its mildest form.

Benjamin James Harris, a wealthy tobacconist of Richmond, Virginia,
whipped a slave girl fifteen years old to death. While he was whipping
her, his wife heated a smoothing iron, put it on her body in various
places, and burned her severely. The verdict of the coroner's inquest
was, "Died of excessive whipping." He was tried in Richmond, and
acquitted. I attended the trial. Some years after, this same Harris
whipped another slave to death. The man had not done so much work as
was required of him. After a number of protracted and violent
scourgings, with short intervals between, the slave died under the
lash. Harris was tried, and again acquitted, because none but blacks
saw it done. The same man afterwards whipped another slave severely,
for not doing work to please him. After repeated and severe floggings
in quick succession, for the same cause, the slave, in despair of
pleasing him, cut off his own hand. Harris soon after became a
bankrupt, went to New Orleans to recruit his finances, failed, removed
to Kentucky, became a maniac, and died.

A captain in the United States' Navy, who married a daughter of the
collector of the port of Richmond, and resided there, became offended
with his negro boy, took him into the meat house, put him upon a
stool, crossed his hands before him, tied a rope to them, threw it
over a joist in the building, drew the boy up so that he could just
stand on the stool with his toes, and kept him in that position,
flogging him severely at intervals, until the boy became so exhausted
that he reeled off the stool, and swung by his hands until he died.
The master was tried and acquitted.

In Goochland County, Virginia, an overseer tied a slave to a tree,
flogged him again and again with great severity, then piled brush
around him, set it on fire, and burned him to death. The overseer was
tried and imprisoned. The whole transaction may be found on the
records of the court.

In traveling, one day, from Petersburg to Richmond, Virginia, I heard
cries of distress at a distance, on the road. I rode up, and found two
white men, beating a slave. One of them had hold of a rope, which was
passed under the bottom of a fence; the other end was fastened around
the neck of the slave, who was thrown flat on the ground, on his face,
with his back bared. The other was beating him furiously with a large
hickory.

A slaveholder in Henrico County, Virginia, had a slave who used
frequently to work for my father. One morning he came into the field
with his back completely _cut up_, and mangled from his head to his
heels. The man was so stiff and sore he could scarcely walk. This same
person got offended with another of his slaves, knocked him down, and
struck out one of his eyes with a maul. The eyes of several of his
slaves were injured by similar violence.

In Richmond, Virginia, a company occupied as a dwelling a large
warehouse. They got angry with a negro lad, one of their slaves, took
him into the cellar, tied his hands with a rope, bored a hole though
the floor, and passed the rope up through it. Some of the family drew
up the boy, while others whipped. This they continued until the boy
died. The warehouse was owned by a Mr. Whitlock, on the scite of one
formerly owned by a Mr. Philpot.

Joseph Chilton, a resident of Campbell County, Virginia, purchased a
quart of tanners' oil, for the purpose, as he said, of putting it on
one of his negro's heads, that he had sometime previous pitched or
tarred over, for running away.

In the town of Lynchburg, Virginia, there was a negro man put in
prison, charged with having pillaged some packages of goods, which he,
as head man of a boat, received at Richmond, to be delivered at
Lynchburg. The goods belonged to A.B. Nichols, of Liberty, Bedford
County, Virginia. He came to Lynchburg, and desired the jailor to
permit him to whip the negro, to make him confess, as there was _no
proof against him_. Mr. Williams, (I think that is his name,) a pious
Methodist man, a great stickler for law and good order, professedly a
great friend to the black man, delivered the negro into the hands of
Nichols. Nichols told me that he took the slave, tied his wrists
together, then drew his arms down so far below his knees as to permit
a staff to pass above the arms under the knees, thereby placing the
slave in a situation that he could not move hand or foot. He then
commenced his bloody work, and continued, at intervals, until 500
blows were inflicted. I received this statement from Nichols himself,
who was, by the way, a _son of the land of "steady habits_," where
there are many like him, if we may judge from their writings, sayings,
and doings."


PRIVATIONS OF THE SLAVES.


I. FOOD.

We begin with the _food_ of the slaves, because if they are ill
treated in this respect we may be sure that they will be ill treated
in other respects, and generally in a greater degree. For a man
habitually to stint his dependents in their food, is the extreme of
meanness and cruelty, and the greatest evidence he can give of utter
indifference to their comfort. The father who stints his children or
domestics, or the master his apprentices, or the employer his
laborers, or the officer his soldiers, or the captain his crew, when
able to furnish them with sufficient food, is every where looked upon
as unfeeling and cruel. All mankind agree to call such a character
inhuman. If any thing can move a hard heart, it is the appeal of
hunger. The Arab robber whose whole life is a prowl for plunder, will
freely divide his camel's milk with the hungry stranger who halts at
his tent door, though he may have just waylaid him and stripped him of
his money. Even savages take pity on hunger. Who ever went famishing
from an Indian's wigwam? As much as hunger craves, is the Indian's
free gift even to an enemy. The necessity for food is such a universal
want, so constant, manifest and imperative, that the heart is more
touched with pity by the plea of hunger, and more ready to supply that
want than any other. He who can habitually inflict on others the pain
of hunger by giving them insufficient food, can habitually inflict on
them any other pain. He can kick and cuff and flog and brand them, put
them in irons or the stocks, can overwork them, deprive them of sleep,
lacerate their backs, make them work without clothing, and sleep
without covering.

Other cruelties may be perpetrated in hot blood and the acts regretted
as soon as done--the feeling that prompts them is not a permanent
state of mind, but a violent impulse stung up by sudden provocation.
But he who habitually withholds from his dependents sufficient
sustenance, can plead no such palliation. The fact itself shows, that
his permanent state of mind toward them is a brutal indifference to
their wants and sufferings--A state of mind which will naturally,
necessarily, show itself in innumerable privations and inflictions
upon them, when it can be done with impunity.

If, therefore, we find upon examination, that the slaveholders do not
furnish their slaves with sufficient food, and do thus habitually
inflict upon them the pain of hunger, we have a clue furnished to
their treatment in other respects, and may fairly infer habitual and
severe privations and inflictions; not merely from the fact that men
are quick to feel for those who suffer from hunger, and perhaps more
ready to relieve that want than any other; but also, because it is
more for the interest of the slaveholder to supply that want than any
other; consequently, if the slave suffer in this respect, he must as
the general rule, suffer _more_ in other respects.

We now proceed to show that the slaves have insufficient food. This
will be shown first from the express declarations of slaveholders, and
other competent witnesses who are, or have been residents of slave
states, that the slaves generally are _under-fed._ And then, by the
laws of slave states, and by the testimony of slaveholders and others,
the _kind, quantity_, and _quality,_ of their allowance will be given,
and the reader left to judge for himself whether the slave _must_ not
be a sufferer.


THE SLAVES SUFFER FROM HUNGER--DECLARATIONS OF SLAVE-HOLDERS AND
OTHERS



Hon. Alexander Smyth, a slave holder, and for ten years, Member of
Congress from Virginia, in his speech on the Missouri question. Jan
28th, 1820.

"By confining the slaves to the Southern states, where crops are
raised for exportation, and bread and meat are purchased, you _doom
them to scarcity and hunger._ It is proposed to hem in the blacks
where they are ILL FED."


Rev. George Whitefield, in his letter, to the slave holders of Md. Va.
N.C. S.C. and Ga. published in Georgia, just one hundred years ago,
1739.

"My blood has frequently run cold within me, to think how many of your
slaves _have not sufficient food to eat;_ they are scarcely permitted
to _pick up the crumbs,_ that fall from their master's table."


Rev. John Rankin, of Ripley, Ohio, a native of Tennessee, and for same
years a preacher in slave states.

"Thousands of the slaves are pressed with the gnawings of cruel hunger
during their whole lives."


Report of the Gradual Emancipation Society, of North Carolina, 1826.
Signed Moses Swain, President, and William Swain, Secretary.

Speaking of the condition of slaves, in the eastern part of that
state, the report says,--"The master puts the unfortunate wretches
upon short allowances, scarcely sufficient for their sustenance, so
that a _great part_ of them go _half starved_ much of the time."


Mr. Asa A. Stone, a Theological Student, who resided near Natchez,
Miss., in 1834-5.

"On almost every plantation, the hands suffer more or less from hunger
at some seasons of almost every year. There is always a _good deal of
suffering_ from hunger. On many plantations, and particularly in
Louisiana, the slaves are in a condition of _almost utter famishment,_
during a great portion of the year."


Thomas Clay, Esq., of Georgia, a Slaveholder.

"From various causes this [the slave's allowance of food] is _often_
not adequate to the support of a laboring man."


Mr. Tobias Boudinot, St Albans, Ohio, a member of the Methodist
Church. Mr. B. for some years navigated the Mississippi.

"The slaves down the Mississippi, are _half-starved,_ the boats, when
they stop at night, are constantly boarded by slaves, begging for
something to eat."


President Edwards, the younger, in a sermon before the Conn. Abolition
Society, 1791.

"The slaves are supplied with barely enough to keep them from
_starving._"


Rev. Horace Moulton, a Methodist Clergyman of Marlboro' Mass., who
lived five years in Georgia.

"As a general thing on the plantations, the slaves suffer extremely
for the want of food."


Rev. George Bourne, late editor of the Protestant Vindicator, N.Y.,
who was seven years pastor of a church in Virginia.

"The slaves are deprived of _needful_ sustenance."


2. KINDS OF FOOD.

Hon. Robert Turnbull, a slaveholder of Charleston, South Carolina.

"The subsistence of the slaves consists, from March until August, of
corn ground into grits, or meal, made into what is called _hominy_, or
baked into corn bread. The other six months, they are fed upon the
sweet potatoe. Meat, when given, is only by way of _indulgence or
favor._"


Mr. Eleazar Powell, Chippewa, Beaver Co., Penn., who resided in
Mississippi, in 1836-7.

"The food of the slaves was generally corn bread, and _sometimes_ meat
or molasses."


Reuben G. Macy, a member of the Society of Friends, Hudson, N.Y., who
resided in South Carolina.

"The slaves had no food allowed them besides _corn,_ excepting at
Christmas, when they had beef."


Mr. William Leftwich, a native of Virginia, and recently of Madison
Co., Alabama, now member, of the Presbyterian Church, Delhi, Ohio.

"On my uncle's plantation, the food of the slaves, was corn-pone and a
small allowance of meat."


WILLIAM LADD, Esq., of Minot, Me., president of the American Peace
Society, and formerly a slaveholder of Florida, gives the following
testimony as to the allowance of food to slaves.

"The usual food of the slaves was _corn_, with a modicum of salt. In
some cases the master allowed no salt, but the slaves boiled the sea
water for salt in their little pots. For about eight days near
Christmas, i.e., from the Saturday evening before, to the Sunday
evening after Christmas day, they were allowed some _meat_. They
always with one single exception ground their corn in a hand-mill, and
cooked their food themselves."


Extract of a letter from Rev. D.C. EASTMAN, a preacher of the
Methodist Episcopal church, in Fayette county, Ohio.

"In March, 1838, Mr. Thomas Larrimer, a deacon of the Presbyterian
church in Bloomingbury, Fayette county, Ohio, Mr. G.S. Fullerton,
merchant, and member of the same church, and Mr. William A. Ustick, an
elder of the same church, spent a night with a Mr. Shepherd, about 30
miles North of Charleston, S.C., on the Monk's corner road. He owned
five families of negroes, who, he said, were fed from the same meal
and meat tubs as himself, but that 90 out of a 100 of all the slaves
in that county _saw meat but once a year_, which was on Christmas
holidays."

As an illustration of the inhuman experiments sometimes tried upon
slaves, in respect to the _kind_ as well as the quality and quantity
of their food, we solicit the attention of the reader to the testimony
of the late General Wade Hampton, of South Carolina. General Hampton
was for some time commander in chief of the army on the Canada
frontier during the last war, and at the time of his death, about
three years since, was the largest slaveholder in the United States.
The General's testimony is contained in the following extract of a
letter, just received from a distinguished clergyman in the west,
extensively known both as a preacher and a writer. His name is with
the executive committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society.

"You refer in your letter to a statement made to you while in this
place, respecting the late General Wade Hampton, of South Carolina,
and task me to write out for you the circumstances of the
case--considering them well calculated to illustrate two points in the
history of slavery: 1st, That the habit of slaveholding dreadfully
blunts the feelings toward the slave, producing such insensibility
that his sufferings and death are regarded with indifference. 2d, That
the slave often has insufficient food, both in quantity and quality.

"I received my information from a lady in the west of high
respectability and great moral worth,--but think it best to withhold
her name, although the statement was not made in confidence.

"My informant stated that she sat at dinner once in company with
General Wade Hampton, and several others; that the conversation turned
upon the treatment of their servants, &c.; when the General undertook
to entertain the company with the relation of an experiment he had
made in the feeding of his slaves on cotton seed. He said that he
first mingled one-fourth cotton seed with three-fourths corn, on which
they seemed to thrive tolerably well; that he then had measured out to
them equal quantities of each, which did not seem to produce any
important change; afterwards he increased the quantity of cotton seed
to three-fourths, mingled with one-fourth corn, and then he declared,
with an oath, that 'they died like rotten sheep!!' It is but justice
to the lady to state that she spoke of his conduct with the utmost
indignation; and she mentioned also that he received no countenance
from the company present, but that all seemed to look at each other
with astonishment. I give it to you just as I received it from one who
was present, and whose character for veracity is unquestionable.

"It is proper to add that I had previously formed an acquaintance with
Dr. Witherspoon, now of Alabama, if alive; whose former residence was
in South Carolina; from whom I received a particular account of the
manner of feeding and treating slaves on the plantations of General
Wade Hampton, and others in the same part of the State; and certainly
no one could listen to the recital without concluding that such
masters and overseers as he described must have hearts like the nether
millstone. The cotton seed experiment I had heard of before also, as
having been made in other parts of the south; consequently, I was
prepared to receive as true the above statement, even if I had not
been so well acquainted with the high character of my informant."


2. QUANTITY OF FOOD

The legal allowance of food for slaves in North Carolina, is in the
words of the law, "a quart of corn per day." See Haywood's Manual,
525. The legal allowance in Louisiana is more, a barrel [flour barrel]
of corn, (in the ear,) or its equivalent in other grain, and a pint of
salt a month. In the other slave states the amount of food for the
slaves is left to the option of the master.


Thos. Clay, Esq., of Georgia, a slave holder, in his address before
the Georgia Presbytery, 1833.

"The quantity allowed by custom is _a peck of corn a week_!"


The Maryland Journal, and Baltimore Advertiser, May 30, 1788.

"_A single peck of corn a week, or the like measure of rice_, is the
_ordinary_ quantity of provision for a _hard-working_ slave; to which
a small quantity of meat is occasionally, though _rarely_, added."


W.C. Gildersleeve, Esq., a native of Georgia, and Elder in the
Presbyterian Church, Wilksbarre, Penn.

"The weekly allowance to grown slaves on this plantation, where I was
best acquainted, was _one peck of corn_."


Wm. Ladd, of Minot, Maine, formerly a slaveholder in Florida.

"The usual allowance of food was _one quart of corn a day_, to a full
task hand, with a modicum of salt; kind masters allowed _a peck of
corn a week_; some masters allowed no salt."


Mr. Jarvis Brewster, in his "Exposition of the treatment of slaves in
the Southern States," published in N. Jersey, 1815.

"The allowance of provisions for the slaves, is _one peck of corn, in
the grain, per week_."


Rev. Horace Moulton, a Methodist Clergyman of Marlboro, Mass., who
lived five years in Georgia.

"In Georgia the planters give each slave only _one peck of their gourd
seed corn per week_, with a small quantity of salt."


Mr. F.C. Macy, Nantucket, Mass., who resided in Georgia in 1820.

"The food of the slaves was three pecks of potatos a week during the
potato season, and _one peck of corn_, during the remainder of the
year."


Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins, a member of the Baptist Church in Waterford,
Conn., who resided in North Carolina, eleven winters.

"The subsistence of the slaves, consists of _seven quarts of meal_ or
_eight quarts of small rice for one week!_"


William Savery, late of Philadelphia, an eminent Minister of the
Society of Friends, who travelled extensively in the slave states, on
a Religious Visitation, speaking of the subsistence of the slaves,
says, in his published Journal,

"_A peck of corn_ is their (the slaves,) miserable subsistence _for a
week_."


The late John Parrish, of Philadelphia, another highly respected
Minister of the Society of Friends, who traversed the South, on a
similar mission, in 1804 and 5, says in his "Remarks on the slavery of
Blacks;"

"They allow them but _one peck of meal_, for a whole week, in some of
the Southern states."

Richard Macy, Hudson, N.Y. a Member of the Society of Friends, who has
resided in Georgia.

"Their usual allowance of food was one peck of corn per week, which
was dealt out to them every first day of the week. They had nothing
allowed them besides the corn, except one quarter of beef at
Christmas."


Rev. C.S. Renshaw, of Quincy, Ill., (the testimony of a Virginian).

"The slaves are generally allowanced: a pint of corn meal and a salt
herring is the allowance, or in lieu of the herring a "dab" of fat
meat of about the same value. I have known the sour milk, and clauber
to be served out to the hands, when there was an abundance of milk on
the plantation. This is a luxury not often afforded."


Testimony of Mr. George W. Westgate, member of the Congregational
Church, of Quincy, Illinois. Mr. W. has been engaged in the low
country trade for twelve years, more than half of each year,
principally on the Mississippi, and its tributary streams in the
south-western slave states.

"_Feeding is not sufficient_,--let facts speak. On the coast, i.e.
Natchez and the Gulf of Mexico, the allowance was one barrel of ears
of corn, and a pint of salt per month. They may cook this in what
manner they please, but it must be done after dark; they have no day
light to prepare it by. Some few planters, but only a few, let them
prepare their corn on Saturday afternoon. Planters, overseers, and
negroes, have told me, that in _pinching times_, i.e. when corn is
high, they did not get near that quantity. In Miss., I know some
planters who allowed their hands three and a half pounds of meat per
week, when it was cheap. Many prepare their corn on the Sabbath, when
they are not worked on that day, which however is frequently the case
on sugar plantations. There are very many masters on "the coast" who
will not suffer their slaves to come to the boats, because they steal
molasses to barter for meat; indeed they generally trade more or less
with stolen property. But it is impossible to find out what and when,
as their articles of barter are of such trifling importance. They
would often come on board our boats to beg a bone, and would tell how
badly they were fed, that they were almost starved; many a time I have
set up all night, to prevent them from stealing something to eat."


3. QUALITY OF FOOD.

Having ascertained the kind and quantity of food allowed to the
slaves, it is important to know something of its _quality_, that we
may judge of the amount of sustenance which it contains. For, if their
provisions are of an inferior quality, or in a damaged state, their
power to sustain labor must be greatly diminished.


Thomas Clay, Esq. of Georgia, from an address to the Georgia
Presbytery, 1834, speaking of the quality of the corn given to the
slaves, says,

"There is _often a defect here_."


Rev. Horace Moulton, a Methodist clergyman at Marlboro, Mass. and
five years a resident of Georgia.

"The food, or 'feed' of slaves is generally of the _poorest_ kind."


The "Western Medical Reformer," in an article on the diseases peculiar
to negroes, by a Kentucky physician, says of the diet of the slaves;

"They live on a coarse, _crude, unwholesome diet_."


Professor A.G. Smith, of the New York Medical College; formerly a
physician in Louisville, Kentucky.

I have myself known numerous instances of large families of _badly
fed_ negroes swept off by a prevailing epidemic; and it is well known
to many intelligent planters in the south, that the best method of
preventing that horrible malady, _Chachexia Africana_, is to feed the
negroes with _nutritious_ food.


4. NUMBER AND TIME OF MEALS EACH DAY.

In determining whether or not the slaves suffer for want of food, the
number of hours intervening, and the labor performed between their
meals, and the number of meals each day, should be taken into
consideration.


Philemon Bliss, Esq., a lawyer in Elyria, Ohio, and member of the
Presbyterian church, who lived in Florida, in 1834, and 1835.

"The slaves go to the field in the morning; they carry with them corn
meal wet with water, and at _noon_ build a fire on the ground and bake
it in the ashes. After the labors of the day are over, they take their
_second_ meal of ash-cake."


President Edwards, the younger.

"The slaves eat _twice_ during the day."


Mr. Eleazar Powell, Chippewa, Beaver county, Penn., who resided in
Mississippi in 1836 and 1837.

"The slaves received _two_ meals during the day. Those who have their
food cooked for them get their breakfast about eleven o'clock, and
their other meal _after night_."


Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins, Waterford, Conn., who spent eleven winters in
North Carolina.

"The _breakfast_ of the slaves was generally about _ten or eleven_
o'clock."


Rev. Phineas Smith, Centreville, N.Y., who has lived at the south some
years.

"The slaves have usually _two_ meals a day, viz: at eleven o'clock
and at night."


Rev. C.S. Renshaw, Quincy, Illinois--the testimony of a Virginian.

"The slaves have _two_ meals a day. They breakfast at from ten to
eleven, A.M., and eat their supper at from six to nine or ten at
night, as the season and crops may be."


The preceding testimony establishes the following points.

1st. That the slaves are allowed, in general, _no meat_. This appears
from the fact, that in the _only_ slave states which regulate the
slaves' rations _by law_, (North Carolina and Louisiana,) the _legal
ration_ contains _no meat_. Besides, the late Hon. R.J. Turnbull, one
of the largest planters in South Carolina, says expressly, "meat, when
given, is only by the way of indulgence or favor." It is shown also by
the direct testimony recorded above, of slaveholders and others, in
all parts of the slaveholding south and west, that the general
allowance on plantations is corn or meal and salt merely. To this
there are doubtless many exceptions, but they are _only_ exceptions;
the number of slaveholders who furnish meat for their _field-hands_,
is small, in comparison with the number of those who do not. The
house slaves, that is, the cooks, chambermaids, waiters, &c.,
generally get some meat every day; the remainder bits and bones of
their masters' tables. But that the great body of the slaves, those
that compose the field gangs, whose labor and exposure, and consequent
exhaustion, are vastly greater than those of house slaves, toiling as
they do from day light till dark, in the fogs of the early morning,
under the scorchings of mid-day, and amid the damps of evening, are
_in general_ provided with _no meat_, is abundantly established by the
preceding testimony.

Now we do not say that meat _is necessary_ to sustain men under hard
and long continued labor, nor that it is _not_. This is not a treatise
on dietetics; but it is a notorious fact, that the medical faculty in
this country, with very few exceptions, do most strenuously insist
that it is necessary; and that working men in all parts of the country
do _believe_ that meat is indispensable to sustain them, even those
who work within doors, and only ten hours a day, every one knows.
Further, it is notorious, that the slaveholders themselves _believe_
the daily use of meat to be absolutely necessary to the comfort, not
merely of those who labor, but of those who are idle, as is proved by
the fact of meat being a part of the daily ration of food provided for
convicts in the prisons, in every one of the slave states, except in
those rare cases where meat is expressly prohibited, and the convict
is, by _way of extra punishment_ confined to bread and water; he is
occasionally, and for a little time only, confined to bread and water;
that is, to the _ordinary diet_ of slaves, with this difference in
favor of the convict, his bread is made for him, whereas the slave is
forced to pound or grind his own corn and make his own bread, when
exhausted with toil.

The preceding testimony shows also, that _vegetables_ form generally
no part of the slaves' allowance. The _sole_ food of the majority is
_corn_: at every meal--from day to day--from week to week--from month
to month, _corn_. In South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, the sweet
potato is, to a considerable extent, substituted for corn during a
part of the year.

2d. The preceding testimony proves conclusively, that the _quantity of
food_ generally allowed to a full-grown field-hand, is a peck of corn
a week, or a fraction over a quart and a gill of corn a day. The legal
ration of North Carolina is _less_--in Louisiana it is _more_. Of the
slaveholders and other witnesses, who give the fore-going testimony,
the reader will perceive that no one testifies to a larger allowance
of corn than a peck for a week; though a number testify, that within
the circle of their knowledge, _seven_ quarts was the usual allowance.
Frequently a small quantity of meat is added; but this, as has already
been shown, is not the general rule for _field-hands_. We may add,
also, that in the season of "pumpkins," "cimblins," "cabbages,"
"greens," &c., the slaves on small plantations are, to some extent,
furnished with those articles.

Now, without entering upon the vexed question of how much food is
necessary to sustain the human system, under severe toil and exposure,
and without giving the opinions of physiologists as to the
insufficiency or sufficiency of the slaves' allowance, we affirm that
all civilized nations have, in all ages, and in the most emphatic
manner, declared, that _eight quarts of corn a week_, (the usual
allowance of our slaves,) is utterly insufficient to sustain the human
body, under such toil and exposure as that to which the slaves are
subjected.

To show this fully, it will be necessary to make some estimates, and
present some statistics. And first, the northern reader must bear in
mind, that the corn furnished to the slaves at the south, is almost
invariably the _white gourd seed_ corn, and that a quart of this kind
of corn weighs five or six ounces _less_ than a quart of "flint corn,"
the kind generally raised in the northern and eastern states;
consequently a peck of the corn generally given to the slaves, would
be only equivalent to a fraction more than six quarts and a pint of
the corn commonly raised in the New England States, New York, New
Jersey, &c. Now, what would be said of the northern capitalist, who
should allow his laborers but _six quarts and five gills of corn for a
week's provisions?_

Further, it appears in evidence, that the corn given to the slaves is
often _defective_. This, the reader will recollect, is the voluntary
testimony of Thomas Clay, Esq., the Georgia planter, whose testimony
is given above. When this is the case, the amount of actual nutriment
contained in a peck of the "gourd seed," may not be more than in five,
or four, or even three quarts of "flint corn."

As a quart of southern corn weighs at least five ounces less than a
quart of northern corn, it requires little arithmetic to perceive,
that the daily allowance of the slave fed upon that kind of corn,
would contain about one third of a pound less nutriment than though
his daily ration were the same quantity of northern corn, which would
amount, in a year, to more than a hundred and twenty pounds of human
sustenance! which would furnish the slave with his full allowance of a
peck of corn a week for two months! It is unnecessary to add, that
this difference in the weight of the two kinds of corn, is an item too
important to be overlooked. As one quart of the southern corn weighs
one pound and eleven-sixteenths of a pound, it follows that it would
be about one pound and six-eighths of a pound. We now solicit the
attention of the reader to the following unanimous testimony, of the
civilized world, to the utter insufficiency of this amount of food to
sustain human beings under labor. This testimony is to be found in the
laws of all civilized nations, which regulate the rations of soldiers
and sailors, disbursements made by governments for the support of
citizens in times of public calamity, the allowance to convicts in
prisons, &c. We will begin with the United States.

The daily ration for each United States soldier, established by act of
Congress, May 30, 1796. was the following: one pound of beef, one
pound of bread, half a gill of spirits; and at the rate of one quart
of salt, two quarts of vinegar, two pounds of soap, and one pound of
candles to every hundred rations. To those soldiers "who were on the
frontiers," (where the labor and exposure were greater,) the ration
was one pound two ounces of beef and one pound two ounces of bread.
Laws U.S. vol. 3d, sec. 10, p. 431.

After an experiment of two years, the preceding ration being found
_insufficient_, it was increased, by act of Congress, July 16, 1798,
and was as follows: beef one pound and a quarter, bread one pound two
ounces; salt two quarts, vinegar four quarts, soap four pounds, and
candles one and a half pounds to the hundred rations. The preceding
allowance was afterwards still further increased.

The _present daily ration_ for the United States' soldiers, is, as we
learn from an advertisement of Captain Fulton, of the United States'
army, in a late number of the Richmond (Va.) Enquirer, as follows: one
and a quarter pounds of beef, one and three-sixteenths pounds of
bread; and at the rate of _eight quarts of beans, eight pounds of
sugar_, four pounds of coffee, two quarts of salt, four pounds of
candles, and four pounds of soap, to every hundred rations.

We have before us the daily rations provided for the emigrating Ottawa
Indians, two years since, and for the emigrating Cherokees last fall.
They were the same--one pound of fresh beef, one pound of flour, &c.

The daily ration for the United States' navy, is fourteen ounces of
bread, half a pound of beef, six ounces of pork, three ounces of rice,
three ounces of peas, one ounce of cheese, one ounce of sugar, half an
ounce of tea, one-third of a gill molasses.

The daily ration in the British army is one and a quarter pounds of
beef, one pound of bread, &c.

The daily ration in the French army is one pound of beef, one and a
half pounds of bread, one pint of wine, &c.

The common daily ration for foot soldiers on the continent, is one
pound of meat, and one and a half pounds of bread.

The _sea ration_ among the Portuguese, has become the usual ration in
the navies of European powers generally. It is as follows: "one and a
half pounds of biscuit, one pound of salt meat, one pint of wine, with
some dried fish and onions."

PRISON RATIONS.--Before giving the usual daily rations of food allowed
to convicts, in the principal prisons in the United States, we will
quote the testimony of the "American Prison Discipline Society," which
is as follows:

"The common allowance of food in the penitentiaries, is equivalent to
ONE POUND OF MEAT, ONE POUND OF BREAD, AND ONE POUND OF VEGETABLES PER
DAY. It varies a little from this in some of them, but it is generally
equivalent to it." First Report of American Prison Discipline Society,
page 13.

The daily ration of food to each convict, in the principal prisons in
this country, is as follows:

In the New Hampshire State Prison, one and a quarter pounds of meal,
and fourteen ounces of beef, for _breakfast and dinner;_ and for
supper, a soup or porridge of potatos and beans, or peas, the
_quantity not limited_.

In the Vermont prison, the convicts are allowed to eat _as much as
they wish_.

In the Massachusetts' penitentiary, one and a half pounds of bread,
fourteen ounces of meat, half a pint of potatos, and one gill of
molasses, or one pint of milk.

In the Connecticut State Prison, one pound of beef, one pound of
bread, two and a half pounds of potatos, half a gill of molasses, with
salt, pepper, and vinegar.

In the New York State Prison, at Auburn, one pound of beef, twenty-two
ounces of flour and meal, half a gill of molasses; with two quarts of
rye, four quarts of salt, two quarts of vinegar, one and a half ounces
of pepper, and two and a half bushels of potatos to every hundred
rations.

In the New York State Prison at Sing Sing, one pound of beef, eighteen
ounces of flour and meal, besides potatos, rye coffee, and molasses.

In the New York City Prison, one pound of beef, one pound of flour;
and three pecks of potatos to every hundred rations, with other small
articles.

In the New Jersey State Prison, one pound of bread, half a pound of
beef, with potatos and cabbage, (quantity not specified,) one gill of
molasses, and a bowl of mush for supper.

In the late Walnut Street Prison, Philadelphia, one and a half pounds
of bread and meal, half a pound of beef, one pint of potatos, one gill
of molasses, and half a gill of rye, for coffee.

In the Baltimore prison, we believe the ration is the same with the
preceding.

In the Pennsylvania Eastern Penitentiary, one pound of bread and one
pint of coffee for breakfast, one pint of meat soup, with potatos
without limit, for dinner, and mush and molasses for supper.

In the Penitentiary for the District of Columbia, Washington city, one
pound of beef, twelve ounces of Indian meal, ten ounces of wheat
flour, half a gill of molasses; with two quarts of rye, four quarts of
salt, four quarts of vinegar, and two and a half bushels of potatos to
every hundred rations.

RATIONS IN ENGLISH PRISONS.--The daily ration of food in the
Bedfordshire Penitentiary, is _two pounds of bread;_ and if at hard
labor, _a quart of soup for dinner._

In the Cambridge County House of Correction, three pounds of bread,
and one pint of beer.

In the Millbank General Penitentiary, one and a half pounds of bread,
one pound of potatos, six ounces of beef, with half a pint of broth
therefrom.

In the Gloucestershire Penitentiary, one and a half pounds of bread,
three-fourths of a pint of peas, made into soup, with beef, quantity
not stated. Also gruel, made of vegetables, quantity not stated, and
one and a half ounces of oatmeal mixed with it.

In the Leicestershire House of Correction, two pounds of bread, and
three pints of gruel; and when at hard labor, one pint of milk in
addition, and twice a week a pint of meat soup at dinner, instead of
gruel.

In the Buxton House of Correction, one and a half pounds of bread, one
and a half pints of gruel, one and a half pints of soup, four-fifths
of a pound of potatos, and two-sevenths of an ounce of beef.

Notwithstanding the preceding daily ration in the Buxton Prison is
about double the usual daily allowance of our slaves, yet the visiting
physicians decided, that for those prisoners who were required to work
the tread-mill, it was _entirely sufficient_. This question was
considered at length, and publicly discussed at the sessions of the
Surry magistrates, with the benefit of medical advice; which resulted
in "large additions" to the rations of those who worked on the
tread-mill. See London Morning Chronicle, Jan. 13, 1830.

To the preceding we add the _ration of the Roman slaves_. The monthly
allowance of food to slaves in Rome was called "Dimensum." The
"Dimensum" was an allowance of wheat or of other grain, which
consisted of five _modii_ a month to each slave. Ainsworth, in his
Latin Dictionary estimates the _modius_, when used for the measurement
of grain, at _a peck and a half_ our measure, which would make the
Roman slave's allowance _two quarts of grain a day_, just double the
allowance provided for the slave by _law_ in North Carolina, and _six_
quarts more per week than the ordinary allowance of slaves in the
slave states generally, as already established by the testimony of
slaveholders themselves. But it must by no means be overlooked that
this "dimensum," or _monthly_ allowance, was far from being the sole
allowance of food to Roman slaves. In _addition_ to this, they had a
stated _daily_ allowance (_diarium_) besides a monthly allowance of
_money_, amounting to about a cent a day.

Now without further trenching on the reader's time, we add, compare
the preceding daily allowances of food to soldiers and sailors in this
and other countries; to convicts in this and other countries; to
bodies of emigrants rationed at public expense; and finally, with the
fixed allowance given to Roman slaves, and we find the states of this
Union, the _slave_ states as well as the free, the United States'
government, the different European governments, the old Roman empire,
in fine, we may add, the _world_, ancient and modern, uniting in the
testimony that to furnish men at hard labor from daylight till dark
with but 1-1/2 lbs. of _corn_ per day, their sole sustenance, is to
MURDER THEM BY PIECE-MEAL. The reader will perceive by examining the
preceding statistics that the _average daily_ ration throughout this
country and Europe exceeds the usual slave's allowance _at least a
pound a day_; also that one-third of this ration for soldiers and
convicts in the United States, and for solders and sailors in Europe
is _meat_, generally beef; whereas the allowance of the mass of our
slaves is corn, only. Further, the convicts in our prisons are
sheltered from the heat of the sun, and from the damps of the early
morning and evening, from cold, rain, &c.; whereas, the great body of
the slaves are exposed to all of these, in their season, from daylight
till dark; besides this, they labor more hours in the day than
convicts, as will be shown under another head, and are obliged to
prepare and cook their own food after they have finished the labor of
the day, while the convicts have theirs prepared for them. These, with
other circumstances, necessarily make larger and longer draughts upon
the strength of the slave, produce consequently greater exhaustion,
and demand a larger amount of food to restore and sustain the laborer
than is required by the convict in his briefer, less exposed, and less
exhausting toils.

That the slaveholders themselves regard the usual allowance of food to
slaves as insufficient, both in kind and quantity, for hard-working
men, is shown by the fact, that in all the slave states, we believe
without exception, _white_ convicts at hard labor, have a much
_larger_ allowance of food than the usual one of slaves; and generally
more than _one third_ of this daily allowance is meat. This conviction
of slaveholders shows itself in various forms. When persons wish to
hire slaves to labor on public works, in addition to the inducement of
high wages held out to masters to hire out their slaves, the
contractors pledge themselves that a certain amount of food shall be
given the slaves, taking care to specify a _larger_ amount than the
usual allowance, and a part of it _meat_.

The following advertisement is an illustration. We copy it from the
"Daily Georgian," Savannah, Dec. 14, 1838.


NEGROES WANTED.

The Contractors upon the Brunswick and Alatamaha Canal are desirous to
hire a number of prime Negro Men, from the 1st October next, for
fifteen months, until the 1st January, 1810. They will pay at the rate
of eighteen dollars per month for each prime hand.

These negroes will be employed in the excavation of the Canal. They
will be provided with _three and a half pounds of pork or bacon, and
ten quarts of gourd seed corn per week_, lodged in comfortable
shantees and attended constantly a skilful physician. J.H. COUPER,
P.M. NIGHTINGALE.


But we have direct testimony to this point. The late Hon. John Taylor,
of Caroline Co. Virginia, for a long time Senator in Congress, and for
many years president of the Agricultural Society of the State, says in
his "Agricultural Essays," No. 30, page 97, "BREAD ALONE OUGHT NEVER
TO BE CONSIDERED A SUFFICIENT DIET FOR SLAVES EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT."
He urges upon the planters of Virginia to give their slaves, in
addition to bread, "salt meat and vegetables," and adds, "we shall be
ASTONISHED to discover upon trial, that this great comfort to them is
a profit to the master."

The Managers of the American Prison Discipline Society, in their third
Report, page 58, say, "In the Penitentiaries generally, in the United
States, the animal food is equal to one pound of meat per day for each
convict."

Most of the actual suffering from hunger on the part of the slaves, is
in the sugar and cotton-growing region, where the crops are exported
and the corn generally purchased from the upper country. Where this is
the case there cannot but be suffering. The contingencies of bad
crops, difficult transportation, high prices, &c. &c., naturally
occasion short and often precarious allowances. The following extract
from a New Orleans paper of April 26, 1837, affords an illustration.
The writer in describing the effects of the money pressure in
Mississippi, says:

"They, (the planters,) are now left without provisions and the means
of living and using their industry, for the present year. In this
dilemma, planters whose crops have been from 100 to 700 bales, find
themselves forced to sacrifice many of their slaves in order to get
the common necessaries of life for the support of themselves and the
rest of their negroes. In many places, heavy planters compel their
slaves to fish for the means of subsistence, rather than sell them at
such ruinous rates. There are at this moment THOUSANDS OF SLAVES in
Mississippi, that KNOW NOT WHERE THE NEXT MORSEL IS TO COME FROM. The
master must be ruined to save the wretches from being STARVED."


II. LABOR

THE SLAVES ARE OVERWORKED.

This is abundantly proved by the number of hours that the slaves are
obliged to be in the field. But before furnishing testimony as to
their hours of labor and rest, we will present the express
declarations of slaveholders and others, that the slaves are severely
driven in the field.


The Senate and House of Representatives of the State of South
Carolina.

"Many owners of slaves, and others who have the management of slaves,
_do confine them so closely at hard labor that they have not
sufficient time for natural rest_.--See 2 Brevard's Digest of the Laws
of South Carolina, 243."


History of Carolina.--Vol. I, page 190.

"So _laborious_ is the task of raising, beating, and cleaning rice,
that had it been possible to obtain European servants in sufficient
numbers, _thousands and tens of thousands_ MUST HAVE PERISHED."


Hon. Alexander Smyth, a slaveholder, and member of Congress from
Virginia, in his speech on the "Missouri question," Jan. 28, 1820.

"Is it not obvious that the way to render their situation _more
comfortable_, is to allow them to be taken where there is not the same
motive to force the slave to INCESSANT TOIL that there is in the
country where cotton, sugar, and tobacco are raised for exportation.
It is proposed to hem in the blacks _where they are_ HARD WORKED,
that they may be rendered unproductive and the race be prevented from
increasing. * * * The proposed measure would be EXTREME CRUELTY to the
blacks. * * * You would * * * doom them to HARD LABOR."


"Travels in Louisiana," translated from the French by John Davies,
Esq.--Page 81.

"At the rolling of sugars, an interval of from two to three months,
they _work both night and day_. Abridged of their sleep, they _scarce
retire to rest during the whole period_."


The Western Review, No. 2,--article "Agriculture of Louisiana."

"The work is admitted to be severe for the hands, (slaves,) requiring
when the process is commenced to be _pushed night and day_."


W.C. Gildersleeve, Esq., a native of Georgia, elder of the
Presbyterian church, Wilkesbarre, Penn.

"_Overworked_ I know they (the slaves) are."


Mr. Asa A. Stone, a theological student, near Natchez, Miss., in 1834
and 1835.

"Every body here knows _overdriving_ to be one of the most common
occurrences, the planters do not deny it, except, perhaps, to
northerners."


Philemon Bliss, Esq., a lawyer of Elyria, Ohio, who lived in Florida
in 1834 and 1835.

"During the cotton-picking season they usually labor in the field
during the whole of the daylight, and then spend a good part of the
night in ginning and baling. The labor required is very frequently
excessive, and speedily impairs the constitution."


Hon. R.J. Turnbull of South Carolina, a slaveholder, speaking of the
harvesting of cotton, says:

"_All the pregnant women_ even, on the plantation, and weak and
_sickly_ negroes incapable of other labour, are then _in
requisition_."


HOURS OF LABOR AND REST.

Asa A. Stone, theological student, a classical teacher near Natchez,
Miss., 1835.

"It is a general rule on all regular plantations, that the slaves be
in the field as _soon as it is light enough for them to see to work_,
and remain there until it is _so dark that they cannot see_."


Mr. Cornelius Johnson, of  Farmington, Ohio, who lived in Mississippi
a part of 1837 and 1838.

"It is the common rule for the slaves to be kept at work _fifteen
hours in the day_, and in the time of picking cotton a certain number
of pounds is required of each. If this amount is not brought in at
night, the slave is whipped, and the number of pounds lacking is added
to the next day's job; this course is often repeated from day to day."


W.C. Gildersleeve, Esq., Wilkesbarre, Penn, a native of Georgia. "It
was customary for the overseers to call out the gangs _long before
day_, say three o'clock, in the winter, while dressing out the crops;
such work as could be done by fire light (pitch pine was abundant,)
was provided."


Mr. William Leftwich, a native of Virginia and son of a
slaveholder--he has recently removed to Delhi, Hamilton County, Ohio.

"_From dawn till dark_, the slaves are required to bend to their
work."


Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins, Waterford, Conn., a resident in North Carolina
eleven winters.

"The slaves are obliged to work _from daylight till dark_, as long as
they can see."


Mr. Eleazar Powel, Chippewa, Beaver county, Penn., who lived in
Mississippi in 1836 and 1837.

"The slaves had to cook and eat their breakfast and be in the field by
_daylight, and continue there till dark_."


Philemon Bliss, Esq., a lawyer in Elyria, Ohio, who resided in Florida
in 1834 and 1835.

"The slaves commence labor _by daylight_ in the morning, and do not
leave the field _till dark_ in the evening."

"Travels in Louisiana," page 87.

"Both in summer and winter the slave must _be in the field by the
first dawning of day_."


Mr. Henry E. Knapp, member of a Christian church in Farmington, Ohio,
who lived in Mississippi in 1837 and 1838.

"The slaves were made to work, from _as soon as they could see_ in the
morning, till as late as they could see at night. Sometimes they were
made to work till nine o'clock at night, in such work as they could
do, as burning cotton stalks, &c."


A New Orleans paper, dated March 23, 1826, says: "To judge from the
activity reigning in the cotton presses of the suburbs of St. Mary,
and the _late hours_ during which their slaves work, the cotton trade
was never more brisk."

Mr. GEORGE W. WESTGATE, a member of the Congregational Church at
Quincy, Illinois, who lived in the south western slaves states a
number of years says, "the slaves are driven to the field in the
morning _about four o'clock_, the general calculation is to get them
at work by daylight; the time for breakfast is between nine and ten
o'clock, this meal is sometimes eaten '_bite and work_,' others allow
fifteen minutes, and this is the only rest the slave has while in the
field. I have never known a case of stopping for an hour, in
Louisiana; in Mississippi the rule is milder, though entirely subject
to the will of the master. On cotton plantations, in cotton picking
time, that is from October to Christmas, each hand has a certain
quantity to pick, and is flogged if his task is not accomplished;
their tasks are such as to keep them all the while busy."

The preceding testimony under this head has sole reference to the
actual labor of the slaves _in the field_. In order to determine how
many hours are left for sleep, we must take into the account, the time
spent in going to and from the field, which is often at a distance of
one, two and sometimes three miles; also the time necessary for
pounding, or grinding their corn, and preparing, overnight, their food
for the next day; also the preparation of tools, getting fuel and
preparing it, making fires and cooking their suppers, if they have
any, the occasional mending and washing of their clothes, &c. Besides
this, as everyone knows who has lived on a southern plantation, many
little errands and _chores_ are to be done for their masters and
mistresses, old and young, which have accumulated during the day and
been kept in reserve till the slaves return from the field at night.
To this we may add that the slaves are _social_ beings, and that
during the day, silence is generally enforced by the whip of the
overseer or driver.[3] When they return at night, their pent up social
feelings will seek vent, it is a law of nature, and though the body
may be greatly worn with toil, this law cannot be wholly stifled.
Sharers of the same woes, they are drawn together by strong
affinities, and seek the society and sympathy of their fellows; even
"_tired_ nature" will joyfully forego for a time needful rest, to
minister to a want of its being equally permanent and imperative as
the want of sleep, and as much more profound, as the yearnings of the
higher nature surpass the instincts of its animal appendage.

[Footnote 3: We do not mean that they are not suffered to _speak_, but,
that, as conversation would be a hindrance to labour, they are
generally permitted to indulge in it but little.]

All these things make drafts upon _time_. To show how much of the
slave's time, which is absolutely indispensable for rest and sleep, is
necessarily spent in various labors after his return from the field at
night, we subjoin a few testimonies.


Mr. CORNELIUS JOHNSON, Farmington, Ohio, who lived in Mississippi in
the years 1837 and 38, says:

"On all the plantations where I was acquainted, the slaves were kept
in the field till dark; after which, those who had to grind their own
corn, had that to attend to, get their supper, attend to other family
affairs of their own and of their master, such as bringing water,
washing, clothes, &c. &c., and be in the field as soon as it was
sufficiently light to commence work in the morning."


Mr. GEORGE W. WESTGATE, of Quincy, Illinois, who has spent several
years in the south western slave states, says:

"Their time, after full dark until four o'clock in the morning is
their own; this fact alone would seem to say they have sufficient
rest, but there are other things to be considered; much of their
making, mending and washing of clothes, preparing and cooking food,
hauling and chopping wood, fixing and preparing tools, and a variety
of little nameless jobs must be done between those hours."


PHILEMON BLISS, Esq. of Elyria, Ohio, who resided in Florida in 1834
and 5, gives the following testimony:

"After having finished their field labors, they are occupied till nine
or ten o'clock in doing _chores_, such as grinding corn, (as all the
corn in the vicinity is ground by hand,) chopping wood, taking care of
horses, mules, &c., and a thousand things necessary to be done on a
large plantation. If any extra job is to be done, it must not hinder
the 'niggers' from their work, but must be done in the night."


W.C. GILDERSLEEVE, Esq., a native of Georgia, an elder of the
Presbyterian Church at Wilkes-barre, Pa. says:

"The corn is ground in a handmill by the slave _after his task is
done_--generally there is but one mill on the plantation, and as but
one can grind at a time, the mill is going sometimes _very late at
night_."


We now present another class of facts and testimony, showing that the
slaves engaged in raising the large staples, are _overworked_.

In September, 1831, the writer of this had an interview with JAMES G.
BIRNEY, Esq., who then resided in Kentucky, having removed with his
family from Alabama the year before. A few hours before that
interview, and on the morning of the same day, Mr. B. had spent a
couple of hours with Hon. Henry Clay, at his residence, near
Lexington. Mr. Birney remarked, that Mr. Clay had just told him, he
had lately been led to mistrust certain estimates as to the increase
of the slave population in the far south west--estimates which he had
presented, I think, in a speech before the Colonization Society. He
now believed, that the births among the slaves in that quarter were
_not equal to the deaths_--and that, of course, the slave population,
independent of immigration from the slave-selling states, was _not
sustaining itself_.

Among other facts stated by Mr. Clay, was the following, which we copy
_verbatim_ from the original memorandum, made at the time by Mr.
Birney, with which he has kindly furnished us.

"Sept. 16, 1834.--Hon. H. Clay, in a conversation at his own house, on
the subject of slavery, informed me, that Hon. Outerbridge Horsey,
formerly a senator in Congress from the state of Delaware, and the
owner of a sugar plantation in Louisiana, declared to him, that his
overseer worked his hands so closely, that one of the women brought
forth a child whilst engaged in the labors of the field.

"Also, that a few years since, he was at a brick yard in the environs
of New Orleans, in which one hundred hands were employed; among them
were from _twenty to thirty young women_, in the prime of life. He was
told by the proprietor, that there had _not been a child born among
them for the last two or three years, although they all had
husbands_."

The preceding testimony of Mr. Clay, is strongly corroborated by
advertisements of slaves, by Courts of Probate, and by executors
administering upon the estates of deceased persons. Some of those
advertisements for the sale of slaves, contain the names, ages,
accustomed employment, &c., of all the slaves upon the plantation of
the deceased. These catalogues show large numbers of young men and
women, almost all of them between twenty and thirty-eight years old;
and yet the number of young children is _astonishingly small_. We have
laid aside many lists of this kind, in looking over the newspapers of
the slaveholding states; but the two following are all we can lay our
hands on at present. One is in the "Planter's Intelligencer,"
Alexandria, La., March 22, 1837, containing one hundred and thirty
slaves; and the other in the New Orleans Bee, a few days later, April
8, 1837, containing fifty-one slaves. The former is a "Probate sale"
of the slaves belonging to the estate of Mr. Charles S. Lee, deceased,
and is advertised by G.W. Keeton, Judge of the Parish of Concordia,
La. The sex, name, and age of each slave are contained in the
advertisement which fills two columns. The following are some of the
particulars.

The whole number of slaves is _one hundred and thirty_. Of these,
_only three are over forty years old_. There are _thirty-five females_
between the ages of _sixteen and thirty-three_, and yet there are only
THIRTEEN children under the age of _thirteen years!_

It is impossible satisfactorily to account for such a fact, on any
other supposition, than that these thirty-five females were so
overworked, or underfed, or both, as to prevent child-bearing.

The other advertisement is that of a "Probate sale," ordered by the
Court of the Parish of Jefferson--including the slaves of Mr. William
Gormley. The whole number of slaves is fifty-one; the sex, age, and
accustomed labors of each are given. The oldest of these slaves is but
_thirty-nine years old_: of the females, _thirteen_ are between the
ages of sixteen and thirty-two, and the oldest female is but
_thirty-eight_--and yet there are but _two children under eight years
old!_

Another proof that the slaves in the south-western states are
over-worked, is the fact, that so few of them live to old age. A large
majority of them are _old_ at middle age, and few live beyond
fifty-five. In one of the preceding advertisements, out of one hundred
and thirty slaves, only _three_ are over forty years old!  In the
other, out of fifty-one slaves, only _two_ are over _thirty-five_; the
oldest is but thirty-nine, and the way in which he is designated in
the advertisement, is an additional proof, that what to others is
"middle age," is to the slaves in the south-west "old age:" he is
advertised as "_old_ Jeffrey."

But the proof that the slave population of the south-west is so
over-worked that it cannot _supply its own waste_, does not rest upon
mere inferential evidence. The Agricultural Society of Baton Rouge,
La., in its report, published in 1829, furnishes a labored estimate of
the amount of expenditure necessarily incurred in conducting "a
well-regulated sugar estate."  In this estimate, the annual net loss
of slaves, over and above the supply by propagation, is set down at
TWO AND A HALF PER CENT!  The late Hon. Josiah S. Johnson, a member of
Congress from Louisiana, addressed a letter to the Secretary of the
United States' Treasury, in 1830, containing a similar estimate,
apparently made with great care, and going into minute details. Many
items in this estimate differ from the preceding; but the estimate of
the annual _decrease_ of the slaves on a plantation was the same--TWO
AND A HALF PER CENT!

The following testimony of Rev. Dr. Channing, of Boston, who resided
some time in Virginia, shows that the over-working of slaves, to such
an extent as to abridge life, and cause a decrease of population, is
not confined to the far south and south-west.

"I heard of an estate managed by an individual who was considered as
singularly successful, and who was able to govern the slaves without
the use of the whip. I was anxious to see him, and trusted that some
discovery had been made favorable to humanity. I asked him how he was
able to dispense with corporal punishment. He replied to me, with a
very determined look, 'The slaves know that the work _must_ be done,
and that it is better to do it without punishment than with it.'  In
other words, the certainty and dread of chastisement were so impressed
on them, that they never incurred it.

"I then found that the slaves on this well-managed estate, _decreased_
in number. I asked the cause. He replied, with perfect frankness and
ease, 'The gang is not large enough for the estate.'  In other words,
they were not equal to the work of the plantation, and, yet were _made
to do it_, though with the certainty of abridging life.

"On this plantation the huts were uncommonly convenient. There was an
unusual air of neatness. A superficial observer would have called the
slaves happy. Yet they were living under a severe, subduing
discipline, and were _over-worked_ to a degree that _shortened
life_."--_Channing on Slavery_, page 162, first edition.

PHILEMON BLISS, Esq., a lawyer of Elyria, Ohio, who spent some time in
Florida, gives the following testimony to the over-working of the
slaves:

"It is not uncommon for hands, in hurrying times, beside working all
day, to labor half the night. This is usually the case on sugar
plantations, during the sugar-boiling season; and on cotton, during
its gathering. Beside the regular task of picking cotton, averaging of
the short staple, when the crop is good, 100 pounds a day to the hand,
the ginning (extracting the seed,) and baling was done in the night.
Said Mr. ---- to me, while conversing upon the customary labor of
slaves, 'I work my niggers in a hurrying time till 11 or 12 o'clock at
night, and have them up by four in the morning.'

"Beside the common inducement, the desire of gain, to make a large
crop, the desire is increased by that spirit of gambling, so common at
the south. It is very common to _bet_ on the issue of a crop. A.
lays a wager that, from a given number of hands, he will make more
cotton than B. The wager is accepted, and then begins the contest; and
who bears the burden of it?  How many tears, yea, how many broken
constitutions, and premature deaths, have been the effect of this
spirit?  From the desperate energy of purpose with which the gambler
pursues his object, from the passions which the practice calls into
exercise, we might conjecture many. Such is the fact. In Middle
Florida, a _broken-winded_ negro is more common than a _broken-winded_
horse; though usually, when they are declared unsound, or when their
constitution is so broken that their recovery is despaired of, they
are exported to New Orleans, to drag out the remainder of their days
in the cane-field and sugar house. I would not insinuate that all
planters gamble upon their crops; but I mention the practice as one of
the common inducements to 'push niggers.' Neither would I assert that
all planters drive the hands to the injury of their health. I give it
as a _general_ rule in the district of Middle Florida, and I have no
reason to think that negroes are driven worse there than in other
fertile sections. People there told me that the situation of the
slaves was far better than in Mississippi and Louisiana. And from
comparing the crops with those made in the latter states, and for
other reasons, I am convinced of the truth of their statements."


DR. DEMMING, a gentleman of high respectability, residing in Ashland,
Richland county, Ohio, stated to Professor Wright, of New York city,

"That during a recent tour at the south, while ascending the Ohio
river, on the steamboat Fame, he had an opportunity of conversing with
a Mr. Dickinson, a resident of Pittsburg, in company with a number of
cotton-planters and slave-dealers, from Louisiana, Alabama, and
Mississippi, Mr. Dickinson stated as a fact, that the sugar planters
upon the sugar coast in Louisiana had ascertained, that, as it was
usually necessary to employ about _twice_ the amount of labor during
the boiling season, that was required during the season of raising,
they could, by excessive driving, day and night, during the boiling
season, accomplish the whole labor _with one set of hands_. By
pursuing this plan, they could afford _to sacrifice a set of hands
once in seven years!_ He further stated that this horrible system was
now practised to a considerable extent! The correctness of this
statement was substantially admitted by the slaveholders then on
board."

The late MR. SAMUEL BLACKWELL, a highly respected citizen of Jersey
city, opposite the city of New York, and a member of the Presbyterian
church, visited many of the sugar plantations in Louisiana a few years
since: and having for many years been the owner of an extensive sugar
refinery in England, and subsequently in this country, he had not only
every facility afforded him by the planters, for personal inspection
of all parts of the process of sugar-making, but received from them
the most unreserved communications, as to their management of their
slaves. Mr. B., after his return, frequently made the following
statement to gentlemen of his acquaintance,--"That the planters
generally declared to him, that they were _obliged_ so to over-work
their slaves during the sugar-making season, (from eight to ten
weeks,) as to use _them up_ in seven or eight years. For, said they,
after the process is commenced, it must be pushed without cessation,
night and day; and we cannot afford to keep a sufficient number of
slaves to do the _extra_ work at the time of sugar-making, as we could
not profitably employ them the rest of the year."

It is not only true of the sugar planters, but of the slaveholders
generally throughout the far south and south west, that they believe
it for their interest to wear out the slaves by excessive toil in
eight or ten years after they put them into the field.[4]

[Footnote 4: Alexander Jones. Esq., a large planter in West Feliciana,
Louisiana, published a communication in the "North Carolina True
American," Nov. 25, 1838, in which, speaking of the horses employed in
the mills on the plantations for ginning cotton, he says, they "are
much whipped and jaded;" and adds, "In fact, this service is so severe
on horses, as to shorten their lives in many instances, if not
actually kill them in gear."

Those who work one kind of their "live stock" so as to "shorten their
lives," or "kill them in gear" would not stick at doing the same thing
to another kind.]


REV. DOCTOR REED, of London, who went through Kentucky, Virginia and
Maryland in the summer of 1834, gives the following testimony:

"I was told confidently and from _excellent authority_, that recently
at a meeting of planters in South Carolina, the question was seriously
discussed whether the slave is more profitable to the owner, if well
fed, well clothed, and worked lightly, or if made the most of _at
once_, and exhausted in some eight years. The decision was in favor of
the last alternative. That decision will perhaps make many shudder.
But to my mind this is not the chief evil. The greater and original
evil is considering the _slave as property_. If he is only property
and my property, then I have some right to ask how I may make that
property most available."

"Visit to the American Churches," by Rev. Drs. Reed and Mattheson.
Vol. 2 p. 173.

REV. JOHN O. CHOULES, recently pastor of a Baptist Church at New
Bedford, Massachusetts, now of Buffalo, New York, made substantially
the following statement in a speech in Boston.

"While attending the Baptist Triennial Convention at Richmond,
Virginia, in the spring of 1835, as a delegate from Massachusetts, I
had a conversation on slavery, with an officer of the Baptist Church
in that city, at whose house I was a guest. I asked my host if he did
not apprehend that the slaves would eventually rise and exterminate
their masters.

"Why," said the gentleman, "I used to apprehend such a catastrophe,
but God has made a providential opening, a _merciful safety valve_,
and now I do not feel alarmed in the _prospect_ of what is coming.
'What do you mean,' said Mr. Choules, 'by providence opening a merciful
safety valve?' Why, said the gentleman, I will tell you; the slave
traders come from the cotton and sugar plantations of the South and
are willing to buy up more slaves than we can part with. We must keep
a stock for the purpose of _rearing_ slaves, but we part with the most
valuable, and at the same time, the most _dangerous_, and the demand
is very constant and likely to be so, for when they go to these
southern states, the average existence Is ONLY FIVE YEARS!"

Monsieur C.C. ROBIN, a highly intelligent French gentleman, who
resided in Louisiana from 1802 to 1806, and published a volume of
travels, gives the following testimony to the over-working of the
slaves there:

"I have been a witness, that after the fatigue of the day, their
labors have been prolonged several hours by the light of the moon; and
then, before they could think of rest, they must pound and cook their
corn; and yet, long before day, an implacable scold, whip in hand,
would arouse them from their slumbers. Thus, of more than twenty
negroes, who in twenty years should have doubled, the number _was
reduced to four or five_."

In conclusion we add, that slaveholders have in the most public and
emphatic manner declared themselves guilty of barbarous inhumanity
toward their slaves in exacting from them such _long continued daily
labor_. The Legislatures of Maryland, Virginia and Georgia, have
passed laws providing that convicts in their state prisons and
penitentiaries, "shall be employed in work each day in the year except
Sundays, not exceeding _eight_ hours, in the months of November,
December, and January; _nine_ hours, in the months of February and
October, and _ten_ hours in the rest of the year." Now contrast this
_legal_ exaction of labor from CONVICTS with the exaction from slaves
as established by the preceding testimony. The reader perceives that
the amount of time, in which by the preceding laws of Maryland,
Virginia, and Georgia, the _convicts_ in their prisons are required to
labor, is on an average during the year but little more than NINE
HOURS daily. Whereas, the laws of South Carolina permit the master to
_compel_ his slaves to work FIFTEEN HOURS in the twenty-four, in
summer, and FOURTEEN in the winter--which would be in winter, from
daybreak in the morning until _four hours_ after sunset!--See 2
Brevard's Digest, 243.

The other slave states, except Louisiana, have _no laws_ respecting
the labor of slaves, consequently if the master should work his slaves
day and night without sleep till they drop dead, _he violates no law!_

The law of Louisiana provides for the slaves but TWO AND A HALF HOURS
in the twenty-four for "rest!" See law of Louisiana, act of July 7
1806, Martin's Digest 6. 10--12.


III. CLOTHING.

We propose to show under this head, that the clothing of the slaves by
day, and their covering by night, are inadequate, either for comfort
or decency.


Hon. T.T. Bouldin, a slave-holder, and member of Congress from Virginia
in a speech in Congress, Feb. 16, 1835.

Mr. Bouldin said "_he knew_ that many negroes had _died_ from exposure
to weather," and added, "they are clad in a _flimsy fabric, that will
turn neither wind nor water_."


George Buchanan, M.D., of Baltimore, member of the American
Philosophical Society, in an oration at Baltimore, July 4, 1791.

"The slaves, _naked_ and starved, _often_ fall victims to the
inclemencies of the weather."


Wm. Savery of Philadelphia, an eminent Minister of the Society of
Friends, who went through the Southern states in 1791, on a religious
visit; after leaving Savannah, Ga., we find the following entry in his
journal, 6th, month, 28, 1791.

"We rode through many rice swamps, where the blacks were very
numerous, great droves of these poor slaves, working up to the middle
in water, men and women nearly _naked_."


Rev. John Rankin, of Ripley, Ohio, a native of Tennessee.

"In every slave-holding state, _many slaves suffer extremely_, both
while they labor and while they sleep, _for want of clothing_ to keep
them warm."


John Parrish, late of Philadelphia, a highly esteemed minister in the
Society of Friends, who travelled through the South in 1804.

"It is shocking to the feelings of humanity, in travelling through
some of those states, to see those poor objects, [slaves,] especially
in the inclement season, in _rags_, and _trembling with the cold_."

"They suffer them, both male and female, _to go without clothing_ at
the age of ten and twelve years"


Rev. Phineas Smith, Centreville, Allegany, Co., N.Y. Mr. S. has just
returned from a residence of several years at the south, chiefly in
Virginia, Louisiana, and among the American settlers in Texas.

"The apparel of the slaves, is of the coarsest sort and _exceedingly
deficient_ in quantity. I have been on many plantations where
children of eight and ten yeas old, were in a state of _perfect
nudity_. Slaves are _in general wretchedly clad_."


Wm. Ladd, Esq., of Minot, Maine, recently a slaveholder in Florida.

"They were allowed two suits of clothes a year, viz. one pair of
trowsers with a shirt or frock of osnaburgh for summer; and for
winter, one pair of trowsers, and a jacket of negro cloth, with a
baize shirt and a pair of shoes. Some allowed hats, and some did not;
and they were generally, I believe, allowed one blanket in two years.
Garments of similar materials were allowed the women."


A Kentucky physician, writing in the Western Medical Reformer, in
1836, on the diseases peculiar to slaves, says.

"They are _imperfectly clothed_ both summer and winter."


Mr. Stephen E. Maltby, Inspector of provisions, Skeneateles, N.Y., who
resided sometime in Alabama.

"I was at Huntsville, Alabama, in 1818-19, I frequently saw slaves on
and around the public square, _with hardly a rag of clothing on them_,
and in a _great many_ instances with but a single garment both in
summer and in winter; generally the only bedding of the slaves was a
_blanket_."


Reuben G. Macy, Hudson, N.Y. member of the Society of Friends, who
resided in South Carolina, in 1818 and 19.

"Their clothing consisted of a pair of trowsers and jacket, made of
'negro cloth.' The women a petticoat, a very short 'short-gown,' and
_nothing else_, the same kind of cloth; some of the women had an old
pair of shoes, but they _generally went barefoot_."


Mr. Lemuel Sapington, of Lancaster, Pa., a native of Maryland, and
formerly a slaveholder.

"Their clothing is often made by themselves after night, though
sometimes assisted by the old women, who are no longer able to do
out-door work; consequently it is harsh and uncomfortable. And I have
very frequently seen those who had not attained the age of twelve
years _go naked_."


Philemon Bliss, Esq., a lawyer in Elyria, Ohio, who lived in Florida
in 1834 and 35.

"It is very common to see the younger class of slaves up to eight or
ten _without any clothing_, and most generally the laboring men wear
_no shirts_ in the warm season. The perfect nudity of the younger
slaves is so familiar to the whites of both sexes, that they seem to
witness it with perfect indifference. I may add that the aged and
feeble often _suffer from cold_."


Richard Macy, a member of the Society of Friends, Hudson, N.Y., who
has lived in Georgia.

"For _bedding_ each slave was allowed _one blanket_, in which they
rolled themselves up. I examined their houses, but could not find any
thing like _a bed_."


W.C. Gildersleeve, Esq., Wilkesbarre, Pa., a native of Georgia.

"It is an every day sight to see women as well as men, with no other
covering than a _few filthy rags fastened above the hips_, reaching
midway to the ankles. _I never knew any kind of covering for the head_
given. Children of both sexes, from infancy to ten years are seen in
companies on the plantations, _in a state of perfect nudity_. This was
so common that the most refined and delicate beheld them unmoved."


Mr. William Leftwich, a native of Virginia, now a member of the
Presbyterian Church, in Delhi, Ohio.

"The only bedding of the slaves generally consists of _two old
blankets_."


Advertisements like the following from the "New Orleans Bee," May 31,
1837, are common in the southern papers.

"10 DOLLARS REWARD.--Ranaway, the slave SOLOMON, about 28 years of
age; BADLY CLOTHED. The above reward will be paid on application to
FERNANDEZ & WHITING, No. 20, St. Louis St."

RANAWAY from the subscriber the negress FANNY, always badly dressed,
she is about 25 or 26 years old. JOHN MACOIN, 117 S. Ann st.

The Darien (Ga.), Telegraph, of Jan. 24, 1837, in an editorial
article, hitting off the aristocracy of the planters, incidentally
lets out some secrets, about the usual _clothing_ of the slaves. The
editor says,--"The planter looks down, with the most sovereign
contempt, on the merchant and the storekeeper. He deems himself a
lord, because he gets his two or three RAGGED servants, to row him to
his plantation every day, that he may inspect the labor of his hands."

The following is an extract from a letter lately received from Rev.
C.S. RENSHAW, of Quincy, Illinois.

"I am sorry to be obliged to give more testimony without the _name_.
An individual in whom I have great confidence, gave me the following
facts. That I am not alone in placing confidence in him, I subjoin a
testimonial from Dr. Richard Eells, Deacon of the Congregational
Church, of Quincy, and Rev. Mr. Fisher, Baptist Minister of Quincy.

"We have been acquainted with the brother who has communicated to you
some facts that fell under his observation, whilst in his native
state; he is a professed follower of our Lord, and we have great
confidence in him as a man of integrity, discretion, and strict
Christian principle. RICHARD EELLS. EZRA FISHER."

Quincy, Jan. 9th, 1839.


TESTIMONY.--"I lived for thirty years in Virginia, and have travelled
extensively through Fauquier, Culpepper, Jefferson, Stafford,
Albemarle and Charlotte Counties; my remarks apply to these Counties.

"The negro houses are miserably poor, generally they are a shelter
from neither the wind, the rain, nor the snow, and the earth is the
floor. There are exceptions to this rule, but they are only
exceptions; you may sometimes see puncheon floor, but never, or almost
never a plank floor. The slaves are generally without _beds or
bedsteads_; some few have cribs that they fasten up for themselves in
the corner of the hut. Their bed-clothes are a nest of rags thrown
upon a crib, or in the corner; sometimes there are three or four
families in one small cabin. Where the slaveholders have more than one
family, they put them in the same quarter till it is filled, then
build another. I have seen exceptions to this, when only one family
would occupy a hut, and where were tolerably comfortable bed-clothes.

"Most of the slaves in these counties are _miserably clad_. I have
known slaves who went without shoes all winter, perfectly barefoot.
The feet of many of them are frozen. As a general fact the planters do
not serve out to their slaves, drawers, or any under clothing, or
vests, or overcoats. Slaves sometimes, by working at night and on
Sundays, get better things than their masters serve to them.

"Whilst these things are true of _field-hands_, it is also true that
many slaveholders clothe their _waiters_ and coachmen like gentlemen.
I do not think there is any difference between the slaves of
professing Christians and others; at all events, it is so small as to
be scarcely noticeable.

"I have seen men and women at work in the field more than half naked:
and more than once in passing, when the overseer was not near, they
would stop and draw round them a tattered coat or some ribbons of a
skirt to hide their nakedness and shame from the stranger's eye."

Mr. GEORGE W. WESTGATE, a member of the Congregational Church in
Quincy, Illinois, who has spent the larger part of twelve years
navigating the rivers of the south-western slave states with keel
boats, as a trader, gives the following testimony as to the clothing
and lodging of the slaves.

"In lower Tennessee, Mississippi and Louisiana, the clothing of the
slaves is wretchedly poor; and grows worse as you go south, in the
order of the states I have named. The only material is cotton bagging,
i.e. bagging in which cotton is _baled_, not bagging made of cotton.
In Louisiana, especially in the lower country, I have frequently seen
them with nothing but a tattered coat, not sufficient to hide their
nakedness. In winter their clothing seldom serves the purpose of
comfort, and frequently not even of decent covering. In Louisiana _the
planters never think of serving out shoes to slaves_. In Mississippi
they give one pair a year generally. I never saw or heard of an
instance of masters allowing them _stockings_. A _small poor blanket
is generally the only bed-clothing_, and this they frequently wear in
the field when they have not sufficient clothing to hide their
nakedness or to keep them warm. Their manner of sleeping varies with
the season. In hot weather they stretch themselves anywhere and sleep.
As it becomes cool they roll themselves in their blankets, and lay
scattered about the cabin. In cold weather they nestle together with
their feet towards the fire, promiscuously. As a general fact the
earth is their only floor and bed--not one in ten have anything like a
bedstead, and then it is a mere bunk put up by themselves."

Mr. GEORGE A. AVERY, an elder in the fourth Congregational Church,
Rochester, N.Y., who spent four years in Virginia, says, "The slave
children, very commonly of both sexes, up to the ages of eight and ten
years, and I think in some instances beyond this age, go in a state of
_disgusting_ nudity. I have often seen them with their tow shirt
(their only article of summer clothing) which, to all human
appearance, had not been taken off from the time it was first put on,
worn off from the bottom upwards shred by shred, until nothing
remained but the straps which passed over their shoulders, and the
less exposed portions extending a very little way below the arms,
leaving the principal part of the chest, as well as the limbs,
entirely uncovered."

SAMUEL ELLISON, a member of the Society of Friends, formerly of
Southampton Co., Virginia, now of Marlborough, Stark Co., Ohio, says,
"I knew a Methodist who was the owner of a number of slaves. The
children of both sexes, belonging to him, under twelve years of age,
were _entirely_ destitute of clothing. I have seen an old man
compelled to labor in the fields, not having rags enough to cover his
nakedness."

Rev. H. LYMAN, late pastor of the Free Presbyterian Church, in
Buffalo, N.Y., in describing a tour down and up the Mississippi river
in the winter of 1832-3, says, "At the wood yards where the boats
stop, it is not uncommon to see female slaves employed in carrying
wood. Their dress which was quite uniform was provided without any
reference to comfort. They had no covering for their heads; the stuff
which constituted the outer garment was sackcloth, similar to that in
which brown domestic goods are done up. It was then December, and I
thought that in such a dress, and being as they were, without
_stockings_, they must suffer from the cold."

Mr. Benjamin Clendenon, Colerain, Lancaster Co., Pa., a member of the
Society of Friends, in a recent letter describing a short tour through
the northern part of Maryland in the winter of 1836, thus speaks of a
place a few miles from Chestertown. "About this place there were a
number of slaves; very few, if any, had _either stockings or shoes_;
the weather was intensely cold, and the ground covered with snow."

The late Major Stoddard of the United States' artillery, who took
possession of Louisiana for the U.S. government, under the cession of
1804, published a book entitled "Sketches of Louisiana," in which,
speaking of the planters of Lower Louisiana, he says, "_Few of them
allow any clothing to their slaves_."

The following is an extract from the Will of the late celebrated John
Randolph of Virginia.

"To my old and faithful servants, Essex and his wife Hetty, I give and
bequeath a pair of strong shoes, a suit of clothes and a blanket each,
to be paid them annually; also an annual hat to Essex."

No Virginia slaveholder has ever had a better name as a "kind master,"
and "good provider" for his slaves, than John Randolph. Essex and
Hetty were _favorite_ servants, and the memory of the long
uncompensated services of those "old and faithful servants," seems to
have touched their master's heart. Now as this master was _John
Randolph_, and as those servants were "faithful," and favorite
servants, advanced in years, and worn out in his service, and as their
allowance was, in their master's eyes, of sufficient moment to
constitute a paragraph in his last _will and testament_, it is fair to
infer that it would be _very liberal_, far better than the ordinary
allowance for slaves.

Now we leave the reader to judge what must be the _usual_ allowance of
clothing to common field slaves in the hands of common masters, when
Essex and Hetty, the "old" and "faithful" slaves of John Randolph,
were provided, in his last will and testament, with but _one_ suit of
clothes annually, with but _one blanket_ each for bedding, with no
_stockings_, nor _socks_, nor _cloaks_, nor overcoats, nor
_handkerchiefs_, nor _towels_, and with no _change_ either of under or
outside garments!




IV. DWELLINGS.

THE SLAVES ARE WRETCHEDLY SHELTERED AND LODGED.

Mr. Stephen E. Maltby. Inspector of provisions, Skaneateles, N.Y. who
has lived in Alabama.

"The huts where the slaves slept, generally contained but _one_
apartment, and that _without floor_."


Mr. George A. Avery, elder of the 4th Presbyterian Church, Rochester,
N.Y. who lived four years in Virginia.

"Amongst all the negro cabins which I saw in Va., _I cannot call to
mind one_ in which there was any other floor than the _earth_; any
thing that a northern laborer, or mechanic, white or colored, would
call a _bed_, nor a solitary _partition_, to separate the sexes."


William Ladd, Esq., Minot, Maine. President of the American Peace
Society, formerly a slaveholder in Florida.

"The dwellings of the slaves were palmetto huts, built by themselves
of stakes and poles, thatched with the palmetto leaf. The door, when
they had any, was generally of the same materials, sometimes boards
found on the beach. They had _no floors_, no separate apartments,
except the guinea negroes had sometimes a small inclosure for their
'god house.' These huts the slaves built themselves after task and on
Sundays."


Rev. Joseph M. Sadd, Pastor Pres. Church, Castile, Greene Co., N.Y.,
who lived in Missouri five years previous to 1837.

"The slaves live _generally_ in _miserable huts_, which are _without
floors_, and have a single apartment only, where both sexes are herded
promiscuously together."


Mr. George W. Westgate, member of the Congregational Church in Quincy,
Illinois, who has spent a number of years in slave states.

"On old plantations, the negro quarters are of frame and clapboards,
seldom affording a comfortable shelter from wind or rain; their size
varies from 8 by 10, to 10 by 12, feet, and six or eight feet high;
sometimes there is a hole cut for a window, but I never saw a sash, or
glass in any. In the new country, and in the woods, the quarters are
generally built of logs, of similar dimensions."


Mr. Cornelius Johnson, a member of a Christian Church in Farmington,
Ohio. Mr. J. lived in Mississippi in 1837-8.

"Their houses were commonly built of logs, sometimes they were framed,
often they had no floor, some of them have two apartments, commonly
but one; each of those apartments contained a family. Sometimes these
families consisted of a man and his wife and children, while in other
instances persons of both sexes, were thrown together without any
regard to family relationship."


The Western Medical Reformer, in an article on the Cachexia Africana
by a Kentucky physician, thus speaks of the huts of the slaves.

"They are _crowded_ together in a _small hut_, and sometimes having an
imperfect, and sometimes no floor, and seldom raised from the ground,
ill ventilated, and surrounded with filth."


Mr. William Leftwich, a native of Virginia, but has resided most of
his life in Madison, Co. Alabama.

"The dwellings of the slaves are log huts, from 10 to 12 feet square,
often without windows, doors, or floors, they have neither chairs,
table, or bedstead."


Reuben L. Macy of Hudson, N.Y. a member of the Religious Society of
Friends. He lived in South Carolina in 1818-19.

"The houses for the field slaves were about 14 feet square, built in
the coarsest manner, with one room, _without any chimney or flooring,
with a hole in the roof to let the smoke out_."


Mr. Lemuel Sapington of Lancaster, Pa. a native of Maryland, formerly
a slaveholder.

"The descriptions generally given of negro quarters, are correct; the
quarters are _without floors, and not sufficient to keep off the
inclemency of the weather_; they are uncomfortable both in summer and
winter."


Rev. John Rankin, a native of Tennessee.

"When they return to their miserable huts at night, they find not
there the means of comfortable rest; _but on the cold ground they must
lie without covering, and shiver while they slumber."_


Philemon Bliss, Esq. Elyria, Ohio, who lived in Florida, in 1835.

"The dwellings of the slaves are usually small _open_ log huts, with
but one apartment, and very generally _without floors_."


Mr. W.C. Gildersleeve, Wilkesbarre, Pa., a native of Georgia.

"Their huts were generally put up without a nail, frequently without
floors, and with a single apartment."


Hon. R.J. Turnbull, of South Carolina, a slaveholder.

"The slaves live in _clay cabins_."



V. TREATMENT OF THE SICK.

THE SLAVES SUFFER FROM HUMAN NEGLECT WHEN SICK

In proof of this we subjoin the following testimony:

Rev. Dr. CHANNING of Boston, who once resided in Virginia, relates the
following fact in his work on slavery, page 163, 1st edition.

"I cannot forget my feelings on visiting a hospital belonging to the
plantation of a gentleman _highly esteemed for his virtues_, and whose
manners and conversation expressed much _benevolence and
conscientiousness_. When I entered with him the hospital, the first
object on which my eye fell was a young woman, very ill, probably
approaching death. She was stretched on the floor. Her head rested on
something like a pillow; but _her body and limbs were extended on the
hard boards._ The owner, I doubt not, had at least as much kindness
as myself; but he was so used to see the slaves living without common
comforts, that the idea of unkindness in the present instance did not
enter his mind."

This _dying_ young woman "was _stretched on the floor_"--"her body and
limbs extended upon the hard boards,"--and yet her master "was highly
esteemed for his virtues," and his general demeanor produced upon Dr.
Channing the impression of "benevolence and conscientiousness" If the
_sick and dying female_ slaves of _such_ a master, suffer such
barbarous neglect, whose heart does not fail him, at the thought of
that inhumanity, exercised by the _majority_ of slaveholders, towards
their aged, sick, and dying victims.

The following testimony is furnished by SARAH M. GRIMKÉ, a sister of
the late Hon. Thomas S. Grimké, of Charleston, South Carolina.

"When the Ladies' Benevolent Society in Charleston, S.C., of which I
was a visiting commissioner, first went into operation, we were
applied to for the relief of several sick and aged colored persons;
one case I particularly remember, of an aged woman who was dreadfully
burnt from having fallen into the fire; she was living with some free
blacks who had taken her in out of compassion. On inquiry, we found
that _nearly all_ the colored persons who had solicited aid, were
_slaves_, who being no longer able to work for their "owners," were
thus inhumanly cast out in their sickness and old age, and must have
perished, but for the kindness of their friends.

"I was once visiting a sick slave in whose spiritual welfare peculiar
circumstances had led me to be deeply interested. I knew that she had
been early seduced from the path of virtue, as nearly all the female
slaves are. I knew also that her mistress, though a professor of
religion, had never taught her a single precept of Christianity, yet
that she had had her severely punished for this departure from them,
and that the poor girl was then ill of an incurable disease,
occasioned partly by her own misconduct, and partly by the cruel
treatment she had received, in a situation that called for tenderness
and care. Her heart seemed truly touched with repentance for her sins,
and she was inquiring, "What shall I do to be saved?" I was sitting by
her as she lay on the floor upon a blanket, and was trying to
establish her trembling spirit in the fullness of Jesus, when I heard
the voice of her mistress in loud and angry tones, as she approached
the door. I read in the countenance of the prostrate sufferer, the
terror which she felt at the prospect of seeing her mistress. I knew
my presence would be very unwelcome, but staid hoping that it might
restrain, in some measure, the passions of the mistress. In this,
however, I was mistaken; she passed me without apparently observing
that I was there, and seated herself on the other side of the sick
slave. She made no inquiry how she was, but in a tone of anger
commenced a tirade of abuse, violently reproaching her with her past
misconduct, and telling her in the most unfeeling manner, that eternal
destruction awaited her. No word of kindness escaped her. What had
then roused her temper I do not know. She continued in this strain
several minutes, when I attempted to soften her by remarking, that
------ was very ill, and she ought not thus to torment her, and that I
believed Jesus had granted her forgiveness. But I might as well have
tried to stop the tempest in its career, as to calm the infuriated
passions nurtured by the exercise of arbitrary power. She looked at me
with ineffable scorn, and continued to pour forth a torrent of abuse
and reproach. Her helpless victim listened in terrified silence, until
nature could endure no more, when she uttered a wild shriek, and
casting on her tormentor a look of unutterable agony, exclaimed, "Oh,
mistress, I am dying." This appeal arrested her attention, and she soon
left the room, but in the same spirit with which she entered it. The
girl survived but a few days, and, I believe, saw her mistress _no
more_"

Mr. GEORGE A. AVERY, an elder of a Presbyterian church in Rochester,
N.Y., who lived some years in Virginia, gives the following:

"The manner of treating the sick slaves, and especially in _chronic_
cases, was to my mind peculiarly revolting. My opportunities for
observation in this department were better than in, perhaps, any
other, as the friend under whose direction I commenced my medical
studies, enjoyed a high reputation as a _surgeon_. I rode considerably
with him in his practice, and assisted in the surgical operations and
dressings from time to time. In confirmed cases of disease, it was
common for the master to place the subject under the care of a
physician or surgeon, at whose expense the patient should be kept, and
if death ensued to the patient, or the disease was not cured, no
compensation was to be made, but if cured a bonus of one, two, or
three hundred dollars was to be given. No provision was made against
the _barbarity_ or _neglect_ of the physician, &c. I have seen
_fifteen or twenty of these helpless sufferers_ crowded together in
the true spirit of slaveholding inhumanity, like the "brutes that
perish," and driven from time to time _like_ brutes into a common
yard, where they had to suffer any and every operation and experiment,
which interest, caprice, or professional curiosity might
prompt,--unrestrained by law, public sentiment, or the claims of
common humanity."

Rev. WILLIAM T. ALLAN, son of Rev. Dr. Allan, a slaveholder, of
Huntsville, Alabama, says in a letter now before us:

"Colonel Robert H. Watkins, of Laurence county, Alabama, who owned
about three hundred slaves, after employing a physician among them for
some time, ceased to do so, alleging as the reason, that it was
cheaper to lose a few negroes every year than to pay a physician. This
Colonel Watkins was a Presidential elector in 1836."

A.A. GUTHRIE, Esq., elder in the Presbyterian church at Putnam,
Muskingum county, Ohio, furnishes the testimony which follows.

"A near female friend of mine in company with another young lady, in
attempting to visit a sick woman on Washington's Bottom, Wood county,
Virginia, missed the way, and stopping to ask directions of a group of
colored children on the outskirts of the plantation of Francis Keen,
Sen., they were told to ask 'aunty, in the house.'  On entering the
hut, says my informant, I beheld such a sight as I hope never to see
again; its sole occupant was a female slave of the said Keen--her
whole wearing apparel consisted of a frock, made of the coarsest tow
cloth, and so scanty, that it could not have been made more tight
around her person. In the hut there was neither table, chair, nor
chest--a stool and a rude fixture in one corner, were all its
furniture. On this last were a little straw and a few old remnants of
what had been bedding--all exceedingly filthy.

"The woman thus situated _had been for more than a day in travail_,
without any assistance, any nurse, or any kind of proper
provision--during the night she said some fellow slave woman would
stay with her, and the aforesaid children through the day. From a
woman, who was a slave of Keen's at the same time, my informant
learned, that this poor woman suffered for three days, and then
died--when too late to save her life her master sent assistance. It
was understood to be a rule of his, to neglect his women entirely in
such times of trial, unless they previously came and informed him,
and asked for aid."

Rev. PHINEAS SMITH, of Centreville, N.Y, who has resided four years
at the south, says:

"Often when the slaves are sick, their accustomed toil is exacted from
them. Physicians are rarely called for their benefit."

Rev. HORACE MOULTON, a minister of the Methodist Episcopal church in
Marlborough, Mass., who resided a number of years in Georgia, says:

"Another dark side of slavery is the neglect of the _aged_ and
_sick_. Many when sick, are suspected by their masters of _feigning_
sickness, and are therefore whipped out to work after disease has got
fast hold of them; when the masters learn, that they are really sick,
they are in many instances left alone in their cabins during work
hours; not a few of the slaves are left to die without having one
friend to wipe off the sweat of death. When the slaves are sick, the
masters do not, as a general thing, employ physicians, but "doctor"
them themselves, and their mode of practice in almost all cases is to
bleed and give salts. When women are confined they have no physician,
but are committed to the care of slave midwives. Slaves complain very
little when sick, when they die they are frequently buried at night
without much ceremony, and in many instances without any; their
coffins are made by nailing together rough boards, frequently with
their feet sticking out at the end, and sometimes they are put into
the ground without a coffin or box of any kind."




PERSONAL NARRATIVES--PART II.

TESTIMONY OF THE REV. WILLIAM T. ALLAN, LATE OF ALABAMA.

Mr. ALLAN is a son of the Rev. Dr. Allan, a slaveholder and pastor of
the Presbyterian Church at Huntsville, Alabama. He has recently
become the pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Chatham, Illinois.

"I was born and have lived most of my life in the slave states, mainly
in the village of Huntsville, Alabama, where my parents still reside.
I seldom went to a _plantation_, and as my visits were confined almost
exclusively to the families of professing Christians, my _personal_
knowledge of slavery, was consequently a knowledge of its _fairest_
side, (if fairest may be predicated of foul.)

"There was one plantation just opposite my father's house in the
suburbs of Huntsville, belonging to Judge Smith, formerly a Senator in
Congress from South Carolina, now of Huntsville. The name of his
overseer was Tune. I have often seen him flogging the slaves in the
field, and have often heard their cries. Sometimes, too, I have met
them with the tears streaming down their faces, and the marks of the
whip, ('whelks,') on their bare necks and shoulders. Tune was so
severe in his treatment, that his employer dismissed him after two or
three years, lest, it was said, he should kill off all the slaves. But
he was immediately employed by another planter in the neighborhood.
The following fact was stated to me by my brother, James M. Allan, now
residing at Richmond, Henry county, Illinois, and clerk of the circuit
and county courts. Tune became displeased with one of the women who
was pregnant, he made her lay down over a log, with her face towards
the ground, and beat her so unmercifully, that she was soon after
delivered of a _dead child_.

"My brother also stated to me the following, which occurred near my
father's house, and within sight and hearing of the academy and public
garden. Charles, a fine active negro, who belonged to a bricklayer in
Huntsville, exchanged the burning sun of the brickyard to enjoy for a
season the pleasant shade of an adjacent mountain. When his master got
him back, he tied him by his hands so that his feet could just touch
the ground--stripped off his clothes, took a paddle, bored full of
holes, and paddled him leisurely all day long. It was two weeks before
they could tell whether he would live or die. Neither of these cases
attracted any particular notice in Huntsville.

"While I lived in Huntsville a slave was killed in the mountain near
by. The circumstances were these. A white man (James Helton) hunting
in the woods, suddenly came upon a black man, and commanded him to
stop, the slave kept on running, Helton fired his rifle and the negro
was killed.[5]

[Footnote 5: This murder was committed about twelve years since. At
that time, James G. Birney, Esq., now Corresponding Secretary of the
American Anti-Slavery Society was the Solicitor (prosecuting attorney)
for that judicial district. His views and feelings upon the subject of
slavery were, even at that period, in advance of the mass of
slaveholders, and he determined if possible to bring the murderer to
justice. He accordingly drew up an indictment and procured the finding
of a true bill against Helton. Helton, meanwhile, moved over the line
into the state of Tennessee, and such was the apathy of the community,
individual effort proved unavailing; and though the murderer had gone
no further than to an adjoining county (where perhaps he still
resides) he was never brought to trial.--ED.]

"Mrs. Barr, wife of Rev. H. Barr of Carrollton, Illinois, formerly
from Courtland, Alabama, told me last spring, that she has very often
stopped her ears that she might not hear the screams of slaves who
were under the lash, and that sometimes she has left her house, and
retired to a place more distant, in order to get away from their
agonizing cries.

"I have often seen groups of slaves on the public squares in
Huntsville, who were to be sold at auction, and I have often seen
their tears gush forth and their countenances distorted with anguish.
A considerable number were generally sold publicly every month.

"The following facts I have just taken down from the lips of Mr. L.
Turner, a regular and respectable member of the Second Presbyterian
Church in Springfield, our county town. He was born and brought up in
Caroline county, Virginia. He says that the slaves are neither
considered nor treated as human beings. One of his neighbors whose
name was Barr, he says, on one occasion stripped a slave and lacerated
his back with a handcard (for cotton or wool) and then washed it with
salt and water, with pepper in it. Mr. Turner _saw_ this. He further
remarked that he believed there were _many_ slaves there in advanced
life whose backs had never been well since they began to work.

"He stated that one of his uncles had killed a woman--broke her skull
with an ax helve: she had insulted her mistress! No notice was taken
of the affair. Mr. T. said, further, that slaves were _frequently
murdered_.

"He mentioned the case of one slaveholder, whom he had seen lay his
slaves on a large log, which he kept for the purpose, strip them, tie
them with the face downward, then have a kettle of hot water
brought--take the paddle, made of hard wood, and perforated with
holes, dip it into the hot water and strike--before every blow dipping
it into the water--every hole at every blow would raise a 'whelk.'
This was the usual punishment fur _running away_.

"Another slaveholder had a slave who had often run away, and often
been severely whipped. After one of his floggings he burnt his master's
barn: this so enraged the man, that when he caught him he took a pair
of pincers and pulled his toe nails out. The negro then murdered two
of his master's children. He was taken after a desperate pursuit,
(having been shot through the shoulder) and hung.

"One of Mr. Turner's cousins, was employed as overseer on a large
plantation in Mississippi. On a certain morning he called the slaves
together, to give some orders. While doing it, a slave came running
out of his cabin, having a knife in his hand and eating his breakfast.
The overseer seeing him coming with the knife, was somewhat alarmed,
and instantly raised his gun and shot him dead. He said afterwards,
that he believed the slave was perfectly innocent of any evil
intentions, he came out hastily to hear the orders whilst eating. _No_
notice was taken of the killing.

"Mr. T. related the whipping habits of one of his uncles in Virginia.
He was a wealthy man, had a splendid house and grounds. A tree in his
_front yard_, was used as a _whipping post_. When a slave was to be
punished, he would frequently invite some of his friends, have a
table, cards and wine set out under the shade; he would then flog his
slave a little while, and then play cards and drink with his friends,
occasionally taunting the slave, giving him the privilege of
confessing such and such things, at his leisure, after a while flog
him again, thus keeping it up for hours or half the day, and sometimes
all day. This was his _habit_.

"_February 4th._--Since writing the preceding, I have been to
Carrollton, on a visit to my uncle, Rev. Hugh Barr, who was originally
from Tennessee, lived 12 or 14 years in Courtland, Lawrence county,
Alabama, and moved to Illinois in 1835. In conversation with the
family, around the fireside, they stated a multitude of horrid facts,
that were perfectly notorious in the neighborhood of Courtland.

"William P. Barr, an intelligent young man, and member of his father's
church in Carrollton, stated the following. Visiting at a Mr.
Mosely's, near Courtland, William Mosely came in with a bloody knife
in his hand, having just stabbed a negro man. The negro was sitting
quietly in a house in the village, keeping a woman company who had
been left in charge of the house,--when Mosely, passing along, went in
and demanded his business there. Probably his answer was not as civil
as slaveholding requires, Mosely rushed upon him and stabbed him. The
wound laid him up for a season. Mosley was called to no account for
it. When he came in with the bloody knife, he said he wished he had
killed him.

"John Brown, a slaveholder, and a member of the Presbyterian church in
Courtland, Alabama, stated the following a few weeks since, in
Carrollton. A man near Courtland, of the name of Thompson, recently
shot a negro _woman_ through the head; and put the pistol so close
that her hair was singed. He did it in consequence of some difficulty
in his dealings with her as a concubine. He buried her in a log heap;
she was discovered by the buzzards gathering around it.

"William P. Barr stated the following, as facts well known in the
neighborhood of Courtland, but not witnessed by himself. Two men, by
the name of Wilson, found a fine looking negro man at 'Dandridge's
Quarter,' without a pass; and flogged him so that he died in a short
time. They were not punished.

"Col. Blocker's overseer attempted to flog a negro--he refused to be
flogged; whereupon the overseer seized an axe, and cleft his skull.
The Colonel justified it.

"One Jones whipped a woman to death for 'grabbling' a potato hill. He
owned 80 or 100 negroes. His own children could not live with him.

"A man in the neighborhood of Courtland, Alabama, by the name of
Puryear, was so proverbially cruel that among the negroes he was
usually called 'the Devil.' Mrs. Barr, wife of Rev. H. Barr, was at
Puryear's house, and saw a negro girl about 13 years old, waiting
around the table, with a single garment--and that in cold weather;
arms and feet bare--feet wretchedly swollen--arms burnt, and full of
sores from exposure. All the negroes under his care made a wretched
appearance.

"Col. Robert H. Watkins had a runaway slave, who was called Jim
Dragon. Before he was caught the last time, he had been out a year,
within a few miles of his master's plantation. He never stole from any
one but his master, except when necessity compelled him. He said he
had a right to take from his master; and when taken, that he had,
whilst out, seen his master a hundred times. Having been whipped,
clogged with irons, and yoked, he was set at work in the field. Col.
Watkins worked about 300 hands--generally had one negro out hunting
runaways. After employing a physician for some time among his negroes,
he ceased to do so, alleging as the reason, that it was cheaper to
lose a few negroes every year than to pay a physician. He was a
Presidential elector in 1836.

"Col. Ben Sherrod, another large planter in that neighborhood, is
remarkable for his kindness to his slaves. He said to Rev. Mr. Barr,
that he had no doubt he should be rewarded in heaven for his kindness
to his slaves; and yet his overseer, Walker, had to sleep with loaded
pistols, for fear of assassination. Three of the slaves attempted to
kill him once, because of his _treatment of their wives_.

"Old Major Billy Watkins was noted for his severity. I well remember,
when he lived in Madison county, to have often heard him yell at his
negroes with the most savage fury. He would stand at his house, and
watch the slaves picking cotton; and if any of them straitened their
backs for a moment, his savage yell would ring, 'bend your backs.'

"Mrs. Barr stated, that Mrs. H----, of Courtland, a member of the
Presbyterian church, sent a little negro girl to jail, suspecting that
she had attempted to put poison in the water pail. The fact was, that
the child had found a vial, and was playing in the water. This same
woman (in high standing too,) told the Rev. Mr. McMillan, that she
could 'cut Arthur Tappan's throat from ear to ear.'

"The clothing of slaves is in many cases comfortable, and in many it
is far from being so. I have very often seen slaves, whose tattered
rags were neither comfortable nor decent.

"Their _huts_ are sometimes comfortable, but generally they are
miserable _hovels_, where male and female are herded promiscuously
together.

"As to the _usual_ allowance of food on the plantations in North
Alabama, I cannot speak confidently, from _personal_ knowledge. There
was a slave named Hadley, who was in the habit of visiting my father's
slaves occasionally. He had run away several times. His reason was, as
he stated, that they would not give him any meat--said he could not
work without meat. The last time I saw him, he had quite a heavy iron
yoke on his neck, the two prongs twelve or fifteen inches long,
extending out over his shoulders and bending upwards.

"_Legal_ marriage is unknown among the slaves, they sometimes have a
marriage form--generally, however, _none at all_. The pastor of the
Presbyterian church in Huntsville, had two families of slaves when I
left there. One couple were married by a negro preacher--the man was
robbed of his wife a number of months afterwards, by her '_owner_.'
The other couple just 'took up together,' without any form of
marriage. They are both members of churches--the man a Baptist deacon,
sober and correct in his deportment. They have a large family of
children--all children of concubinage--living in a minister's family.

"If these statements are deemed of any value by you, in forwarding
your glorious enterprize, you are at liberty to use them as you
please. The great wrong is _enslaving a man_; all other wrongs are
pigmies, compared with that. Facts might be gathered abundantly, to
show that it is _slavery itself_, and not cruelties merely, that make
slaves unhappy. Even those that are most kindly treated, are generally
far from being happy. The slaves in my father's family are almost as
kindly treated as _slaves_ can be, yet they pant for liberty.

"May the Lord guide you in this great movement. In behalf of the
perishing, Your friend and brother, WILLIAM. T. ALLAN"


NARRATIVE OF MR. WILLIAM LEFTWICH, A NATIVE OF VIRGINIA.

Mr. Leftwich is a grandson of Gen. Jabez Leftwich, who was for some
years a member of Congress from Virginia. Though born in Virginia, he
has resided most of his life in Alabama. He now lives in Delhi,
Hamilton county, Ohio, near Cincinnati.

As an introduction to his letter, the reader is furnished with the
following testimonial to his character, from the Rev. Horace Bushnell,
pastor of the Presbyterian church in Delhi. Mr. B. says:

"Mr. Leftwich is a worthy member of this church, and is a young man of
sterling integrity and veracity.

H. BUSHNELL."

The following is the letter of Mr. Leftwich, dated Dec. 26, 1838.

"Dear Brother--I am not ranked among the abolitionists, yet I cannot,
as a friend of humanity, withhold from the public such facts in
relation to the condition of the slaves, as have fallen under my own
observation. That I am somewhat acquainted with slavery will be seen,
as I narrate some incidents of my own life. My parents were
slaveholders, and moved from Virginia to Madison county, Alabama,
during my infancy. My mother soon fell a victim to the climate. Being
the youngest of the children, I was left in the care of my aged
grandfather, who never held a slave, though his sons owned from 90 to
100 during the time I resided with him. As soon as I could carry a
hoe, my uncle, by the name of Neely, persuaded my grandfather that I
should be placed in his hands, and brought up in habits of industry. I
was accordingly placed under his tuition. I left the domestic circle,
little dreaming of the horrors that awaited me. My mother's own
brother took me to the cotton field, there to learn habits of
industry, and to be benefited by his counsels. But the sequel proved,
that I was there to feel in my own person, and witness by experience
many of the horrors of slavery. Instead of kind admonition, I was to
endure the frowns of one, whose sympathies could neither be reached by
the prayers and cries of his slaves, nor by the entreaties and
sufferings of a sister's son. Let those who call slaveholders kind,
hospitable and humane, mark the course the slaveholder pursues with
one born free, whose ancestors fought and bled for liberty; and then
say, if they can without a blush of shame, that he who robs the
helpless of every _right_, can be truly kind and hospitable.

"In a short time after I was put upon the plantation, there was but
little difference between me and the slaves, except being _white_, I
ate at the master's table. The slaves were my companions in misery,
and I well learned their condition, both in the house and field. Their
dwellings are log huts, from ten to twelve feet square; often without
windows, doors or floors. They have neither chairs, tables or
bedsteads. These huts are occupied by eight, ten or twelve persons
each. Their bedding generally consists of two old blankets. Many of
them sleep night after night sitting upon their blocks or stools;
others sleep in the open air. Our task was appointed, and from dawn
till dark all must bend to their work. Their meals were taken without
knife or plate, dish or spoon. Their food was corn _pone_, prepared in
the coarsest manner, with a small allowance of meat. Their meals in
the field were taken from the hands of the carrier, wherever he found
them, with no more ceremony than in the feeding of swine. My uncle was
his own overseer. For punishing in the field, he preferred a large
hickory stick; and wo to him whose work was not done to please him,
for the hickory was used upon our heads as remorselessly as if we had
been mad dogs. I was often the object of his fury, and shall bear the
marks of it on my body till I die. Such was my suffering and
degradation, that at the end of five years, I hardly dared to say I
was _free_. When thinning cotton, we went mostly on our knees. One
day, while thus engaged, my uncle found my row behind; and, by way of
admonition, gave me a few blows with his hickory, the marks of which I
carried for weeks. Often I followed the example of the fugitive
slaves, and betook myself to the mountains; but hunger and fear drove
me back, to share with the wretched slave his toil and stripes. But I
have talked enough about my own bondage; I will now relate a few
facts, showing the condition of the slaves _generally_.

"My uncle wishing to purchase what is called a good 'house wench,' a
_trader_ in human flesh soon produced a woman, recommending her as
highly as ever a jockey did a horse. She was purchased, but on trial
was found wanting in the requisite qualifications. She then fell a
victim to the disappointed rage of my uncle; innocent or guilty, she
suffered greatly from his fury. He used to tie her to a peach tree in
the yard, and whip her till there was no sound place to lay another
stroke, and repeat it so often that her back was kept continually
sore. Whipping the females around the legs, was a favorite mode of
punishment with him. They must stand and hold up their clothes, while
he plied his hickory. He did not, like some of his neighbors, keep a
pack of hounds for hunting runaway negroes, but be kept one dog for
that purpose, and when he came up with a runaway, it would have been
death to attempt to fly, and it was nearly so to stand. Sometimes,
when my uncle attempted to whip the slaves, the dog would rush upon
them and relieve them of their rags, if not of their flesh. One object
of my uncle's special hate was "Jerry," a slave of a proud spirit. He
defied all the curses, rage and stripes of his tyrant. Though he was
often overpowered--for my uncle would frequently wear out his stick
upon his head--yet be would never submit. As he was not expert in
picking cotton, he would sometimes run away in the fall, to escape
abuse. At one time, after an absence of some months, he was arrested
and brought back. As is customary, he was stripped, tied to a log, and
the cow-skin applied to his naked body till his master was exhausted.
Then a large log chain was fastened around one ankle, passed up his
back, over his shoulders, then across his breast, and fastened under
his arm. In this condition he was forced to perform his daily task.
Add to this he was chained each night, and compelled to chop wood
every Sabbath, to make up lost time. After being thus manacled for
some months, he was released--but his spirit was unsubdued. Soon
after, his master, in a paroxysm of rage, fell upon him, wore out his
staff upon his head, loaded him again with chains, and after a month,
sold him farther south. Another slave, by the name of Mince, who was a
man of great strength, purloined some bacon on a Christmas eve. It was
missed in the morning, and he being absent, was of course suspected.
On returning home, my uncle commanded him to come to him, but he
refused. The master strove in vain to lay hands on him; in vain he
ordered his slaves to seize him--they dared not. At length the master
hurled a stone at his head sufficient to have felled a bullock--but he
did not heed it. At that instant my aunt sprang forward, and
presenting the gun to my uncle, exclaimed, 'Shoot him! shoot him !' He
made the attempt, but the gun missed fire, and Mince fled. He was
taken eight or ten months after while crossing the Ohio. When brought
back, the master, and an overseer on another plantation, took him to
the mountain and punished him to their satisfaction in secret; after
which he was loaded with chains and set to his task.

"I here spent nearly all my life in the midst of slavery. From being
the son of a slaveholder, I descended to the condition of a slave, and
from that condition I rose (if you please to call it so,) to the
station of a '_driver_.' I have lived in Alabama, Tennessee, and
Kentucky; and I _know_ the condition of the slaves to be that of
unmixed wretchedness and degradation. And on the part of slaveholders,
there is cruelty _untold_. The labor of the slave is constant toil,
wrung out by fear. Their food is scanty, and taken without comfort.
Their clothes answer the purposes neither of comfort nor decency. They
are not allowed to read or write. Whether they may worship God or not,
depends on the will of the master. The young children, until they can
work, often go naked during the warm weather. I could spend months in
detailing the sufferings, degradation and cruelty inflicted upon
slaves. But my soul sickens at the remembrance of these things."



TESTIMONY OF MR. LEMUEL SAPINGTON, A NATIVE OF MARYLAND.

Mr. Sapington, is a repentant "soul driver" or slave trader, now a
citizen of Lancaster, Pa. He gives the following testimony in a letter
dated, Jan. 21, 1839.

"I was born in Maryland, afterwards moved to Virginia, where I
commenced the business of farming and trafficking in slaves. In my
neighborhood the slaves were 'quartered.' The description generally
given of negro quarters is correct. The quarters are without floors,
and not sufficient to keep off the inclemency of the weather, they are
uncomfortable both in summer and winter. The food there consists of
potatoes, pork, and corn, which were given to them daily, by weight
and measure. The sexes were huddled together promiscuously. Their
clothing is made by themselves after night, though sometimes assisted
by the old women who are no longer able to do out door work,
consequently it is harsh and uncomfortable. I have frequently seen
those of both sexes who have not attained the age of twelve years go
naked. Their punishments are invariably cruel. For the slightest
offence, such as taking a hen's egg, I have seen them stripped and
suspended by their hands, their feet tied together, a fence rail of
ordinary size placed between their ankles, and then most cruelly
whipped, until, from head to foot, they were completely lacerated, a
pickle made for the purpose of salt and water, would then be applied
by a fellow-slave, for the purpose of healing the wounds as well as
giving pain. Then taken down and without the least respite sent to
work with their hoe.

"Pursuing my assumed right of driving souls, I went to the Southern
part of Virginia for the purpose of trafficking in slaves. In that
part of the state, the cruelties practised upon the slaves, are far
greater than where I lived. The punishments there often resulted in
death to the slave. There was no law for the negro, but that of the
overseer's whip. In that part of the country, the slaves receive
nothing for food, but corn in the ear, which has to be prepared for
baking after working hours, by grinding it with a hand-mill. This they
take to the fields with them, and prepare it for eating, by holding it
on their hoes, over a fire made by a stump. Among the gangs, are often
young women, who bring their children to the fields, and lay them in a
fence corner, while they are at work, only being permitted to nurse
them at the option of the overseer. When a child is three weeks old, a
woman is considered in working order. I have seen a woman, with her
young child strapped to her back, laboring the whole day, beside a
man, perhaps the father of the child, and he not being permitted to
give her any assistance, himself being under the whip. The uncommon
humanity of the driver allowing her the comfort of doing so. I was
then selling a drove of slaves, which I had brought by water from
Baltimore, my conscience not allowing me to drive, as was generally
the case uniting the slaves by collars and chains, and thus driving
them under the whip. About that time an unaccountable something, which
I now know was an interposition of Providence, prevented me from
prosecuting any farther this unholy traffic; but though I had quitted
it, I still continued to live in a slave state, witnessing every day
its evil effects upon my fellow beings. Among which was a
heart-rending scene that took place in my father's house, which led me
to lease a slave state, as well as all the imaginary comforts arising
from slavery. On preparing for my removal to the state of
Pennsylvania, it became necessary for me to go to Louisville, in
Kentucky, where, if possible, I became more horrified with the
impositions practiced upon the negro than before. There a slave was
sold to go farther south, and was hand-cuffed for the purpose of
keeping him secure. But choosing death rather than slavery, he jumped
overboard and was drowned. When I returned four weeks afterwards his
body, that had floated three miles below, was yet unburied. One fact;
it is impossible for a person to pass through a slave state, if he has
eyes open, without beholding every day cruelties repugnant to
humanity.

Respectfully Yours,

LEMUEL SAPINGTON.




TESTIMONY OF MRS. NANCY LOWRY, A NATIVE OF KENTUCKY.

Mrs. Lory, is a member of the non-conformist church in Osnaburg, Stark
County, Ohio, she is a native of Kentucky. We have received from her
the following testimony.

"I resided in the family of Reuben Long, the principal part of the
time, from seven to twenty-two years of age. Mr. Long had 16 slaves,
among whom were three who were treated with severity, although Mr.
Long was thought to be a very human master. These three, namely John,
Ned, and James, had wives; John and Ned had theirs at some distance,
but James had his with him. All three died a premature death, and it
was generally believed by his neighbors, that extreme whipping was the
cause. I believe so too. Ned died about the age of 25 and John 34 or
35. The cause of their flogging was commonly staying a little over the
time, with their wives. Mr. Long would tie them up by the wrist, so
high that their toes would just touch the ground, and then with a
cow-hide lay the lash upon the naked back, until he was exhausted,
when he would sit down and rest. As soon as he had rested
sufficiently, he would ply the cow-hide again, thus he would continue
until the whole back of the poor victim was lacerated into one uniform
coat of blood. Yet he was a strict professor of the Christian
religion, in the southern church. I frequently washed the wounds of
John, with salt water, to prevent putrefaction. This was the usual
course pursued after a severe flogging; their backs would be full of
gashes, so deep the I could almost lay my finger in them. They were
generally laid up after the flogging for several days. The last
flogging Ned got, he was confined to the bed, which he never left till
he was carried to his grave. During John's confinement in his last
sickness on one occasion while attending on him, he exclaimed, 'oh,
Nancy, Miss Nancy, I haven't much longer in this world, I feel as if
my whole body inside and all my bones were beaten into a jelly.' Soon
after he died. John and Ned were both professors of religion.

"John Ruffner, a slaveholder, had one slave named Pincy, whom he as
well as Mrs. Ruffner would often flog very severely. I frequently saw
Mrs. Ruffner flog her with the broom, shovel, or any thing she could
seize in her rage. She would knock her down and then kick and stamp
her most unmercifully, until she would be apparently so lifeless, that
I more than once thought she would never recover. Often Pincy would
try to shelter herself from the blows of her mistress, by creeping
under the bed, from which Mrs. Ruffner would draw her by the feet, and
then stamp and leap on her body, till her breath would be gone. Often
Pincy, would cry, 'Oh Missee, don't kill me!' 'Oh Lord, don't kill
me!' 'For God's sake don't kill me!' But Mrs. Ruffner would beat and
stamp away, with all the venom of a demon. The cause of Pincy's
flogging was, not working enough, or making some mistake in baking,
&c. &c. Many a night Pincy had to lie on the bare floor, by the side
of the cradle, rocking the baby of her mistress, and if she would fall
asleep, and suffer the child to cry, so as to waken Mrs. Ruffner, she
would be sure to receive a flogging."




TESTIMONY OF MR. WM. C. GILDERSLEEVE, A NATIVE OF GEORGIA

MR. W.C. GILDERSLEEVE, a native of Georgia, is an elder of the
Presbyterian Church at Wilkesbarre, Pa.

"_Acts of cruelty, without number, fell under my observation_ while I
lived in Georgia. I will mention but one. A slave of a Mr. Pinkney, on
his way with a wagon to Savannah, 'camped' for the night by the road
side. That night, the nearest hen-roost was robbed. On his return, the
hen-roost was again visited, and the fowl counted one less in the
morning. The oldest son, with some attendants made search, and came
upon the poor fellow, in the act of dressing his spoil. He was too
nimble for them, and made his retreat good into a dense swamp. When
much effort to start him from his hiding place had proved
unsuccessful, it was resolved to lay an ambush for him, some distance
ahead. The wagon, meantime, was in charge of a lad, who accompanied
the teamster as an assistant. The little boy lay still till nearly
night, (in the hope probably that the teamster would return,) when he
started with his wagon. After travelling some distance, the lost one
made his appearance, when the ambush sprang upon him. The poor fellow
was conducted back to the plantation. He expected little mercy. He
begged for himself, in the most suplicating manner, 'pray massa give
me 100 lashes and let me go.' He was then tied by the hands, to a limb
of a large mulberry tree, which grew in the yard, so that his feet
were raised a few inches from the ground, while a _sharpened stick_
was driven underneath that he might rest his weight on it, or swing by
his hands. In this condition 100 lashes were laid on his bare body. I
stood by and witnessed the whole, without as I recollect feeling the
least compassion. So hardening is the influence of slavery, that it
very much destroys feeling for the slave."




TESTIMONY OF MR. HIRAM WHITE--A NATIVE OF NORTH CAROLINA


Mr. WHITE resided thirty-two years in Chatham county, North Carolina,
and is now a member of the Baptist Church, at Otter Creek Prairie,
Illinois.

About the 20th December 1830, a report was raised that the slaves in
Chatham county, North Carolina, were going to rise on Christmas day,
in consequence of which a considerable commotion ensued among the
inhabitants; orders were given by the Governor to the militia
captains, to appoint patrolling captains in each district, and orders
were given for every man subject to military duty to patrol as their
captains should direct. I went two nights in succession, and after
that refused to patrol at all. The reason why I refused was this,
orders were given to search every negro house for books or prints of
any kind, and _Bibles_ and _Hymn books_ were particularly mentioned.
And should we find any, our orders were to inflict punishment by
whipping the slave until he _informed who_ gave them to him, or how
they came by them.

As regards the comforts of the slaves in the vicinity of my residence,
I can say they had nothing that would bear that name. It is true, the
slaves in general, of a good crop year, were tolerably well fed, but
of a bad crop year, they were, as a general thing, cut short of their
allowance. Their houses were pole cabins, without loft or floor. Their
beds were made of what is there called "broom-straw." The men more
commonly sleep on benches. Their clothing would compare well with
their lodging. Whipping was common. It was hardly possible for a man
with a common pair of ears, if he was out of his house but a short
time on Monday mornings, to miss of hearing the sound of the lash, and
the cries of the sufferers pleading with their masters to desist.
These scenes were more common throughout the time of my residence
there, from 1799 to 1831.

Mr. Hedding of Chatham county, held a slave woman. I traveled past
Heddings as often as once in two weeks during the winter of 1828, and
always saw her clad in a single cotton dress, sleeves came half way to
the elbow, and in order to prevent her running away, a child, supposed
to be about seven years of age, was connected with her by a long chain
fastened round her neck, and in this situation she was compelled all
the day to grub up the roots of shrubs and sapplings to prepare ground
for the plough. It is not uncommon for slaves to make up on Sundays
what they are not able to perform through the week of their tasks.

At the time of the rumored insurrection above named, Chatham jail was
filled with slaves who were said to have been concerned in the plot.
Without the least evidence of it, they were punished in divers ways;
some were whipped, some had their _thumbs screwed in a vice_ to make
them confess, but no proof satisfactory was ever obtained that the
negroes had ever thought of an insurrection, nor did any so far as I
could learn, acknowledge that an insurrection had ever been projected.
From this time forth, the slaves were prohibited from assembling
together for the worship of God, and many of those who had previously
been authorized to preach the gospel were prohibited.

Amalgamation was common. There was scarce a family of slaves that had
females of mature age where there were not some mulatto children.

HIRAM  WHITE

_Otter Creek Prairie, Jan. 22, 1839_.




TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN M. NELSON--A NATIVE OF VIRGINIA.

Extract of a letter, dated January 3, 1839, from John M. Nelson, Esq.,
of Hillsborough. Mr. Nelson removed from Virginia to Highland county,
Ohio, many years since, where he is extensively known and respected.

I was born and raised in Augusta county, Virginia; my father was an
elder in the Presbyterian Church, and was "owner" of about twenty
slaves; he was what was generally termed a "good master." His slaves
were generally tolerably well fed and clothed, and not over worked,
they were sometimes permitted to attend church, and called in to
family worship; few of them, however, availed themselves of these
privileges. On _some occasions_ I have seen him whip them severely,
particularly for the crime of trying to obtain their liberty, or for
what was called, "running away." For _this_ they were scourged more
severely than for any thing else. After they have been retaken, I have
seen them stripped naked and suspended by the hands, sometimes to a
tree, sometimes to a post, until their toes barely touched the ground,
and whipped with a cowhide until the blood dripped from their backs. A
boy named Jack, particularly, I have seen served in this way more than
once. When I was quite a child, I recollect it grieved me very much to
see one _tied up_ to be whipped, and I used to intercede with tears in
their behalf, and mingle my cries with theirs, and feel almost willing
to take part of the punishment; I have been severely rebuked by my
father for this kind of sympathy. Yet, such is the hardening nature of
such scenes, that from this kind of commiseration for the suffering
slave, I became so blunted that I could not only witness their stripes
with composure, but _myself_ inflict them, and that without remorse.
One case I have often looked back to with sorrow and contrition,
particularly since I have been convinced that "negroes are men." When
I was perhaps fourteen or fifteen years of age, I undertook to correct
a young fellow named Ned, for some supposed offence; I think it was
leaving a bridle out of its proper place; he being larger and stronger
than myself took hold of my arms and held me, in order to prevent my
striking him; this I considered the height of insolence, and cried for
help, when my father and mother both came running to my rescue. My
father stripped and tied him, and took him into the orchard, where
switches were plenty, and directed me to whip him; when one switch
wore out he supplied me with others. After I had whipped him a while,
he fell on his knees to implore forgiveness, and I kicked him in the
face; my father said, "don't kick him, but whip him;" this I did until
his back was literally covered with _welts_. I know I have repented,
and trust I have obtained pardon for these things.

My father owned a woman, (we used to call aunt Grace,) she was
purchased in Old Virginia. She has told me that her old master, in his
_will_, gave her her freedom, but at his death, his sons had sold her
to my father: when he bought her she manifested some unwillingness to
go with him, when she was put in irons and taken by force. This was
before I was born; but I remember to have seen the irons, and was told
that was what they had been used for. Aunt Grace is still living, and
must be between seventy and eighty years of age; she has, for the last
forty years, been an exemplary Christian. When I was a youth I took
some pains to learn her to read; this is now a great consolation to
her. Since age and infirmity have rendered her of little value to her
"owners," she is permitted to read as much as she pleases; this she
can do, with the aid of glasses, in the old family Bible, which is
almost the only book she has ever looked into. This with some little
mending for the black children, is all she does; she is still held as
a slave. I well remember what a _heart-rending scene_ there was in the
family when _my father sold her husband_; this was, I suppose,
thirty-five years ago. And yet my father was considered one of the
best of masters. I know of few who were better, but of _many_ who were
worse.

The last time I saw my father, which was in the fall of 1832, he
promised me that he would free all his slaves at his death. He died
however without doing it; and I have understood since, that he omitted
it, through the influence of Rev. Dr. Speece, a Presbyterian minister,
who lived in the family, and was a _warm friend of the Colonization
Society_.

About the year 1809 or 10, I became a student of Rev. George Bourne;
he was the first abolitionist I had ever seen, and the first I had
ever heard pray or plead for the oppressed, which gave me the first
misgivings about the _innocence_ of slaveholding. I received
impressions from Mr. Bourne which I could not get rid of,[6] and
determined in my own mind that when I settled in life, it should be in
a free state; this determination I carried into effect in 1813, when I
removed to this place, which I supposed at that time, to be all the
opposition to slavery that was necessary, but the moment I became
convinced that all slaveholding was in itself _sinful_, I became an
abolitionist, which was about four years ago.

[Footnote 6: Mr. Bourne resided seven years in Virginia, "in perils
among false brethren; fiercely persecuted for his faithful testimony
against slavery. More than twenty years since he published a work
entitled 'The Book and Slavery irreconcileable.'"]




TESTIMONY OF ANGELINA GRIMKÉ WELD.

Mrs. Weld is the youngest daughter of the late Judge Grimké, of the
Supreme Court of South Carolina, and a sister of the late Hon. Thomas
S. Grimké, of Charleston.

Fort Lee, Bergen Co., New Jersey, Fourth month 6th, 1839.

I sit down to comply with thy request, preferred in the name of the
Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society. The
responsibility laid upon me by such a request, leaves me no option.
While I live, and slavery lives, I _must_ testify against it. If I
should hold my peace, "the stone would cry out of the wall, and the
beam out of the timber would answer it." But though I feel a necessity
upon me, and "a woe unto me," if I withhold my testimony, I give it
with a heavy heart. My flesh crieth out, "if it be possible, let
_this_ cup pass from me;" but, "Father, _thy_ will be done," is, I
trust, the breathing of my spirit. Oh, the slain of the daughter of my
people! they lie in all the ways; their tears fall as the rain, and
are their meat day and night; their blood runneth down like water;
their plundered hearths are desolate; they weep for their husbands and
children, because they are not; and the proud waves do continually go
over them, while no eye pitieth, and no man careth for their souls.

But it is not alone for the sake of my poor brothers and sisters in
bonds, or for the cause of truth, and righteousness, and humanity,
that I testify; the deep yearnings of affection for the mother that
bore me, who is still a slaveholder, both in fact and in heart; for my
brothers and sisters, (a large family circle,) and for my numerous
other slaveholding kindred in South Carolina, constrain me to speak:
for even were slavery no curse to its victims, the exercise of
arbitrary power works such fearful ruin upon the hearts of
_slaveholders_, that I should feel impelled to labor and pray for its
overthrow with my last energies and latest breath.

I think it important to premise, that I have seen almost nothing of
slavery on _plantations_. My testimony will have respect exclusively
to the treatment of "_house-servants_," and chiefly those belonging to
the first families in the city of Charleston, both in the religious
and in the fashionable world. And here let me say, that the treatment
of _plantation_ slaves cannot be fully known, except by the poor
sufferers themselves, and their drivers and overseers. In a multitude
of instances, even the master can know very little of the actual
condition of his own field-slaves, and his wife and daughters far
less. A few facts concerning my own family will show this. Our
permanent residence was in Charleston; our country-seat (Bellemont,)
was 200 miles distant, in the north-western part of the state; where,
for some years, our family spent a few months annually. Our
_plantation_ was three miles from this family mansion. There, all the
field-slaves lived and worked. Occasionally, once a month, perhaps,
some of the family would ride over to the plantation, but I never
visited the _fields where the slaves were at work_, and knew almost
nothing of their condition; but this I do know, that the overseers who
had charge of them, were generally unprincipled and intemperate men.
But I rejoice to know, that the general treatment of slaves in that
region of country, was far milder than on the plantations in the lower
country.

Throughout all the eastern and middle portions of the state, the
planters very rarely reside permanently on their plantations. They
have almost invariably _two residences_, and spend less than half the
year on their estates. Even while spending a few months on them,
politics, field-sports, races, speculations, journeys, visits,
company, literary pursuits, &c., absorb so much of their time, that
they must, to a considerable extent, take the condition of their
slaves _on trust_, from the reports of their overseers. I make this
statement, because these slaveholders (the wealthier class,) are, I
believe, almost the only ones who visit the north with their
families;--and northern opinions of slavery are based chiefly on their
testimony.

But not to dwell on preliminaries, I wish to record my testimony to
the faithfulness and accuracy with which my beloved sister, Sarah M.
Grimké, has, in her 'narrative and testimony,' on a preceding page,
described the condition of the slaves, and the effect upon the hearts
of slaveholders, (even the best,) caused by the exercise of unlimited
power over moral agents. Of the _particular acts_ which she has
stated, I have no personal knowledge, as they occurred before my
remembrance; but of the spirit that prompted them, and that constantly
displays itself in scenes of similar horror, the recollections of my
childhood, and the effaceless imprint upon my riper years, with the
breaking of my heart-strings, when, finding that I was powerless to
shield the victims, I tore myself from my home and friends, and became
an exile among strangers--all these throng around me as witnesses, and
their testimony is graven on my memory with a pen of fire.

Why I did not become totally hardened, under the daily operation of
this system, God only knows; in deep solemnity and gratitude, I say,
it was the _Lord's_ doing, and marvellous in mine eyes. Even before my
heart was touched with the love of Christ, I used to say, "Oh that I
had the wings of a dove, that I might flee away and be at rest;" for I
felt that there could be no rest for me in the midst of such outrages
and pollutions. And yet I saw _nothing_ of slavery in its most vulgar
and repulsive forms. I saw it in the city, among the fashionable and
the honorable, where it was garnished by refinement, and decked out
for show. A few _facts_ will unfold the state of society in the circle
with which I was familiar far better than any general assertions I can
make.

I will first introduce the reader to a woman of the highest
respectability--one who was foremost in every benevolent enterprise,
and stood for many years, I may say, at the _head_ of the fashionable
Elite of the city of Charleston, and afterwards at the head of the
moral and religious female society there. It was after she had made a
profession of religion, and retired from the fashionable world, that I
knew her; therefore I will present her in her religious character.
This lady used to keep cowhides, or small paddles, (called 'pancake
sticks,') in four different apartments in her house; so that when she
wished to punish, or to have punished, any of her slaves, she might
not have the trouble of sending for an instrument of torture. For many
years, one or other, and _often_ more of her slaves, were flogged
_every day_; particularly the young slaves about the house, whose
faces were slapped, or their hands beat with the 'pancake stick; for
every trifling offence--and often for no fault at all. But the
floggings were not all; the scolding, and abuse daily heaped upon them
all, were worse: 'fools' and 'liars,' 'sluts' and 'husseys,'
'hypocrites' and 'good-for-nothing creatures'; were the common
epithets with which her mouth was filled, when addressing her slaves,
adults as well as children. Very often she would take a position at
her window, in an upper story, and scold at her slaves while working
in the garden, at some distance from the house, (a large yard
intervening,) and occasionally order a flogging. I have known her thus
on the watch, scolding for more than an hour at a time, in so loud a
voice that the whole neighborhood could hear her; and this without the
least apparent feeling of shame. Indeed, it was no disgrace among
slaveholders, and did not in the least injure her standing, either as
a lady or a Christian, in the aristocratic circle in which she moved.
After the 'revival' in Charleston, in 1825, she opened her house to
social prayer-meetings. The room in which they were held in the
evening, and where the voice of prayer was heard around the family
altar, and where she herself retired for private devotion thrice each
day, was the very place in which, when her slaves were to be whipped
with the cowhide, they were taken to receive the infliction; and the
wail of the sufferer would be heard, where, perhaps only a few hours
previous, rose the voices of prayer and praise. This mistress would
occasionally send her slaves, male and female, to the Charleston
work-house to be punished. One poor girl, whom she sent there to be
flogged, and who was accordingly stripped _naked_ and whipped, showed
me the deep gashes on her back--I might have laid my whole finger in
them--_large pieces of flesh had actually been cut out by the
torturing lash_. She sent another female slave there, to be imprisoned
and worked on the tread-mill. This girl was confined several days, and
forced to work the mill while in a state of suffering from another
cause. For ten days or two weeks after her return, she was lame, from
the violent exertion necessary to enable her to keep the step on the
machine. She spoke to me with intense feeling of this outrage upon
her, as a _woman_. Her men servants were sometimes flogged there; and
so exceedingly offensive has been the putrid flesh of their lacerated
backs, for days after the infliction, that they would be kept out of
the house--the smell arising from their wounds being too horrible to
be endured. They were always stiff and sore for some days, and not in
a condition to be seen by visitors.

This professedly Christian woman was a most awful illustration of the
ruinous influence of arbitrary power upon the temper--her bursts of
passion upon the heads of her victims were dreaded even by her own
children, and very often, all the pleasure of social intercourse
around the domestic board, was destroyed by her ordering the cook into
her presence, and storming at him, when the dinner or breakfast was
not prepared to her taste, and in the presence of all her children,
commanding the waiter to slap his face. _Fault-finding_, was with her
the constant accompaniment of every meal, and banished that peace
which should hover around the social board, and smile on every face.
It was common for her to order brothers to whip their own sisters, and
sisters their own brothers, and yet no woman visited among the poor
more than she did, or gave more liberally to relieve their wants.
This may seem perfectly unaccountable to a northerner, but these
seeming contradictions vanish when we consider that over _them_ she
possessed no arbitrary power, they were always presented to her mind
as unfortunate sufferers, towards whom her sympathies most freely
flowed; she was ever ready to wipe the tears from _their_ eyes, and
open wide her purse for _their_ relief, but the others were her
_vassals_, thrust down by public opinion beneath her feet, to be at
her beck and call, ever ready to serve in all humility, her, whom God
in his providence had set over them--it was their _duty_ to abide in
abject submission, and hers to _compel_ them to do so--_it was thus
that she reasoned_. Except at family prayers, none were permitted to
_sit_ in her presence, but the seamstresses and waiting maids, and
they, however delicate might be their circumstances, were forced to
sit upon low stools, without backs, that they might be constantly
reminded of their inferiority. A slave who waited in the house, was
guilty on a particular occasion of going to visit his wife, and kept
dinner waiting a little, (his wife was the slave of a lady who lived
at a little distance.)  When the family sat down to the table, the
mistress began to scold the waiter for the offence--he attempted to
excuse himself--she ordered him to hold his tongue--he ventured
another apology; her son then rose from the table in a rage, and beat
the face and ears of the waiter so dreadfully that the blood gushed
from his mouth, and nose, and ears. This mistress was a _professor of
religion_; her daughter who related the circumstance, was a _fellow
member_ of the Presbyterian church _with the poor outraged
slave_--instead of feeling indignation at this outrageous abuse of her
brother in the church, she justified the deed, and said "he got just
what he deserved."  I solemnly believe this to be a true picture of
_slaveholding religion_.

The following is another illustration of it:

A mistress in Charleston sent a grey headed female slave to the
workhouse, and had her severely flogged. The poor old woman went to
an acquaintance of mine and begged her to buy her, and told her how
cruelly she had been whipped. My friend examined her _lacerated back_,
and out of compassion did purchase her. The circumstance was
mentioned to one of the former owner's relatives, who asked her if it
were true. The mistress told her it was, and said that she had made
the severe whipping of this aged woman a _subject of prayer_, and that
she believed she had done right to have it inflicted upon her. The
last 'owner' of the poor old slave, said she, had no fault to find
with her as a servant.

I remember very well that when I was a child, our next door neighbor
whipped a young woman so brutally, that in order to escape his blows
she rushed through the drawing-room window in the second story, and
fell upon the street pavement below and broke her hip. This
circumstance produced no excitement or inquiry.

The following circumstance occurred in Charleston, in 1828:

A slaveholder, after flogging a little girl about thirteen years old,
set her on a table with her feet fastened in a pair of stocks. He then
locked the door and took out the key. When the door was opened she
was found dead, having fallen from the table. When I asked a
prominent lawyer, who belonged to one of the first families in the
State, whether the murderer of this helpless child could not be
indicted, he coolly replied, that the slave was Mr. ----'s property,
and if he chose to suffer the _loss_, no one else had any thing to do
with it. The loss of _human life_, the distress of the parents and
other relatives of the little girl, seemed utterly out of his
thoughts: it was the loss of _property_ only that presented itself to
his mind.

I knew a gentleman of great benevolence and generosity of character,
so essentially to injure the eye of a little boy, about ten years old,
as to destroy its sight, by the blow of a cowhide, inflicted whilst he
was whipping him.[7]  I have heard the same individual speak of
"breaking down the spirit of a slave under the lash" as perfectly
right.

[Footnote 7: The Jewish law would have set this servant free, for his
eye's sake, but he was held in slavery and sold from hand to hand,
although, besides this title to his liberty according to Jewish law,
he was a _mulatto_, and therefore free under the Constitution of the
United States, in whose preamble our fathers declare that they
established it expressly to "secure the blessings of _liberty_ to
themselves and _their posterity_."--Ed.]

I also know that an aged slave of his, (by marriage,) was allowed to
get a scanty and precarious subsistence, by begging in the streets of
Charleston--he was too old to work, and therefore _his allowance was
stopped_, and he was turned out to make his living by begging.

When I was about thirteen years old, I attended a seminary, in
Charleston, which was superintended by a man and his wife of superior
education. They had under their instruction the daughters of nearly
all the aristocracy. Their cruelty to their slaves, both male and
female, I can never forget. I remember one day there was called into
the school room to open a window, a boy whose head had been shaved in
order to disgrace him, and he had been so dreadfully whipped that he
could hardly walk. So horrible was the impression produced upon my
mind by his heart-broken countenance and crippled person that I
fainted away. The sad and ghastly countenance of one of their female
mulatto slaves who used to sit on a low stool at her sewing in the
piazza, is now fresh before me. She often told me, secretly, how
cruelly she was whipped when they sent her to the work house. I had
known so much of the terrible scourgings inflicted in that house of
blood, that when I was once obliged to pass it, the very sight smote
me with such horror that my limbs could hardly sustain me. I felt as
if I was passing the precincts of hell. A friend of mine who lived in
the neighborhood, told me she often heard the screams of the slaves
under their torture.

I once heard a physician of a high family, and of great respectability
in his profession, say, that when he sent his slaves to the work-house
to be flogged, he always went to see it done, that he might be sure
they were properly, i.e. _severely_ whipped. He also related the
following circumstance in my presence. He had sent a youth of about
eighteen to this horrible place to be whipped and _afterwards_ to be
worked upon the treadmill. From not keeping the step, which probably
he COULD NOT do, in consequence of the lacerated state of his body;
his arm got terribly torn, from the shoulder to the wrist. This
physician said, he went every day to attend to it himself, in order
that he might use those restoratives, which _would inflict the
greatest possible pain_. This poor boy, after being imprisoned there
for some weeks, was then brought home, and compelled to wear iron
clogs on his ankles for one or two months. I saw him with those irons
on one day when I was at the house. This man was, when young,
remarkable in the fashionable world for his elegant and fascinating
manners, but the exercise of the slaveholder's power has thrown the
fierce air of tyranny even over these.

I heard another man of equally high standing say, that he believed he
suffered far more than his waiter did whenever he flogged him for he
felt the _exertion_ for days afterward, but he could not let his
servant go on in the neglect of his business, it was _his duty_ to
chastise him. "His duty" to flog this boy of seventeen so severely
that he felt _the exertion_ for days after! and yet he never felt it
to be his duty to instruct him, or have him instructed, even in the
common principles of morality. I heard the mother of this man say it
would be no surprise to her, if he killed a slave some day, for, that,
when transported with passion he did not seem to care what he did. He
once broke a _large_ stick over the back of a slave and at another
time the ivory butt-end of a long coach whip over the _head_ of
another. This last was attacked with epileptic fits some months after,
and has ever since been subject to them, and occasionally to violent
fits of insanity.

Southern mistresses sometimes flog their slaves themselves though
generally one slave is compelled to flog another. Whilst staying at a
friend's house some years ago, I one day saw the mistress with a
cow-hide in her hand, and heard her scolding in an under tone, her
waiting man, who was about twenty-five years old. Whether she actually
inflicted the blows I do not know, for I hastened out of sight and
hearing. It was not the first time I had seen a mistress thus engaged.
I knew she was a cruel mistress, and had heard her daughters
disputing, whether their mother did right or wrong, to send the slave
_children_, (whom she sent out to sweep chimneys) to the work house to
be whipped if they did not bring in their wages regularly. This woman
moved in the most fashionable circle in Charleston. The income of this
family was derived mostly from the hire of their slaves, about one
hundred in number. Their luxuries were blood-bought luxuries indeed.
And yet what stranger would ever have inferred their cruelties from
the courteous reception and bland manners of the parlor. Every thing
cruel and revolting is carefully concealed from strangers, especially
those from the north. Take an instance. I have known the master and
mistress of a family send to their friends to _borrow_ servants to
wait on company, because their own slaves had been so cruelly flogged
in the work house, that they could not walk without limping at every
step, and their putrified flesh emitted such an intolerable smell that
they were not fit to be in the presence of company. How can
northerners know these things when they are hospitably received at
southern tables and firesides? I repeat it, no one who has not been an
_integral part_ of a slaveholding community, can have any idea of its
abominations. It is a whited sepulchre full of dead men's bones and
all uncleanness. Blessed be God, the Angel of _Truth_ has descended
and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the sepulchre, and sits
upon it. The abominations so long hidden are now brought forth before
all Israel and the sun. Yes, the Angel of Truth _sits upon this
stone_, and it can never be rolled back again.

The utter disregard of the comfort of the slaves, in _little_ things,
can scarcely be conceived by those who have not been a _component
part_ of slaveholding communities. Take a few particulars out of
hundreds that might be named. In South Carolina musketoes swarm in
myriads, more than half the year--they are so excessively annoying at
night, that no family thinks of sleeping without nets or
"musketoe-bars" hung over their bedsteads, yet slaves are never
provided with them, unless it be the favorite old domestics who get
the cast-off pavilions; and yet these very masters and mistresses will
be so kind to their _horses_ as to provide them with _fly nets_.
Bedsteads and bedding too, are rarely provided for any of the
slaves--if the waiters and coachmen, waiting maids, cooks, washers,
&c., have beds at all, they must generally get them for themselves.
Commonly they lie down at night on the bare floor, with a small
blanket wrapped round them in winter, and in summer a coarse osnaburg
sheet, or nothing. Old slaves generally have beds, but it is because
when younger _they have provided them for themselves._

Only two meals a day are allowed the house slaves--the _first at
twelve o'clock_. If they eat before this time, it is by stealth, and I
am sure there must be a good deal of suffering among them from
_hunger_, and particularly by children. Besides this, they are often
kept from their meals by way of punishment. No table is provided for
them to eat from. They know nothing of the comfort and pleasure of
gathering round the social board--each takes his plate or tin pan and
iron spoon and holds it in the hand or on the lap. I _never_ saw
slaves seated round a _table_ to partake of any meal.

As the general rule, no lights of any kind, no firewood--no towels,
basins, or soap, no tables, chairs, or other furniture, are provided.
Wood for cooking and washing _for the family_ is found, but when the
master's work is done, the slave must find wood for himself if he has
a fire. I have repeatedly known slave children kept the whole winter's
evening, sitting on the stair-case in a cold entry, just to be at hand
to snuff candles or hand a tumbler of water from the side-board, or go
on errands from one room to another. It may be asked why they were not
permitted to stay in the parlor, when they would be still more at
hand. I answer, because waiters are not allowed to _sit_ in the
presence of their owners, and as children who were kept running all
day, would of course get very tired of standing for two or three
hours, they were allowed to go into the entry and sit on the staircase
until rung for. Another reason is, that even slaveholders at times
find the presence of slaves very annoying; they cannot exercise entire
freedom of speech before them on all subjects.

I have also known instances where seamstresses were kept in cold
entries to work by the stair case lamps for one or two hours, every
evening in winter--they could not see without standing up all the
time, though the work was often too large and heavy for them to sew
upon it in that position without great inconvenience, and yet they
were expected to do their work as _well_ with their cold fingers, and
standing up, as if they had been sitting by a comfortable fire and
provided with the necessary light. House slaves suffer a great deal
also from not being allowed to leave the house without permission. If
they wish to go even for a draught of water, they must _ask leave_,
and if they stay longer than the mistress thinks necessary, they are
liable to be punished, and often are scolded or slapped, or kept from
going down to the next meal.

It frequently happens that relatives, among slaves, are separated for
weeks or months, by the husband or brother being taken by the master
on a journey, to attend on his horses and himself.--When they return,
the white husband seeks the wife of his love; but the black husband
must wait to see _his_ wife, until mistress pleases to let her
chambermaid leave her room. Yes, such is the despotism of slavery,
that wives and sisters dare not run to meet their husbands and
brothers after such separations, and hours sometimes elapse before
they are allowed to meet; and, at times, a fiendish pleasure is taken
in keeping them asunder--this furnishes an opportunity to vent
feelings of spite for any little neglect of "duty."

The sufferings to which slaves are subjected by separations of various
kinds, cannot be imagined by those unacquainted with the working out
of the system behind the curtain. Take the following instances.

Chambermaids and seamstresses often sleep in their mistresses'
apartments, but with no bedding at all. I know an instance of a woman
who has been married eleven years, and yet has never been allowed to
sleep out of her mistress's chamber.--This is a _great_ hardship to
slaves. When we consider that house slaves are rarely allowed social
intercourse during _the day_, as their work generally _separates_
them; the barbarity of such an arrangement is obvious. It is
peculiarly a hardship in the above case, as the husband of the woman
does not "belong" to her "owner;" and because he is subject to
dreadful attacks of illness, and can have but little attention from
his wife in the _day_. And yet her mistress, who is an old lady, gives
her the highest character as a faithful servant, and told a friend of
mine, that she was "entirely dependent upon her for _all_ her
comforts; she dressed and undressed her, gave her all her food, and
was so _necessary_ to her that she could not do without her." I may
add, that this couple are tenderly attached to each other.

I also know an instance in which the husband was a slave and the wife
was free: during the illness of the former, the latter was _allowed_
to come and nurse him; she was obliged to leave the work by which she
had made a living, and come to stay with her husband, and thus lost
weeks of her time, or he would have suffered for want of proper
attention; and yet his "owner" made her no compensation for her
services. He had long been a faithful and a favorite slave, and his
owner was a woman very benevolent to the poor whites.--She went a
great deal among these, as a visiting commissioner of the Ladies'
Benevolent Society, and was in the constant habit of _paying the
relatives of the poor whites_ for nursing _their_ husbands, fathers,
and other relations; because she thought it very hard, when their time
was taken up, so that they could not earn their daily bread, that they
should be left to suffer. Now, such is the stupifying influence of the
"_chattel_ principle" on the minds of slaveholders, that I do not
suppose it ever occurred to her that this poor _colored_ wife ought to
be paid for her services, and particularly as she was spending her
time and strength in taking care of her "_property_." She no doubt
only thought how kind she was, to _allow_ her to come and stay so long
in her yard; for, let it be kept in mind, that slaveholders have
unlimited power to separate husbands and wives, parents and children,
however and whenever they please; and if this mistress had chosen to
do it, she could have debarred this woman from all intercourse with
her husband, by forbidding her to enter her premises.

Persons who own plantations and yet live in cities, often take
children from their parents as soon as they are weaned, and send them
into the country; because they do not want the time of the mother
taken up by attendance upon her own children, it being too valuable to
the mistress. As a _favor_, she is, in some cases, permitted to go to
see them once a year. So, on the other hand, if field slaves happen to
have children of an age suitable to the convenience of the master,
they are taken from their parents and brought to the city. Parents are
almost never consulted as to the disposition to be made of their
children; they have as little control over them, as have domestic
animals over the disposal of their young. Every natural and social
feeling and affection are violated with indifference; slaves are
treated as though they did not possess them.

Another way in which the feelings of slaves are trifled with and often
deeply wounded, is by changing their names; if, at the time they are
brought into a family, there is another slave of the same name; or if
the owner happens, for some other reason, not to like the name of the
new comer. I have known slaves very much grieved at having the names
of their children thus changed, when they had been called after a dear
relation. Indeed it would be utterly impossible to recount the
multitude of ways in which the _heart_ of the slave is continually
lacerated by the total disregard of his feelings as a social being and
a human creature.

The slave suffers also greatly from being continually watched. The
system of espionage which is constantly kept up over slaves is the
most worrying and intolerable that can be imagined. Many mistresses
are, in fact, during the absence of their husbands, really their
drivers; and the pleasure of returning to their families often, on the
part of the husband, is entirely destroyed by the complaints preferred
against the slaves when he comes home to his meals.

A mistress of my acquaintance asked her servant boy, one day, what was
the reason she could not get him to do his work whilst his master was
away, and said to him, "Your master works a great deal harder than you
do; he is at his office all day, and often has to study his law cases
at night." "Master," said the boy, "is working for himself, and for
you, ma'am, but I am working for _him_". The mistress turned and
remarked to a friend, that she was so struck with the truth of the
remark, that she could not say a word to him. But I forbear--the
sufferings of the slaves are not only innumerable, but they are
_indescribable_. I may paint the agony of kindred torn from each
other's arms, to meet no more in time; I may depict the inflictions of
the blood-stained lash, but I cannot describe the daily, hourly,
ceaseless torture, endured by the heart that is constantly trampled
under the foot of despotic power. This is a part of the horrors of
slavery which, I believe, no one has ever attempted to delineate; I
wonder not at it, it mocks all power of language. Who can describe the
anguish of that mind which feels itself impaled upon the iron of
arbitrary power--its living, writhing, helpless victim! every human
susceptibility tortured, its sympathies torn, and stung, and
bleeding--always feeling the death-weapon in its heart, and yet not so
deep as to _kill_ that humanity which is made the curse of Its
existence.

In the course of my testimony I have entered somewhat into the
_minutiae_ of slavery, because this is a part of the subject often
overlooked, and cannot be appreciated by any but those who have been
witnesses, and entered into sympathy with the slaves as human beings.
Slaveholders think nothing of them, because they regard their slaves
as _property_, the mere instruments of their convenience and pleasure.
_One who is a slaveholder at heart never recognises a human being in a
slave_.

As thou hast asked me to testify respecting the _physical condition_
of the slaves merely, I say nothing of the awful neglect of their
_minds and souls_ and the systematic effort to imbrute them. A wrong
and an impiety, in comparison with which all the other unutterable
wrongs of slavery are but as the dust of the balance.

ANGELINA G. WELD.




GENERAL TESTIMONY

TO THE CRUELTIES INFLICTED UPON SLAVES.


Before presenting to the reader particular details of the cruelties
inflicted upon American slaves, we will present in brief the
well-weighed declarations of slaveholders and other residents of slave
states, testifying that the slaves are treated with barbarous
inhumanity. All _details_ and particulars will be drawn out under
their appropriate heads. We propose in this place to present testimony
of a _general character_--the solemn declarations of slaveholders and
others, that the slaves are treated with great cruelty.

To discredit the testimony of witnesses who insist upon convicting
themselves, would be an anomalous scepticism.


To show that American slavery has _always_ had one uniform character
of diabolical cruelty, we will go back one hundred years, and prove it
by unimpeachable witnesses, who have given their deliberate testimony
to its horrid barbarity, from 1739 to 1839.


TESTIMONY OF REV. GEORGE WHITEFIELD.

In a letter written by him in Georgia, and addressed to the
slaveholders of Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina and
Georgia, in 1739.--See Benezet's "Caution to Great Britain and her
Colonies."

"As I lately passed through your provinces on my way hither, I was
sensibly touched with a fellow-feeling of the miseries of the poor
negroes.

"Sure I am, it is sinful to use them as bad, nay worse than if they
were brutes; and whatever particular _exceptions_ there may be, (as I
would charitably hope there are _some_,) I fear the _generality_ of
you that own negroes _are liable to such a charge_. Not to mention
what numbers have been given up to the inhuman usage of cruel
_taskmasters_, who by their unrelenting scourges, have ploughed their
backs and made long furrows, and at length brought them to the grave!

"_The blood of them, spilt for these many years, in your respective
provinces, will ascend up to heaven against you!_" The following is
the testimony of the celebrated JOHN WOOLMAN, an eminent minister of
the Society of Friends, who traveled extensively in the slave state.
We copy it from a "Memoir of JOHN WOOLMAN, chiefly extracted from a
Journal of his Life and Travels." It was published in Philadelphia, by
the "Society of Friends."

"The following reflections, were written in 1757, while he was
traveling on a religious account among slaveholders."

"Many of the white people in these provinces, take little or no care
of negro marriages; and when negroes marry, after their own way, some
make so little account of those marriages, that, with views of outward
interest, they often part men from their wives, by selling them far
asunder; which is common when estates are sold by executors at vendue.

"Many whose labor is heavy, being followed at their business in the
field by a man with a whip, hired for that purpose,--have, in common,
little else allowed them but _one peck_ of Indian corn and some salt
for one week, with a few potatoes. (The potatoes they commonly raise
by their labor on the first day of the week.) The correction ensuing
on their disobedience to overseers, or slothfulness in business, is
often _very severe_, and sometimes _desperate_. Men and women have
many times _scarce clothes enough to hide their nakedness_--and boys
and girls, ten and twelve years old, are often _quite naked_ among
their masters' children. Some use endeavors to instruct those (negro
children) they have in reading; but in common, this is not only
neglected, but disapproved."--p. 12.


TESTIMONY OF THE 'MARYLAND JOURNAL AND BALTIMORE ADVERTISER,' OF MAY
30, 1788.


"In the ordinary course of the business of the country, the punishment
of relations frequently happens on the same farm, and in view of each
other: the father often sees his beloved son--the son his venerable
sire--the mother her much loved daughter--the daughter her
affectionate parent--the husband sees the wife of his bosom, and she
the husband of her affection, _cruelly bound up_ without delicacy or
mercy, and without daring to interpose in each other's behalf, and
punished with all the _extremity of incensed rage, and all the rigor
of unrelenting severity_. Let us reverse the case, and suppose it ours:
ALL IS SILENT HORROR!"


TESTIMONY OF THE HON. WILLIAM PINCKNEY, OF MARYLAND.


In a speech before the Maryland House of Delegates, in 1789, Mr. P.
calls slavery in that state, "a speaking picture of _abominable
oppression_;" and adds: "It will not do thus to ... act like
_unrelenting tyrants_, perpetually sermonizing it with liberty as our
text, and actual _oppression_ for our commentary. Is she [Maryland]
not ... the foster mother of _petty despots_,--the patron of _wanton
oppression?_"

Extract from a speech of Mr. RICE, in the Convention for forming the
Constitution of Kentucky, in 1790:

"The master may, and _often does, inflict upon him all the severity of
punishment the human body is capable of bearing."_

President Edwards, the Younger, in a sermon before the Connecticut
Abolition Society, 1791, says:

"From these drivers, for every imagined, as well as real neglect or
want of exertion, they receive the lash--the smack of which is all day
long in the ears of those who are on the plantation or in the
vicinity; and it is used with such dexterity and severity, as not only
to lacerate the skin, but to tear out small portions of the flesh at
almost every stroke.

"This is the general treatment of the slaves. But many individuals
suffer still more severely. _Many, many are knocked down; some have
their eyes beaten out: some have an arm or a leg broken, or chopped
off_; and many, for a very small, or for no crime at all, have been
beaten to death, merely to gratify the fury of an enraged master or
overseer."

Extract from an oration, delivered at Baltimore, July 4, 1797, by
GEORGE BUCHANAN, M.D., member of the American Philosophical Society.

Their situation (the slaves') is _insupportable_; misery inhabits
their cabins, and pursues them in the field. Inhumanly beaten, they
_often_ fall sacrifices to the turbulent tempers of their masters! Who
is there, unless inured to savage cruelties, that can hear of the
inhuman punishments _daily inflicted_ upon the unfortunate blacks,
without feeling for them? Can a man who calls himself a Christian,
coolly and deliberately tie up, _thumb-screw, torture with pincers_,
and beat unmercifully a poor slave, for perhaps a trifling neglect of
duty?--p. 14.


TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN RANDOLPH, OF ROANOKE--A SLAVEHOLDER.


In one of his Congressional speeches, Mr. R. says: "Avarice alone can
drive, as it does drive, this _infernal_ traffic, and the wretched
victims of it, like so many post-horses _whipped to death_ in a mail
coach. Ambition has its cover-sluts in the pride, pomp, and
circumstance of glorious war; but where are the trophies of avarice?
_The hand-cuff; the manacle, the blood-stained cowhide!_"

MAJOR STODDARD, of the United States' army, who took possession of
Louisiana in behalf of the United States, under the cession of 1804,
in his Sketches of Louisiana, page 332, says:

"The feelings of humanity are outraged--the most odious tyranny
exercised in a land of freedom, and hunger and nakedness prevail
amidst plenty. * * * Cruel, and even unusual punishments are daily
inflicted on these wretched creatures, enfeebled with hunger, labor
and the lash. The scenes of misery and distress constantly witnessed
along the coast of the Delta, [of the Mississippi,] the wounds and
lacerations occasioned by demoralized masters and overseers, torture
the feelings of the passing stranger, and wring blood from the heart."

Though only the third of the following series of resolutions is
directly relevant to the subject now under consideration, we insert
the other resolutions, both because they are explanatory of the third,
and also serve to reveal the public sentiment of Indiana, at the date
of the resolutions. As a large majority of the citizens of Indiana at
that time, were _natives of slave states_, they well knew the actual
condition of the slaves.

1. "RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY, by the Legislative Council and House of
Representatives of Indiana Territory, that a suspension of the sixth
article of compact between the United States and the territories and
states north west of the river Ohio, passed the 13th day of January,
1783, for the term of ten years, would be highly advantageous to the
territory, and meet the approbation of at least nine-tenths of the
good citizens of the same."

2. "RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY, that the abstract question of liberty and
slavery, is not considered as involved in a suspension of the said
article, inasmuch as the number of slaves in the United States would
not be augmented by the measure."

3. "RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY, that the suspension of the said article
would be equally advantageous to the territory, to the states from
whence the negroes would be brought, and _to the negroes themselves._
The states which are overburthened with negroes which they cannot
comfortably support; * * and THE NEGRO HIMSELF WOULD EXCHANGE A SCANTY
PITTANCE OF THE COARSEST FOOD, for a plentiful and nourishing diet;
and a situation which admits not the most distant prospect of
emancipation, for one which presents no considerable obstacle to his
wishes."

4. "RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY, that a copy of these resolutions be
delivered to the delegate to Congress from this territory, and that he
be, and he hereby is, instructed to use his best endeavors to obtain a
suspension of the said article."

J.B. THOMAS, _Speaker of the House of Representatives._

PIERRE MINARD, _President pro tem. of the Legislative Council.
Vincennes, Dec._ 20, 1806.

"Forwarded to the Speaker the United States' Senate, by WILLIAM HENRY
HARRISON, Governor"--_American State Papers_ vol 1. p. 467.


MONSIEUR C.C. ROBIN, who resided in Louisiana from 1802 to 1806, and
published a volume containing the results of his observations there,
thus speaks of the condition of the slaves:

"While they are at labor, the manager, the master, or the driver has
commonly the whip in hand to strike the idle. But those of the negroes
who are judged guilty of serious faults, are punished twenty,
twenty-five, forty, fifty, or one hundred lashes. The manner of this
cruel execution is as follows: four stakes are driven down, making a
long square; the culprit is extended naked between these stakes, face
downwards; his hands and his feet are bound separately, with strong
cords, to each of the stakes, so far apart that his arms and legs,
stretched in the form of St. Andrew's cross, give the poor wretch no
chance of stirring. Then the executioner, who is ordinarily a negro,
armed with the long whip of a coachman, strikes upon the reins and
thighs. The crack of his whip resounds afar, like that of an angry
cartman beating his horses. The blood flows, the long wounds cross
each other, strips of skin are raised without softening either the
hand of the executioner or the heart of the master, who cries 'sting
him harder.'

"The reader is moved; so am I: my agitated hand refuses to trace the
bloody picture, to recount how many times the piercing cry of pain has
interrupted my silent occupations; how many times I have shuddered at
the faces of those barbarous masters, where I saw inscribed the number
of victims sacrificed to their ferocity.

"The women are subjected to these punishments as rigorously as the
men--not even pregnancy exempts them; in that case, before binding
them to the stakes, a hole is made in the ground to accommodate the
enlarged form of the victim.

"It is remarkable that the white creole women are ordinarily more
inexorable than the men. Their slow and languid gait, and the trifling
services which they impose, betoken only apathetic indolence; but
should the slave not promptly obey, should he even fail to divine the
meaning of their gestures, or looks, in an instant they are armed with
a formidable whip; it is no longer the arm which cannot sustain the
weight of a shawl or a reticule--it is no longer the form which but
feebly sustains itself. They themselves order the punishment of one of
these poor creatures, and with a dry eye see their victim bound to
four stakes; they count the blows, and raise a voice of menace, if the
arm that strikes relaxes, or if the blood does not flow in sufficient
abundance. Their sensibility changed to fury must needs feed itself
for a while on the hideous spectacle; they must, as if to revive
themselves, hear the piercing shrieks, and see the flow of fresh
blood; there are some of them who, in their frantic rage, pinch and
bite their victims.

"It is by no means wonderful that the laws designed to protect the
slave, should be little respected by the generality of such masters. I
have seen some masters pay those unfortunate people the miserable
overcoat which is their due; but others give them nothing at all, and
do not even leave them the hours and Sundays granted to them by law. I
have seen some of those barbarous masters leave them, during the
winter, in a state of revolting nudity, even contrary to their own
true interests, for they thus weaken and shorten the lives upon which
repose the whole of their own fortunes. I have seen some of those
negroes obliged to conceal their nakedness with the long moss of the
country. The sad melancholy of these wretches, depicted upon their
countenances, the flight of some, and the death of others, do not
reclaim their masters; they wreak upon those who remain, the vengeance
which they can no longer exercise upon the others."


WHITMAN MEAD, Esq. of New York, in his journal, published nearly a
quarter of a century ago, under date of

"SAVANNAH, January 28, 1817.

"To one not accustomed to such scenes as slavery presents, the
condition of the slaves is _impressively shocking._ In the course of
my walks, I was every where witness to their wretchedness. Like the
brute creatures of the north, they are driven about at the pleasure of
all who meet them: _half naked and half starved_, they drag out a
pitiful existence, apparently almost unconscious of what they suffer.
A threat accompanies every command, and a bastinado is the usual
reward of disobedience."



TESTIMONY OF REV. JOHN RANKIN,

_A native of Tennessee, educated there, and for a number of years a
preacher in slave states--now pastor of a church in Ripley, Ohio._

"Many poor slaves are stripped naked, stretched and tied across
barrels, or large bags, _and tortured with the lash during hours, and
even whole days, until their flesh is mangled to the very bones_.
Others are stripped and hung up by the arms, their feet are tied
together, and the end of a heavy piece of timber is put between their
legs in order to stretch their bodies, and so prepare them for the
torturing lash--and in this situation they are often whipped until
their bodies are covered _with blood and mangled flesh_--and in order
to add the greatest keenness to their sufferings, their wounds are
washed with _liquid salt_! And some of the miserable creatures are
permitted to hang in that position until they actually _expire_; some
die under the lash, others linger about for a time, and at length die
of their wounds, and many survive, and endure again similar torture.
These bloody scenes are _constantly exhibiting in every slave holding
country--thousands of whips are every day stained in African blood_!
Even the poor _females_ are not permitted to escape these shocking
cruelties."--_Rankin's Letters._

These letters were published fifteen years ago.--They were addressed
to a brother in Virginia, who was a slaveholder.


TESTIMONY OF THE AMERICAN COLONIZATION SOCIETY.

"We have heard of slavery as it exists in Asia, and Africa, and
Turkey--we have heard of the feudal slavery under which the peasantry
of Europe have groaned from the days of Alaric until now, but
excepting only the horrible system of the West India Islands, we have
never heard of slavery in any country, ancient or modern, Pagan,
Mohammedan, or _Christian! so terrible in its character_, as the
slavery which exists in these United States."--_Seventh Report
American Colonization Society,_ 1824.


TESTIMONY OF THE GRADUAL EMANCIPATION SOCIETY OF NORTH CAROLINA.


_Signed by Moses Swain, President, and William Swain, Secretary._

"In the eastern part of the state, the slaves considerably outnumber
the free population. Their situation is there wretched beyond
description. Impoverished by the mismanagement which we have already
attempted to describe, the master, unable to support his own grandeur
and maintain his slaves, puts the unfortunate wretches upon short
allowances, scarcely sufficient for their sustenance, so that a great
part of them go half naked and half starved much of the time.
Generally, throughout the state, the African is an _abused, a
monstrously outraged creature."--See Minutes of the American
Convention, convened in Baltimore, Oct._ 25, 1826.




FROM NILES' BALTIMORE REGISTER FOR 1829, VOL 35, p. 4.


"Dealing in slaves has become a _large business_. Establishments are
made at several places in Maryland and Virginia, at which they are
sold like cattle. These places of deposit are strongly built, and well
supplied with _iron thumb-screws and gags_, and ornamented with
_catskins and other whips--often times bloody_."

Judge RUFFIN, of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in one of his
judicial decisions, says--"The slave, to remain a slave, must feel
that there is NO APPEAL FROM HIS MASTER. No man can anticipate the
provocations which the slave would give, nor the consequent wrath of
the master, prompting him to BLOODY VENGEANCE on the turbulent
traitor, a vengeance _generally_ practiced with impunity, by reason of
its PRIVACY."--See _Wheeler's Law of Slavery_ p. 247.

MR. MOORE, of VIRGINIA, in his speech before the Legislature of that
state, Jan. 15, 1832, says: "It must be confessed, that although the
treatment of our slaves is in the general, as mild and humane as it
can be, that it must always happen, that there will be found hundreds
of individuals, who, owing either to the natural ferocity of their
dispositions, or to the effects of intemperance, will be guilty of
cruelty and barbarity towards their slaves, which is _almost
intolerable_, and at which humanity revolts."




TESTIMONY OF B. SWAIN, ESQ., OF NORTH CAROLINA.


"Let any man of spirit and feeling, for a moment cast his thoughts
over this land of slavery--think of the _nakedness_ of some, the
_hungry yearnings_ of others, the _flowing tears and heaving sighs_ of
parting relations, the _wailings and wo, the bloody cut of the keen
lash, and the frightful scream that rends the very skies_--and all
this to gratify ambition, lust, pride, avarice, vanity, and other
depraved feelings of the human heart.... THE WORST IS NOT GENERALLY
KNOWN. Were all the miseries, the horrors of slavery, to burst at once
into view, a peal of seven-fold thunder could scarce strike greater
alarm."--_See "Swain's Address,"_ 1830.




TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES C. FINLEY,


_Son of Dr. Finley, one of the founders of the Colonization Society,
and brother of R.S. Finley, agent of the American Colonization
Society._ Dr. J.C. Finley was formerly one of the editors of the
Western Medical Journal, at Cincinnati, and is well known in the west
as utterly hostile to immediate abolition.

"In almost the last conversation I had with you before I left
Cincinnati, I promised to give you some account of some scenes of
atrocious cruelty towards slaves, which I witnessed while I lived at
the south. I almost regret having made the promise, for not only are
they _so atrocious_ that you will with difficulty believe them, but I
also fear that they will have the effect of driving you into that
_abolitionism_, upon the borders of which you have been so long
hesitating. The people of the north _are ignorant of the horrors of
slavery_--of the _atrocities_ which it commits upon the unprotected
slave.   *     *     *

"I do not know that any thing could be gained by particularizing the
scenes of _horrible barbarity_, which fell under my observation during
my _short_ residence in one of the wealthiest, most intelligent, and
most moral parts of Georgia. Their _number_ and _atrocity_ are such,
that I am confident they would gain credit with none but
_abolitionists_. Every thing will be conveyed in the remark, that in a
state of society calculated to foster the worst passions of our
nature, the slave derives _no protection_ either from _law_ or _public
opinion_, and that ALL the cruelties which the Russians are reported
to have acted towards the Poles, after their late subjugation, ARE
SCENES OF EVERY-DAY OCCURRENCE in the southern states. This statement,
incredible as it may seem, falls short, very far short of the truth."

The foregoing is extracted from a letter written by Dr. Finley to Rev.
Asa Mahan, his former pastor, then of Cincinnati, now President of
Oberlin Seminary.


TESTIMONY OF REV. WILLIAM T. ALLAN, OF ILLINOIS, _Son of a
Slaveholder, Rev. Dr. Allan of Huntsville, Ala._

"At our house it is so common to hear their (the slaves') screams,
that we think nothing of it: and lest any one should think that in
_general_ the slaves are well treated, let me be distinctly
understood:--_cruelty_ is the _rule_, and _kindness_ the _exception_."

Extract of a letter dated July 2d, 1834, from Mr. NATHAN COLE, of St.
Louis, Missouri, to Arthur Tappan, Esq. of this city:

"I am not an advocate of the immediate and unconditional emancipation
of the slaves of our country, yet _no man has ever yet depicted the
wretchedness of the situation of the slaves in colors as dark for the
truth_.... I know that many good people _are not aware of the
treatment to which slaves are usually subjected_, nor have they any
just idea of the extent of the evil."


TESTIMONY OF REV. JAMES A. THOME, _A native of Kentucky--Son of Arthur
Thome Esq., till recently a Slaveholder._

"Slavery is the parent of more suffering than has flowed from any one
source since the date of its existence. Such sufferings too!
_Sufferings inconceivable and innumerable--unmingled wretchedness_
from the ties of nature rudely broken and destroyed, the _acutest
bodily tortures, groans, tears and blood_--lying forever in weariness
and painfulness, in watchings, in hunger and in thirst, in cold and
nakedness.

"Brethren of the North, be not deceived. _These sufferings still
exist_, and despite the efforts of their cruel authors to hush them
down, and confine them within the precincts of their own plantations,
they will ever and anon, struggle up and reach the ear of
humanity."--_Mr. Thome's Speech at New York, May,_ 1834.


TESTIMONY OF THE MARYVILLE (TENNESSEE) INTELLIGENCER, OF OCT. 4, 1835.

The Editor, in speaking of the sufferings of the slaves which are
taken by the internal trade to the South West, says:

"Place yourself in imagination, for a moment, in their condition.
With _heavy galling chains_, riveted upon your person; _half-naked,
half-starved_; your back _lacerated_ with the 'knotted Whip;'
traveling to a region where your _condition through time will be
second only to the wretched creatures in Hell_.

"This depicting is not visionary. Would to God that it was."


TESTIMONY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD OF KENTUCKY; _A large majority of
whom are slaveholders._

"This system licenses and produces _great cruelty_.

"Mangling, imprisonment, starvation, every species of torture, may be
inflicted upon him, (the slave,) and he has no redress.

"There are now in our whole land two millions of human beings,
exposed, defenceless, to every insult, and every injury short of
maiming or death, which their fellow men may choose to inflict. _They
suffer all_ that can be inflicted by wanton caprice, by grasping
avarice, by brutal lust, by malignant spite, and by insane anger.
Their happiness is the sport of every whim, and the prey of every
passion that may, occasionally, or habitually, infest the master's
bosom. If we could calculate the amount of wo endured by ill-treated
slaves, it would overwhelm every compassionate heart--it would move
even the obdurate to sympathy. There is also a vast sum of suffering
inflicted upon the slave by humane masters, as a punishment for that
idleness and misconduct which slavery naturally produces.

"_Brutal stripes_ and all the varied kinds of personal indignities,
are not the only species of cruelty which slavery licenses."


TESTIMONY OF THE REV. N.H. HARDING, Pastor of the Presbyterian Church,
in Oxford, North Carolina, a slaveholder.

"I am greatly surprised that you should in any form have been the
apologist of a system so full of deadly poison to all holiness and
benevolence as slavery, the concocted essence of fraud, selfishness,
and cold hearted tyranny, and the fruitful parent of unnumbered evils,
both to the oppressor and the oppressed, THE ONE THOUSANDTH PART OF
WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT."

MR. ASA A. STONE, a theological student, who lived near Natchez,
(Mi.,) in 1834 and 5, sent the following with other testimony, to be
published under his own name, in the N.Y. Evangelist, while he was
still residing there.

"Floggings for all offences, including deficiencies in work, are
_frightfully common_, and _most terribly severe._

"_Rubbing with salt and red pepper is very common after a severe
whipping._"


TESTIMONY OF REV. PHINEAS SMITH, Centreville, Allegany Co., N.Y. who
lived four years at the South.

"They are badly clothed, badly fed, wretchedly lodged, unmercifully
whipped, from month to month, from year to year, from childhood to old
age."


REV. JOSEPH M. SADD, Castile, Genessee CO. N.Y. who was till recently
a preacher in Missouri, says,

"It is true that barbarous cruelties are inflicted upon them, such as
terrible lacerations with the whip, and excruciating tortures are
sometimes experienced from the thumb screw."


Extract of a letter from SARAH M. GRIMKÉ, dated 4th Month, 2nd, 1839

"If the following extracts from letters which I have received from
South Carolina, will be of any use thou art at liberty to publish
them. I need not say, that the names of the writers are withheld of
necessity, because such sentiments if uttered at the south would peril
their lives."


EXTRACTS

--South Carolina, 4th Month, 5th, 1835. "With regard to slavery I
must confess, though we had heard a great deal on the subject, we
found on coming South the _half_, the _worst_ half too, had not been
told us; not that we have ourselves seen much oppression, though truly
we have felt its deadening influence, but the accounts we have
received from every tongue that nobly dares to speak upon the subject,
are indeed _deplorable_. To quote the language of a lady, who with
true Southern hospitality, received us at her mansion. "The _northern_
people don't know anything of slavery at all, they think it is
_perpetual bondage merely_, but of the _depth of degradation_ that
that word involves, they have no conception; if they had any just idea
of it, they would I am sure use every effort until an end was put to
such a shocking system.'

"Another friend writing from South Carolina, and who sustains herself
the legal relation of slaveholder, in a letter dated April 4th, 1838,
says--'I have some time since, given you my views on the subject of
slavery, which so much engrosses your attention. I would most
willingly forget what I have seen and heard in my own family, with
regard to the slaves. _I shudder when I think of it_, and increasingly
feel that slavery is a curse since it leads to such _cruelty_.'"




PUNISHMENTS.


I. FLOGGINGS.

The slaves are terribly lacerated with whips, paddles, &c.; red pepper
and salt are rubbed into their mangled flesh; hot brine and turpentine
are poured into their gashes; and innumerable other tortures inflicted
upon them.

We will in the first place, prove by a cloud of witnesses, that the
slaves are whipped with such inhuman severity, as to lacerate and
mangle their flesh in the most shocking manner, leaving permanent
scars and ridges; after establishing this, we will present a mass of
testimony, concerning a great variety of other tortures. The
testimony, for the most part, will be that of the slaveholders
themselves, and in their own chosen words. A large portion of it will
be taken from the advertisements, which they have published in their
own newspapers, describing by the scars on their bodies made by the
whip, their own runaway slaves. To copy these advertisements _entire_
would require a great amount of space, and flood the reader with a
vast mass of matter irrelevant to the _point_ before us; we shall
therefore insert only so much of each, as will intelligibly set forth
the precise point under consideration. In the column under the word
"witnesses," will be found the name of the individual, who signs the
advertisement, or for whom it is signed, with his or her place of
residence, and the name and date of the paper, in which it appeared,
and generally the name of the place where it is published. Opposite
the name of each witness, will be an extract, from the advertisement,
containing his or her testimony.


Mr. D. Judd, jailor, Davidson Co., Tennessee, in the "Nashville
Banner," Dec. 10th, 1838.

"Committed to jail as a runaway, a negro woman named Martha, 17 or 18
years of age, has _numerous scars of the whip on her back_."


Mr. Robert Nicoll, Dauphin st. between Emmanuel and Conception st's,
Mobile, Alabama, in the "Mobile Commercial Advertiser."

"Ten dollars reward for my woman Siby, _very much scarred about the
neck and ears by whipping_."


Mr. Bryant Johnson, Fort Valley Houston Co., Georgia, in the "Standard
of Union," Milledgeville Ga. Oct. 2, 1838. "Ranaway, a negro woman,
named Maria, _some scars on her back occasioned by the whip_."


Mr. James T. De Jarnett, Vernon, Autauga Co., Alabama, in the
"Pensacola Gazette," July 14, 1838.

"Stolen a negro woman, named Celia. On examining her back you will
find marks _caused by the whip_."


Maurice Y. Garcia, Sheriff of the County of Jefferson, La., in the
"New Orleans Bee,"  August, 14, 1838.

"Lodged in jail, a mulatto boy, _having large marks of the whip,_ on
his shoulders and other parts of his body."


R.J. Bland, Sheriff of Claiborne Co, Miss., in the "Charleston (S.C.)
Courier." August, 28, 1838.

"Was committed a negro boy, named Tom, is _much marked with the
whip_."


Mr. James Noe, Red River Landing, La., in the "Sentinel," Vicksburg,
Miss., August 22, 1837.

"Ranaway, a negro fellow named Dick--has _many scars on his back from
being whipped."_


William Craze, jailor, Alexandria, La. in the "Planter's
Intelligencer." Sept. 26, 1838.

"Committed to jail, a negro slave--his back is _very badly scarred."_


John A. Rowland, jailor, Lumberton, North Carolina, in the
"Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer," June 20, 1838.

"Committed, a mulatto fellow--his back shows _lasting impressions of
the whip,_ and leaves no doubt of his being A SLAVE"


J.K. Roberts, sheriff, Blount county, Ala., in the "Huntsville
Democrat," Dec. 9, 1839.

"Committed to jail, a negro man--his back _much marked_ by the whip."


Mr. H. Varillat, No. 23 Girod street, New Orleans--in the "Commercial
Bulletin," August 27, 1838.

"Ranaway, the negro slave named Jupiter--has a _fresh mark_ of a
cowskin on one of his cheeks."


Mr. Cornelius D. Tolin, Augusta, Ga., in the "Chronicle and Sentinel,"
Oct. 18, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro man named Johnson--he has a _great many marks of the
whip_ on his back."


W.H. Brasseale, sheriff; Blount county, Ala., in the "Huntsville
Democrat," June 9, 1838.

"Committed to jail, a negro slave named James--_much scarred_ with a
whip on his back."


Mr. Robert Beasley, Macon, Ga., in the "Georgia Messenger," July 27,
1837.

"Ranaway, my man Fountain--he is marked _on the back with the whip."_


Mr. John Wotton, Rockville, Montgomery county, Maryland, in the
"Baltimore Republican," Jan. 13, 1838.

"Ranaway, Bill--has _several_ LARGE SCARS on his back from a _severe_
whipping in _early life."_


D.S. Bennett, sheriff, Natchitoches, La., in the "Herald," July 21,
1838.

"Committed to jail, a negro boy who calls himself Joe--said negro
bears _marks of the whip."_


Messrs. C.C. Whitehead, and R.A. Evans, Marion, Georgia, in the
Milledgeville (Ga.) "Standard of Union," June 26, 1838.

"Ranaway, negro fellow John--from being whipped, has _scars on his
back, arms, and thighs."_


Mr. Samuel Stewart, Greensboro', Ala., in the "Southern Advocate,"
Huntsville, Jan. 6, 1838.

"Ranaway, a boy named Jim--with the marks of the _whip_ on the small
of the back, reaching round to the flank."


Mr. John Walker, No. 6, Banks' Arcade New Orleans, in the "Bulletin,"
August 11, 1838.

"Ranaway, the mulatto boy Quash--_considerably marked_ on the back and
other places with the lash."


Mr. Jesse Beene, Cahawba, Ala., in the "State Intelligencer,"
Tuskaloosa, Dec. 25, 1837.

"Ranaway, my negro man Billy--he has the _marks of the_ whip."


Mr. John Turner, Thomaston, Upson county, Georgia--in the "Standard of
Union," Milledgeville, June 26, 1838.

"Left, my negro man named George--has _marks of the whip very plain on
his thighs."_


James Derrah, deputy sheriff; Claiborne county, Mi., in the "Port
Gibson Correspondent," April 15, 1837.

"Committed to jail, negro man Toy--he has been _badly whipped."_


S.B. Murphy, sheriff, Wilkinson county, Georgia--in the Milledgeville
"Journal," May 15, 1838.

"Brought to jail, a negro man named George--he has a _great many scars
from the lash."_


Mr. L.E. Cooner, Branchville Orangeburgh District, South Carolina--in
the Macon "Messenger," May 25, 1837.

"One hundred dollars reward, for my negro Glasgow, and Kate, his wife.
Glasgow is 24 years old--has _marks of the whip_ on his back. Kate is
26--has a _scar_ on her cheek, _and several marks of a whip."_


John H. Hand, jailor, parish of West Feliciana, La., in the St.
"Francisville Journal," July 6, 1837

"Committed to jail, a negro boy named John, about 17 years old--his
back _badly marked_ with the _whip_, his upper lip and chin _severely
bruised."_


The preceding are extracts from advertisements published in southern
papers, mostly in the year 1838. They are the mere _samples_ of
hundreds of similar ones published during the same period, with which,
as the preceding are quite sufficient to show the _commonness_ of
inhuman floggings in the slave states, we need not burden the reader.

The foregoing testimony is, as the reader perceives, that of the
slaveholders themselves, voluntarily certifying to the outrages which
their own hands have committed upon defenceless and innocent men and
women, over whom they have assumed authority. We have given to _their_
testimony precedence over that of all other witnesses, for the reason
that when men testify against _themselves_ they are under no
temptation to exaggerate.

We will now present the testimony of a large number of individuals,
with their names and residences,--persons who witnessed the
inflictions to which they testify. Many of them have been
slaveholders, and _all_ residents for longer or shorter periods in
slave states.


Rev. JOHN H. CURTISS, a native of Deep Creek, Norfolk county,
Virginia, now a local preacher of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
Portage co., Ohio, testifies as follows:--

"In 1829 or 30, one of my father's slaves was accused of taking the
key to the office and stealing four or five dollars: he denied it. A
constable by the name of Hull was called; he took the Negro, very
deliberately tied his hands, and whipped him till the blood ran freely
down his legs. By this time Hull appeared tired, and stopped; he then
took a rope, put a slip noose around his neck, and told the negro he
was going to _kill_ him, at the same time drew the rope and began
whipping: the Negro fell; his cheeks looked as though they would burst
with strangulation. Hull whipped and kicked him, till I really thought
he was going to kill him; when he ceased, the negro was in a complete
gore of blood from head to foot."


Mr. DAVID HAWLEY, a class-leader in the Methodist Church, at St.
Alban's, Licking county, Ohio, who moved from Kentucky to Ohio in
1831, testifies as follows:--

"In the year 1821 or 2, I saw a slave hung for killing his master. The
master had whipped the slave's mother to DEATH, and, locking him in a
room, threatened him with the same fate; and, cowhide in hand, had
begun the work, when the slave joined battle and slew the master."


SAMUEL ELLISON, a member of the Society of Friends, formerly of
Southampton county, Virginia, now of Marlborough, Stark county, Ohio,
gives the following testimony:--

"While a resident of Southampton county, Virginia, I knew two men,
after having been severely treated, endeavor to make their escape. In
this they failed--were taken, tied to trees, and whipped to _death_ by
their overseer. I lived a mile from the negro quarters, and, at that
distance, could frequently hear the screams of the poor creatures when
beaten, and could also hear the blows given by the overseer with some
heavy instrument."


Major HORACE NYE, of Putnam, Ohio, gives the following testimony of
Mr. Wm. Armstrong, of that place, a captain and supercargo of boats
descending the Mississippi river:--

"At Bayou Sarah, I saw a slave _staked out,_ with his face to the
ground, and whipped with a large whip, which laid open the flesh for
about two and a half inches _every stroke._ I stayed about five
minutes, but could stand it no longer, and left them whipping."


Mr. STEPHEN E. MALTBY, inspector of provisions, Skeneateles, New York,
who has resided in Alabama, speaking of the condition of the slaves,
says:--

"I have seen them cruelly whipped. I will relate one instance. One
Sabbath morning, before I got out of my bed, I heard an outcry, and
got up and went to the window, when I saw some six or eight boys, from
eight to twelve years of age, near a rack (made for tying horses) on
the public square. A man on horseback rode up, got off his horse, took
a cord from his pocket, _tied one of the boys_ by the _thumbs_ to the
rack, and with his horsewhip lashed him most severely. He then untied
him and rode off without saying a word.

"It was a general practice, while I was at Huntsville, Alabama, to
have a patrol every night; and, to my knowledge, this patrol was in
the habit of traversing the streets with cow-skins, and, if they found
any slaves out after eight o'clock without a pass, to whip them until
they were out of reach, or to confine them until morning."


Mr. J.G. BALDWIN, of Middletown, Connecticut, a member of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, gives the following testimony:--

"I traveled at the south in 1827: when near Charlotte, N.C. a free
colored man fell into the road just ahead of me, and went on
peaceably.--When passing a public-house, the landlord ran out with a
large cudgel, and applied it to the head and shoulders of the man with
such force as to shatter it in pieces. When the reason of his conduct
was asked, he replied, that he owned slaves, and he would not permit
free blacks to come into his neighborhood.

"Not long after, I stopped at a public-house near Halifax, N.C.,
between nine and ten o'clock P.M., to stay over night. A slave sat
upon a bench in the bar-room asleep. The master came in, seized a
large horsewhip, and, without any warning or apparent provocation,
laid it over the face and eyes of the slave. The master cursed, swore,
and swung his lash--the slave cowered and trembled, but said not a
word. Upon inquiry the next morning, I ascertained that the only
offence was falling asleep, and this too in consequence of having been
up nearly all the previous night, in attendance upon company."


Rev. JOSEPH M. SADD, of Castile, N.Y., who has lately left Missouri,
where he was pastor of a church for some years, says:--

"In one case, near where we lived, a runaway slave, when brought back,
was most cruelly beaten--bathed in the _usual_ liquid--laid in the
sun, and a physician employed to heal his wounds:--then the same
process of punishment and healing was _repeated_, _and repeated
again_, and then the poor creature was sold for the New Orleans
market. This account we had from the _physician himself_."


MR. ABRAHAM BELL, of Poughkeepsie, New York, a member of the Scotch
Presbyterian Church, was employed, in 1837 and 38, in levelling and
grading for a rail-road in the state of Georgia: he had under his
direction, during the whole time, thirty slaves. Mr. B. gives the
following testimony:--

"_All_ the slaves had their backs scarred, from the oft-repeated
whippings they had received."


Mr. ALONZO BARNARD, of Farmington, Ohio, who was in Mississippi in
1837 and 8, says:--

"The slaves were often severely whipped. I saw one _woman_ very
severely whipped for accidentally cutting up a stalk of cotton.[8]
When they were whipped they were commonly _held down by four men_: if
these could not confine them, they were fastened by stakes driven
firmly into the ground, and then lashed often so as to draw blood at
each blow. I saw one woman who had lately been delivered of a child in
consequence of cruel treatment."

[Footnote 8: Mr. Cornelius Johnson, of Farmington, Ohio, was also a
witness to this inhuman outrage upon an unprotected woman, for the
unintentional destruction of a stalk of cotton! In his testimony he is
more particular, and says, that the number of lashes inflicted upon
her by the overseer was "ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY."]



Rev. H. LYMAN, late pastor of the Free Presbyterian Church at Buffalo,
N.Y. says:--

"There was a steam cotton press, in the vicinity of my boarding-house
at New Orleans, which was driven night and day, without intermission.
My curiosity led me to look at the interior of the establishment.
There I saw several slaves engaged in rolling cotton bags, fastening
ropes lading carts, &c.

"The presiding genius of the place was a driver, who held a rope four
feet long in his hand, which he wielded with cruel dexterity. He used
it in single blows, just as the men were lifting to _tighten_ the bale
cords. It seemed to me that he was desirous to edify me with a
specimen of his authority; at any rate the cruelty was horrible."


Mr. JOHN VANCE, a member of the Baptist Church, in St. Albans, Licking
county, Ohio, who moved from Culpepper county, Va., his native state
in 1814, testifies as follows:--

"In 1826, I saw a woman by the name of Mallix, flog her female slave
with a horse-whip so horribly that she was washed in salt and water
several days, to keep her bruises from mortifying.

"In 1811, I was returning from mill, in Shenandoah county, when I
heard the cry of murder, in the field of a man named Painter. I rode
to the place to see what was going on. Two men, by the names of John
Morgan and Michael Siglar, had heard the cry and came running to the
place. I saw Painter beating a negro with a tremendous club, or small
handspike, swearing he would kill him: but he was rescued by Morgan
and Siglar. I learned that Painter had commenced flogging the slave
for not getting to work soon enough. He had escaped, and taken refuge
under a pile of rails that were on some timbers up a little from the
ground. The master had put fire to one end, and stood at the other
with his club, to kill him as he came out. The pile was still burning.
Painter said he was a turbulent fellow and he _would_ kill him. The
apprehension of P. was TALKED ABOUT, but, as a compromise, the negro
was sold to another man."


EXTRACT FROM THE PUBLISHED JOURNAL OF THE LATE WM. SAVER, of
Philadelphia, an eminent minister of the Religious Society of
Friends:--

"6th mo. 22d, 1791. We passed on to Augusta, Georgia. They can
scarcely tolerate us, on account of our abhorrence of slavery. On the
28th we got to Savannah, and lodged at one Blount's, a hard-hearted
slaveholder. One of his lads, aged about fourteen, was ordered to go
and milk the cow: and falling asleep, through weariness, the master
called out and ordered him a flogging. I asked him what he meant by a
flogging. He replied, the way we serve them here is, we cut their
backs until they are raw all over, and then salt them. Upon this my
feelings were roused; I told him that was too bad, and queried *if it
were possible; he replied it was, with many curses upon the blacks. At
supper this unfeeling wretch _craved a blessing_!

"Next morning I heard some one begging for mercy, and also the lash as
of a whip. Not knowing whence the sound came, I rose, and presently
found the poor boy tied up to a post, his toes scarcely touching the
ground, and a negro whipper. He had already cut him in an unmerciful
manner, and the blood ran to his heels. I stepped in between them, and
ordered him untied immediately, which, with some reluctance and
astonishment, was done. Returning to the house I saw the landlord, who
then showed himself in his true colors, the most abominably wicked man
I ever met with, full of horrid execrations and threatenings upon all
northern people; but I did not spare him; which occasioned a bystander
to say, with an oath, that I should be "popped over." We left them,
and were in full expectation of their way-laying or coming after us,
but the Lord restrained them. The next house we stopped at we found
the same wicked spirit."


Col. ELIJAH ELLSWORTH, of Richfield, Ohio, gives the following
testimony:--

"Eight or ten years ago I was in Putnam county, in the state of
Georgia, at a Mr. Slaughter's, the father of my brother's wife. A
negro, that belonged to Mr. Walker, (I believe,) was accused of
stealing a pedlar's trunk. The negro denied, but, without ceremony,
was lashed to a tree--the whipping commenced--six or eight men took
turns--the poor fellow begged for mercy, but without effect, until he
was literally _cut to pieces, from his shoulders to his hips_, and
covered with a gore of blood. When he said the trunk was in a stack of
fodder, he was unlashed. They proceeded to the stack, but found no
trunk. They asked the poor fellow, what he lied about it for; he said,
"Lord, Massa, to keep from being whipped to death; I know nothing
about the trunk." They commenced the whipping with redoubled vigor,
until I really supposed he would be whipped to death on the spot; and
such shrieks and crying for mercy! Again he acknowledged, and again
they were defeated in finding, and the same reason given as before.
Some were for whipping again, others thought he would not survive
another, and they ceased. About two months after, the trunk was found,
and it was then ascertained who the thief was: and the poor fellow,
after being nearly beat to death, and twice made to lie about it, was
as innocent as I was."


The following statements are furnished by Major HORACE NYE, of Putnam,
Muskingum county, Ohio.

"In the summer of 1837, Mr. JOHN H. MOOREHEAD, a partner of mine,
descended the Mississippi with several boat loads of flour. He told me
that floating in a place in the Mississippi, where he could see for
miles a head, he perceived a concourse of people on the bank, that for
at least a mile and a half above he saw them, and heard the screams of
some person, and from a great distance, the crack of a whip, he run
near the shore, and saw them whipping a black man, who was on the
ground, and at that time nearly unable to scream, but the whip
continued to be applied without intermission, as long as he was in
sight, say from one mile and a half, to two miles below--he probably
saw and heard them for one hour in all. He expressed the opinion that
the man could not survive.

"About four weeks since I had a conversation with Mr. Porter, a
respectable citizen of Morgan county of this state, of about fifty
years of age. He told me that he formerly traveled about five years in
the southern states, and that on one occasion he stopped at a private
house, to stay all night; (I think it was in Virginia,) while he was
conversing with the man, his wife came in, and complained that the
wench had broken some article in the kitchen, and that she must be
whipped. He took the _woman_ into the door yard, stripped her clothes
down to her hips--tied her hands together, and drawing them up to a
limb, so that she could just touch the ground, took a very large
cowskin whip, and commenced flogging; he said that every stroke at
first raised the skin, and immediately the blood came through; this he
continued, until the blood stood in a puddle down at her feet. He then
turned to my informant and said, 'Well, Yankee, what do you think of
that?'"


EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM MR. W. DUSTIN, a member of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, and, when the letter was written, 1835, a student of
Marietta College, Ohio.

"I find by looking over my journal that the murdering, which I spoke
of yesterday, took place about the first of June, 1834.

"Without commenting upon this act of cruelty, or giving vent to my own
feelings, I will simply give you a statement of the fact, as known
from _personal_ observation.

"Dr. K. a man of wealth, and a practising physician in the county of
Yazoo, state of Mississippi, personally known to me, having lived in
the same neighborhood more than twelve months, after having scourged
one of his negroes for running away, declared with an oath, that if he
ran away again, he would kill him. The negro, so soon as an
opportunity offered, ran away again. He was caught and brought back.
Again he was scourged, until his flesh, mangled and torn, and thick
mingled with the clotted blood, rolled from his back. He became
apparently insensible, and beneath the heaviest stroke would scarcely
utter a groan. The master got tired, laid down his whip and nailed the
negro's ear to a tree; in this condition, nailed fast to the rugged
wood, he remained all night!

"Suffice it to say, in the conclusion, that the next day he was found
DEAD!

"Well, what did they do with the master? The sum total of it is this:
he was taken before a magistrate and gave bonds, for his appearance at
the next court. Well, to be sure he had plenty of cash, so he paid up
his bonds and moved away, and there the matter ended.

"If the above fact will be of any service to you in exhibiting to the
world the condition of the unfortunate negroes, you are at liberty to
make use of it in any way you think best.

Yours, fraternally, M. DUSTIN."


Mr. ALFRED WILKINSON, a member of the Baptist Church in Skeneateles,
N.Y. and the assessor of that town, has furnished the following:

"I went down the Mississippi in December, 1838 and saw twelve of
fourteen negroes punished on one plantation, by stretching them on a
ladder and tying them to it; then stripping off their clothes, and
whipping them on the naked flesh with a heavy whip, the lash seven or
eight feet long: most of the strokes cut the skin. I understood they
were whipped for not doing the tasks allotted to them."


FROM THE PHILANTHROPIST, Cincinnati, Ohio, Feb. 26, 1839.

"A very intelligent lady the widow of a highly respectable preacher of
the gospel of the Presbyterian Church, formerly a resident of a free
state, and a colonizationist, and a strong antiabolitionist, who,
although an enemy to slavery, was opposed to abolition on the ground
that it was for carrying things too rapidly, and without regard to
circumstances, and especially who believed that abolitionists
exaggerated with regard to the evils of slavery, and used to say that
such men ought to go to slave states and see for themselves, to be
convinced that they did the slaveholders injustice, has gone and seen
for herself. Hear her testimony."

_Kentucky, Dec._ 25, 1835.

"Dear Mrs. W.--I am still in the land of oppression and cruelty, but
hope soon to breathe the air of a free state. My soul is sick of
slavery, and I rejoice that my time is nearly expired: but the scenes
that I have witnessed have made an impression that never can be
effaced, and have inspired me with the determination to unite my
feeble efforts with those who are laboring to suppress this horrid
system. I am _now_ an _abolitionist_. You will cease to be surprised
at this, when I inform you, that I have just seen a poor slave who was
beaten by his inhuman master until he could neither walk nor stand. I
saw him from my window carried from the barn where he had been
whipped to the cabin, by two negro men; and he now lies there, and if
he recovers, will be a sufferer for months, and probably for life. You
will doubtless suppose that he committed some great crime; but it was
not so. He was called upon by a young man (the son of his master,) to
do something, and not moving as quickly as his young master wished him
to do, he drove him to the barn, knocked him down, and jumped upon
him, stamped, and then cowhided him until he was almost dead. This is
not the first act of cruelty that I have seen, though it is the
_worst_; and I am convinced that those who have described the
cruelties of slaveholders, have not exaggerated."


EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM GERRIT SMITH, Esq., of Peterboro'. N.Y.
Peterboro', December 1, 1838.

_To the Editor of the Union Herald_: "My dear Sir:--You will be happy
to hear, that the two fugitive slaves, to whom in the brotherly love
of your heart, you gave the use of your horse, are still making
undisturbed progress towards the _monarchical_ land whither
_republican_ slaves escape for the enjoyment of liberty. They had
eaten their breakfast, and were seated in my wagon, before day-dawn,
this morning.

"Fugitive slaves have before taken my house in their way, but never
any, whose lips and persons made so forcible an appeal to my
sensibilities, and kindled in me so much abhorrence of the
hell-concocted system of American slavery.

"The fugitives exhibited their bare backs to myself and a number of my
neighbors. Williams' back is comparatively scarred. But, I speak
within bounds, when I say, that one-third to one-half of the whole
surface of the back and shoulders of poor Scott, _consists of scars
and wales resulting from innumerable gashes._ His natural complexion
being yellow and the callous places being nearly black, his back and
shoulders remind you of a spotted animal."

The LOUISVILLE REPORTER (Kentucky,) Jan. 15, 1839, contains the report
of a trial for inhuman treatment of a female slave. The following is
some of the testimony given in court.

"Dr. CONSTANT testified that he saw Mrs. Maxwell at the kitchen door,
whipping the negro severely, without being particular whether she
struck her in the face or not. The negro was lacerated by the whip,
and the blood flowing. Soon after, on going down the steps, he saw
quantities of blood on them, and on returning, saw them again. She had
been thinly clad--barefooted in very cold weather. Sometimes she had
shoes--sometimes not. In the beginning of the winter she had linsey
dresses, since then, calico ones. During the last four months, had
noticed many scars on her person. At one time had one of her eyes tied
up for a week. During the last three months seemed declining, and had
become stupified. Mr. Winters was passing along the street, heard
cries, looked up through the window that was hoisted, saw the boy
whipping her, as much as forty or fifty licks, while he staid. The
girl was stripped down to the hips. The whip seemed to be a cow-hide.
Whenever she turned her face to him, he would hit her across the face
either with the butt end or small end of the whip to make her turn her
back round square to the lash, that he might get a fair blow at her.

"Mr. Say had noticed several wounds on her person, chiefly bruises.

"Captain Porter, keeper of the work-house, into which Milly had been
received, thought the injuries on her person very bad--some of them
appeared to be burns--some bruises or stripes, as of a cow-hide."


LETTER OF REV. JOHN RANKIN, of Ripley, Ohio, to the Editor of the
Philanthropist.

RIPLEY, Feb. 20, 1839.

"Some time since, a member of the Presbyterian Church of Ebenezer,
Brown county, Ohio, landed his boat at a point on the Mississippi. He
saw some disturbance among the colored people on the bank. He stepped
up, to see what was the matter. A black man was stretched naked on
the ground; his hands were tied to a stake, and one held each foot. He
was doomed to receive fifty lashes; but by the time the overseer had
given him twenty-five with his great whip, the blood was standing
round the wretched victim in little puddles. It appeared just as if it
had rained blood.--Another observer stepped up, and advised to defer
the other twenty-five to another time, lest the slave might die; and
he was released, to receive the balance when he should have so
recruited as to be able to bear it and live. The offence was, coming
one hour too late to work."


Mr. RANKIN, who is a native of Tennessee, in his letters on slavery,
published fifteen years since, says:

"A respectable gentleman, who is now a citizen of Flemingsburg,
Fleming county, Kentucky, when in the state of South Carolina, was
invited by a slaveholder, to walk with him and take a view of his
farm. He complied with the invitation thus given, and in their walk
they came to the place where the slaves were at work, and found the
overseer whipping one of them very severely for not keeping pace with
his fellows--in vain the poor fellow alleged that he was sick, and
could not work. The master seemed to think all was well enough, hence
he and the gentleman passed on. In the space of an hour they returned
by the same way, and found that the poor slave, who had been whipped
as they first passed by the field of labor, was actually dead! This I
have from unquestionable authority."

Extract of a letter from a MEMBER OF CONGRESS, to the Editor of the
New York American, dated Washington, Feb. 18, 1839. The name of the
writer is with the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery
Society.

"Three days ago, the inhabitants in the vicinity of the new Patent
Building were alarmed by an outcry in the street, which proved to be
that of a slave who had just been knocked down with a brick-bat by his
pursuing master. Prostrate on the ground, with a large gash in his
head, the poor slave was receiving the blows of his master on one
side, and the kicks of his master's son on the other. His cries
brought a few individuals to the spot; but no one dared to interfere,
save to exclaim--You will kill him--which was met by the response, "He
is mine, and I have a right to do what I please with him." The
heart-rending scene was closed from _public_ view by dragging the poor
bruised and wounded slave from the public street into his master's
stable. What followed is not known. The outcries were heard by members
of Congress and others at the distance of near a quarter of a mile
from the scene.

"And now, perhaps, you will ask, is not the city aroused by this
flagrant cruelty and breach of the peace? I answer--not at all. Every
thing is quiet. If the occurrence is mentioned at all, it is spoken of
in whispers."

_From the Mobile Examiner, August_ 1, 1837.

"POLICE REPORT--MAYOR'S OFFICE.
_Saturday morning, August_ 12, 1837.

"His Honor the Mayor presiding.

"Mr. MILLER, of the foundry, brought to the office this morning a
small negro girl aged about eight or ten years, whom he had taken into
his house some time during the previous night. She had crawled under
the window of his bed room to screen herself from the night air, and
to find a warmer shelter than the open canopy of heaven afforded. Of
all objects of pity that have lately come to our view, this poor
little girl most needs the protection of authority, and the sympathies
of the charitable. From the cruelty of her master and mistress, she
has been whipped, worked and starved, until she is now a breathing
skeleton, hardly able to stand upon her feet.

"The back of the poor little sufferer, (which we ourselves saw,) _was
actually cut into strings, and so perfectly was the flesh worn from
her limbs,_ by the wretched treatment she had received, that _every
joint showed distinctly its crevices_ and protuberances through the
skin. Her little lips clung closely over her teeth--her cheeks were
sunken and her head narrowed, and when her eyes were closed, the lids
resembled film more than flesh or skin.

"We would desire of our northern friends such as choose to publish to
the world their own version of the case we have related, not to forget
to add, in conclusion, that the owner of this little girl is a
foreigner, speaks against slavery as an institution, and reads his
Bible to his wife, with the view of finding proofs for his opinions."


Rev. WILLIAM SCALES, of Lyndon, Vermont, gives the following testimony
in a recent letter:

"I had a class-mate at the Andover Theological Seminary, who spent a
season at the south,--in Georgia, I think--who related the following
fact in an address before the Seminary. It occasioned very deep
sensation on the part of opponents. The gentleman was Mr. Julius C.
Anthony, of Taunton, Mass. He graduated at the Seminary in 1835. I do
not know where he is now settled. I have no doubt of the fact, as be
was an _eye-witness_ of it. The man with whom he resided had a very
athletic slave--a valuable fellow--a blacksmith. On a certain day a
small strap of leather was missing. The man's little son accused this
slave of stealing it. He denied the charge, while the boy most
confidently asserted it. The slave was brought out into the yard and
bound--his hands below his knees, and a stick crossing his knees, so
that he would lie upon either side in form of the letter S. One of the
overseers laid on fifty lashes--he still denied the theft--was turned
over and fifty more put on. Sometimes the master and sometimes the
overseers whipping--as they relieved each other to take breath. Then
he was for a time left to himself, and in the course of the day
received FOUR HUNDRED LASHES--still denying the charge, Next morning
Mr. Anthony walked out--the sun was just rising--he saw the man
greatly enfeabled, leaning against a stump. It was time to go to
work--he attempted to rise, but fell back--again attempted, and again
fell back--still making the attempt, and still falling back, Mr.
Anthony thought, nearly _twenty times_ before he succeeded in
standing--he then staggered off to his shop. In course of the morning
Mr. A. went to the door and looked in. Two overseers were standing by.
The slave was feverish and sick--his skin and mouth dry and parched.
He was very thirsty. One of the overseers, while Mr. A, was looking at
him, inquired of the other whether it were not best to give him a
little water. 'No. damn him, he will do well enough,' was the reply
from the other overseer. This was all the relief gained by the poor
slave. A few days after, the slaveholder's _son confessed that he
stole the strap himself._"


Rev. D.C. EASTMAN, a minister of the Methodist Episcopal church at
Bloomingburg, Fayette county, Ohio, has just forwarded a letter, from
which the following is an extract:


"GEORGE ROEBUCK, an old and respectable farmer, near Bloomingburg,
Fayette county, Ohio, a member of the Methodist Episcopal church,
says, that almost forty-three years ago, he saw in Bath county,
Virginia, a slave girl with a sore between the shoulders of the size
and shape of a _smoothing iron._ The girl was 'owned' by one M'Neil. A
slaveholder who boarded at M'Neil's stated that Mrs. M'Neil had placed
the aforesaid iron when hot, between the girl's shoulders, and
produced the sore.

"Roebuck was once at this M'Neil's father's, and whilst the old man
was at morning prayer, he heard the son plying the whip upon a slave
out of doors.


"ELI WEST, of Concord township, Fayette county, Ohio, formerly of
North Carolina, a farmer and an exhorter in the Methodist Protestant
church, says, that many years since he went to live with an uncle who
owned about fifty negroes. Soon after his arrival, his uncle ordered
his waiting boy, who was _naked_, to be tied--his hands to horse rack,
and his feet together, with a rail passed between his legs, and held
down by a person at each end. In this position he was whipped, from
neck to feet, till covered with blood; after which he was _salted._

"His uncle's slaves received one quart of corn each day, and that
only, and were allowed one hour each day to cook and eat it. They had
no meat but once in the year. Such was the general usage in that
country.

"West, after this, lived one year with Esquire Starky and mother. They
had two hundred slaves, who received the usual treatment of
starvation, nakedness, and the cowhide. They had one lively negro
woman who bore no children. For this neglect, her mistress had her
back made naked and a severe whipping inflicted. But as she continued
barren, she was sold to the 'negro buyers.'"


"THOMAS LARRIMER, a deacon in the Presbyterian church at Bloomingburg,
Fayette county, Ohio, and a respectable farmer, says, that in April,
1837, as he was going down the Mississippi river, about fifty miles
below Natchez, he saw ahead, on the left side of the river, a colored
person tied to a post, and a man with a driver's whip, the lash about
eight or ten feet long. With this the man commenced, with much
deliberation, to whip, with much apparent force, and continued till he
got out of sight.

"When coming up the river forty or fifty miles below Vicksburg, a
Judge Owens came on board the steamboat. He was owner of a cotton
plantation below there, and on being told of the above whipping, he
said that slaves were often whipped to death for great offences, such
as _stealing,_ &c.--but that when death followed, the overseers were
generally severely _reproved!_

"About the same time, he spent a night at Mr. Casey's, three miles
from Columbia, South Carolina. Whilst there they heard him giving
orders as to what was to be done, and amongst other things, "That
nigger must be buried." On inquiry, he learnt that a gentleman
traveling with a servant, had a short time previous called there, and
said his servant had just been taken ill, and he should be under the
necessity of leaving him. He did so. The slave became worst, and
Casey called in a physician, who pronounced it an old case, and said
that he must shortly die. The slave said, if that was the case he
would now tell the truth. He had been attacked, a long time since,
with a difficulty in the side--his master swore he would 'have his own
out of him' and started off to sell him, with a threat to kill him if
he told he had been sick, more than a few days. They saw them making
a rough plank box to bury him in.

"In March, 1833, twenty-five or thirty miles south of Columbia, on the
great road through Sumpterville district, they saw a large company of
female slaves carrying rails and building fence. Three of them were
far advanced in pregnancy.

"In the month of January, 1838, he put up with a drove of mules and
horses, at one Adams', on the Drovers' road, near the south border of
Kentucky. His son-in-law, who had lived in the south, was there. In
conversation about picking cotton, he said, 'some hands cannot get the
sleight of it. I have a girl who to-day has done as good a day's work
at grubbing as any _man_, but I could not make her a hand at
cotton-picking. I whipped her, and if I did it once I did it five
hundred times, but I found she _could_ not; so I put her to carrying
rails with the men. After a few days I found her shoulders were so
_raw_ that every rail was _bloody_ as she laid it down. I asked her if
she would not rather pick cotton than carry rails. 'No,' said she, 'I
don't get whipped now.'"


WILLIAM A. USTICK, an elder of the Presbyterian church at
Bloomingburg, and Mr. G.S. Fullerton, a merchant and member of the
same church, were with Deacon Larrimer on this journey, and are
witnesses to the preceding facts.


Mr. SAMUEL HALL, a teacher in Marietta College, Ohio, and formerly
secretary of the Colonization society in that village, has recently
communicated the facts that follow. We quote from his letter.


"The following horrid flagellation was witnessed in part, till his
soul was sick, by MR. GLIDDEN, an inhabitant of Marietta, Ohio, who
went down the Mississippi river, with a boat load of produce in the
autumn of 1837; it took place at what is called 'Matthews' or
'Matheses Bend' in December, 1837. Mr. G. is worthy of credit.

"A negro was tied up, and flogged until the blood ran down and filled
his shoes, so that when he raised either foot and set it down again,
the blood would run over their tops. I could not look on any longer,
but turned away in horror; the whipping was continued to the number of
500 lashes, as I understood; a quart of spirits of turpentine was then
applied to his lacerated body. The same negro came down to my boat, to
get some apples, and was so weak from his wounds and loss of blood,
that he could not get up the bank, but fell to the ground. The crime
for which the negro was whipped, was that of telling the other
negroes, that _the overseer had lain with his wife."_

Mr. Hall adds:--

"The following statement is made by a young man from Western Virginia.
He is a member of the Presbyterian Church, and a student in Marietta
College. All that prevents the introduction of his _name,_ is the
peril to his life, which would probably be the consequence, on his
return to Virginia. His character for integrity and veracity is above
suspicion.

"On the night of the great meteoric shower, in Nov. 1833. I was at
Remley's tavern, 12 miles west of Lewisburg, Greenbrier Co., Virginia.
A drove of 50 or 60 negroes stopped at the same place that night.
They usually 'camp out,' but as it was excessively muddy, they were
permitted to come into the house. So far as my knowledge extends,
'droves,' on their way to the south, eat but twice a day, early in the
morning and at night. Their supper was a compound of 'potatoes and
meal,' and was, without exception, the _dirtiest, blackest looking
mess I ever saw._ I remarked at the time that the food was not as
clean, in appearance, as that which was given to a _drove of hogs_, at
the same place the night previous. Such as it was, however, a black
woman brought it on her head, in a tray or trough two and a half feet
long, where the men and women were promiscuously herded. The slaves
rushed up and seized it from the trough in handfulls, before the woman
could take it off her head. They jumped at it as if half-famished.

"They slept on the floor of the room which they were permitted to
occupy, lying in every form imaginable, males and females,
promiscuously. They were so thick on the floor, that in passing
through the room it was necessary to step over them.

"There were three drivers, one of whom staid in the room to watch the
drove, and the other two slept in an adjoining room. Each of the
latter took a female from the drove to lodge with him, as is the
common practice of the drivers generally. There is no doubt about this
particular instance, _for they were seen together_. The mud was so
thick on the floor where this drove slept, that it was necessary to
take a shovel, the next morning, and clear it out. Six or eight in
this drove were chained; all were for the south.

In the autumn of the same year I saw a drove of upwards of a hundred,
between 40 and 50 of them were fastened to one chain, the links being
made of iron rods, as thick in diameter as a man's little finger. This
drove was bound westward to the Ohio river, to be shipped to the
south. I have seen many droves, and more or less in each, almost
without exception, were chained. I never saw but one drove, that went
on their way making merry. In that one they were blowing horns,
singing, &c., and appeared as if they had been drinking whisky.

"They generally appear extremely dejected. I have seen in the course
of five years, on the road near where I reside, 12 or 15 droves at
least, passing to the south. They would average 40 in each drove. Near
the first of January, 1834, I started about sunrise to go to
Lewisburg. It was a bitter cold morning. I met a drove of negroes, 30
or 40 in number, remarkably ragged and destitute of clothing. One
little boy particularly excited my sympathy. He was some distance
behind the others, not being able to keep up with the rest. Although
he was shivering with cold and crying, the driver was pushing him up
in a trot to overtake the main gang. All of them looked as if they
were half-frozen. There was one remarkable instance of tyranny,
exhibited by a boy, not more than eight years old, that came under my
observation, in a family by the name of D----n, six miles from
Lewisburg. This youngster would swear at the slaves, and exert all the
strength he possessed, to flog or beat them, with whatever instrument
or weapon he could lay hands on, provided they did not obey him
_instanter_. He was encouraged in this by his father, the master of
the slaves. The slaves often fled from this young tyrant in terror."

Mr. Hall adds:--

"The following extract is from a letter, to a student in Marietta
College, by his friend in Alabama. With the writer, Mr. Isaac Knapp, I
am perfectly acquainted. He was a student in the above College, for
the space of one year, before going to Alabama, was formerly a
resident of Dummerston, Vt. He is a professor of religion, and as
worthy of belief as any member of the community. Mr. K. has returned
from the South, and is now a member of the same college.

"In Jan. (1838) a negro of a widow Phillips, ranaway, was taken up,
and confined in Pulaski jail. One Gibbs, overseer for Mrs. P., mounted
on horseback, took him from confinement, compelled him to run back to
Elkton, a distance of fifteen miles, whipping him all the way. When he
reached home, the negro exhausted and worn out, exclaimed, 'you have
broke my heart,' i.e. you have killed me. For this, Gibbs flew into a
violent passion, tied the negro to a stake, and, in the language of a
witness, '_cut his back to mince-meat_.' But the fiend was not
satisfied with this. He burnt his legs to a blister, with hot embers,
and then chained him _naked_, in the open air, weary with running,
weak from the loss of blood, and smarting from his burns. It was a
cold night--and _in the morning the negro was dead_. Yet this monster
escaped without even _the shadow_ of a trial. 'The negro,' said the
doctor, 'died, by--he knew not what; any how, Gibbs did not kill
him.'[9]  A short time since, (the letter is dated, April, 1838.)
'Gibbs whipped another negro unmercifully because the horse, with
which he was ploughing, broke the reins and ran. He then raised his
whip against Mr. Bowers, (son of Mrs. P.) who shot him. Since I came
here,' (a period of about six months,) there have been eight white men
and two negroes killed, within 30 miles of me."

[Footnote 9: Mr. Knapp, gives me some further verbal particulars about
this affair. He says that his informant saw the negro dead the next
morning, that his legs were blistered, and that the negroes affirmed
that Gibbs compelled them to throw embers upon him. But Gibbs denied
it, and said the blistering was the effect of frost, as the negro was
much exposed to before being taken up. Mr. Bowers, a son of Mrs.
Phillips by a former husband, attempted to have Gibbs brought to
justice, but his mother justified Gibbs, and nothing was therefore
done about it. The affair took place in Upper Elkton, Tennessee, near
the Alabama line.]

The following is from Mr. Knapp's own lips, taken down a day or two
since.

"Mr. Buster, with whom I boarded, in Limestone Co., Ala., related to me
the following incident: 'George a slave belonging to one of the
estates in my neighborhood, was lurking about my residence without a
pass. We were making preparations to give him a flogging, but he
escaped from us. Not long afterwards, meeting a patrol which had just
taken a negro in custody without a pass, I inquired, Who have you
there? on learning that it was _George_, well, I rejoined, there is a
small matter between him and myself that needs adjustment, so give me
the raw hide, which I accordingly took, and laid 60 strokes on his
back, to the utmost of my strength.' I was speaking of this barbarity,
afterwards, to Mr. Bradley, an overseer of the Rev. Mr. Donnell, who
lives in the vicinity of Moresville, Ala., 'Oh,' replied he, 'we
consider _that_ a very light whipping here' Mr. Bradley is a professor
of religion, and is esteemed in that vicinity a very pious, exemplary
Christian.'"


EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM REV. C. STEWART RENSHAW, of Quincy, Illinois,
dated Jan. 1, 1839.

"I do not feel at liberty to disclose the name of the brother who has
furnished the following facts. He is highly esteemed as a man of
scrupulous veracity. I will confirm my own testimony by the
certificate of Judge Snow and Mr. Keyes, two of the oldest and most
respectable settlers in Quincy.

Quincy, Dec. 29, 1838"

"Dear Sir,--We have been long acquainted with the Christian brother
who has named to you some facts that fell under his observation while
a resident of slave states. He is a member of a Christian church, in
good standing; and is a man of strict integrity of character.

Henry H. Snow, Willard Keyes.
Rev. C. Stewart Renshaw."


"My informant spent thirty years of his life in Kentucky and Missouri.
Whilst in Kentucky he resided in Hardin co. I noted down his testimony
very nearly in his own words, which will account for their
_evidence-like_ form. On the general condition of the slaves in
Kentucky, through Hardin co., he said, their houses were very
uncomfortable, generally without floors, other than the earth: many
had puncheon floors, but he never remembers to have seen a plank
floor. In regard to clothing they were very badly off. In summer
they cared little for clothing; but in winter they almost froze. Their
rags might hide their nakedness from the sun in summer, but would not
protect them from the cold in winter. Their bed-clothes were tattered
rags, thrown into a corner by day, and drawn before the fire by night.
'The only thing,' said he, 'to which I can compare them, in winter, is
_stock without a shelter.'_

"He made the following comparison between the condition of slaves in
Kentucky and Missouri. So far as he was able to compare them, he said,
that in Missouri the slaves had better _quarters_-but are not so well
clad, and are more severely punished than in Kentucky. In both states,
the slaves are huddled together, without distinction of sex, into the
same quarter, till it is filled, then another is built; often two or
three families in a log hovel, twelve feet square.

"It is proper to state, that the sphere of my informant's observation
was mainly in the region of Hardin co., Kentucky, and the eastern part
of Missouri, and not through those states generally.

"Whilst at St. Louis, a number of years ago, as he was going to work
with Mr. Henry Males, and another carpenter, they heard groans from a
barn by the road-side: they stopped, and looking through the cracks of
the barn, saw a negro bound hand and foot to a post, so that his toes
just touched the ground; and his master, Captain Thorpe, was
inflicting punishment; he had whipped him till exhausted,--rested
himself, and returned again to the punishment. The wretched sufferer
was in a most pitiable condition, and the warm blood and dry dust of
the barn had formed a mortar up to his instep. Mr. Males jumped the
fence, and remonstrated so effectually with Capt. Thorpe, that he
ceased the punishment. It was six weeks before that slave could put on
his shirt!

"John Mackey, a rich slaveholder, lived near Clarksville, Pike co.,
Missouri, some years since. He whipped his slave Billy, a boy fourteen
years old, till he was sick and stupid; he then sent him home. Then,
for his stupidity, whipped him again, and fractured his skull with an
axe-helve. He buried him away in the woods; dark words were whispered,
and the body was disinterred. A coroner's inquest was held, and Mr. R.
Anderson, the coroner, brought in a verdict of death from fractured
skull, occasioned by blows from an axe-handle, inflicted by John
Mackey. The case was brought into court, but Mackey was rich, and his
murdered victim was his SLAVE; after expending about $500 be walked
free.

"One Mrs. Mann, living near ----, in ---- co., Missouri was known to
be very cruel to her slaves. She had a bench made purposely to whip
them upon; and what she called her "six pound paddle," an instrument
of prodigious torture, bored through with holes; this she would wield
with both hands as she stood over her prostrate victim.

"She thus punished a hired slave woman named Fanny, belonging to Mr.
Charles Trabue, who lives neat Palmyra, Marion co., Missouri; on the
morning after the punishment Fanny was a corpse; she was silently and
quickly buried, but rumor was not so easily stopped. Mr. Trabue heard
of it, and commenced suit for his _property_. The murdered slave was
disinterred, and an inquest held; her back was a mass of jellied
muscle; and the coroner brought in a verdict of death by the 'six
pound paddle.'  Mrs. Mann fled for a few months, but returned again,
and her friends found means to protract the suit.

"This same Mrs. Mann had another hired slave woman living with her,
called Patterson's Fanny, she belonged to a Mr. Patterson; she had a
young babe with her, just beginning to creep. One day, after washing,
whilst a tub of rinsing water yet stood in the kitchen, Mrs. Mann came
out in haste, and sent Fanny to do something out of doors. Fanny tried
to beg off--she was afraid to leave her babe, lest it should creep to
the tub and get hurt--Mrs. M. said she would watch the babe, and sent
her off. She went with much reluctance, and heard the child struggle
as she went out the door. Fearing lest Mrs. M. should leave the babe
alone, she watched the room, and soon saw her pass out of the opposite
door. Immediately Fanny hurried in, and looked around for her babe,
she could not see it, she looked at the tub--there her babe was
floating, a strangled corpse. The poor woman gave a dreadful scream;
and Mrs. M. rushed into the room, with her hands raised, and
exclaimed, 'Heavens, Fanny! have you drowned your child?' It was vain
for the poor bereaved one to attempt to vindicate herself: in vain she
attempted to convince them that the babe had not been alone a moment,
and could not have drowned itself; and that she had not been in the
house a moment, before she screamed at discovering her drowned babe.
All was false! Mrs. Mann declared it was all pretence--that Fanny had
drowned her own babe, and now wanted to lay the blame upon her! and
Mrs. Mann was a white woman--of course her word was more valuable than
the oaths of all the slaves of Missouri. No evidence but that of
slaves could be obtained, or Mr. Patterson would have prosecuted for
his 'loss of property.'  As it was, every one believed Mrs. M. guilty,
though the affair was soon hushed up."


Extract of a letter from Col. THOMAS ROGERS, a native of Kentucky, now
an elder in the Presbyterian Church at New Petersburg, Highland co.,
Ohio.

"When a boy, in Bourbon co., Kentucky, my father lived near a
slaveholder of the name of Clay, who had a large number of slaves; I
remember being often at their quarters; not one of their shanties, or
hovels, had any floor but the earth. Their clothing was truly neither
fit for covering nor decency. We could distinctly, of a still morning,
hear this man whipping his blacks, and hear their screams from my
father's farm; this could be heard almost any still morning about the
dawn of day. It was said to be his usual custom to repair, about the
break of day, to their cabin doors, and, as the blacks passed out, to
give them as many strokes of his cowskin as opportunity afforded; and
he would proceed in this manner from cabin to cabin until they were
all out. Occasionally some of his slaves would abscond, and upon being
retaken they were punished severely; and some of them, it is believed,
died in consequence of the cruelty of their usage. I saw one of this
man's slaves, about seventeen years old, wearing a collar, with long
iron horns extending from his shoulders far above his head.

"In the winter of 1828-29 I traveled through part of the states of
Maryland and Virginia to Baltimore. At Frost Town, on the national
road, I put up for the night. Soon after, there came in a slaver with
his drove of slaves; among them were two young men, chained together.
The bar room was assigned to them for their place of lodging--those in
chains were guarded when they had to go out. I asked the 'owner' why
he kept these men chained; he replied, that they were stout young
fellows, and should they rebel, he and his son would not be able to
manage them. I then left the room, and shortly after heard a
_scream_, and when the landlady inquired the cause, the slaver coolly
told her not to trouble herself, he was only chastising one of his
women. It appeared that three days previously her child had died on
the road, and been thrown into a hole or crevice in the mountain, and
a few stones thrown over it; and the mother weeping for her child was
chastised by her master, and told by him, she 'should have something
to cry for.' The name of this man I can give if called for.

"When engaged in this journey I spent about one month with my
relations in Virginia. It being shortly after new year, _the time of
hiring_ was over; but I saw the pounds, and the scaffolds which
remained of the pounds, in which the slaves had been penned up"

M. GEORGE W. WESTGATE, of Quincy, Illinois, who lived in the
southwestern slave states a number of years, has furnished the
following statement.

"The great mass of the slaves are under drivers and overseers. I never
saw an overseer without a whip; the whip usually carried is a short
loaded stock, with a heavy lash from five to six feet long. When they
whip a slave they make him pull off his shirt, if he has one, then
make him lie down on his face, and taking their stand at the length of
the lash, they inflict the punishment. Whippings are so _universal_
that a negro that has not been whipped is talked of in all the region
as a wonder. By whipping I do not mean a few lashes across the
shoulders, but a set flogging, and generally _lying down._

"On sugar plantations generally, and on some cotton plantations, they
have negro drivers, who are in such a degree responsible for their
gang, that if they are at fault, the driver is whipped. The result is,
the gang are constantly driven by him to the extent of the influence
of the lash; and it is uniformly the case that gangs dread a negro
driver more than a white overseer.

"I spent a winter on widow Culvert's plantation, near Rodney,
Mississippi, but was not in a situation to see extraordinary
punishments. Bellows, the overseer, for a trifling offence, took one
of the slaves, stripped him, and with a piece of burning wood applied
to his posteriors, burned him cruelly; while the poor wretch screamed
in the greatest agony. The principal preparation for punishment that
Bellows had, was single handcuffs made of iron, with chains, by which
the offender could be chained to four stakes on the ground. These are
very common in all the lower country. I noticed one slave on widow
Calvert's plantation, who was whipped from twenty-five to fifty lashes
every fortnight during the whole winter. The expression 'whipped to
death,' as applied to slaves, is common at the south.

"Several years ago I was going below New Orleans, in what is called
the Plaquemine country, and a planter sent down in my boat a runaway
he had found in New Orleans, to his plantation at Orange 5 Points. As
we came near the Points he told me, with deep feeling, that he
expected to be whipped almost to death: pointing to a graveyard, he
said, 'There lie five who were whipped to death.' Overseers generally
keep some of the women on the plantation; I scarce know an exception
to this. Indeed, their intercourse with them is very much
promiscuous,--they show them not much, if any favor. Masters
frequently follow the example of their overseers in this thing.

"GEORGE W. WESTGATE."



II. TORTURES, BY IRON COLLARS, CHAINS, FETTERS, HANDCUFFS, &c.

The slaves are often tortured by iron collars, with long prongs or
"horns" and sometimes bells attached to them--they are made to wear
chains, handcuffs, fetters, iron clogs, bars, rings, and bands of iron
upon their limbs, iron masks upon their faces, iron gags in their
mouths, &c.

In proof of this, we give the testimony of slaveholders themselves,
under their own names; it will be mostly in the form of extracts from
their own advertisements, in southern newspapers, in which, describing
their runaway slaves, they specify the iron collars, handcuffs,
chains, fetters, &c., which they wore upon their necks, wrists,
ankles, and other parts of their bodies. To publish the _whole_ of
each advertisement, would needlessly occupy space and tax the reader;
we shall consequently, as heretofore, give merely the name of the
advertiser, the name and date of the newspaper containing the
advertisement, with the place of publication, and only so much of the
advertisement as will give the particular _fact_, proving the truth of
the assertion contained in the _general head_.


William Toler, sheriff of Simpson county, Mississippi, in the
"Southern Sun," Jackson, Mississippi, September 22, 1838.

"Was committed to jail, a yellow boy named Jim--had on a _large lock
chain around his neck."_


Mr. James R. Green, in the "Beacon," Greensborough, Alabama, August
23, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro man named Squire--had on a _chain locked with a
house-lock, around his neck."_


Mr. Hazlet Loflano, in the "Spectator," Staunton, Virginia, Sept. 27,
1838.

"Ranaway, a negro named David--with some _iron hobbles around each
ankle."_


Mr. T. Enggy, New Orleans, Gallatin street, between Hospital and
Barracks, N.O. "Bee," Oct. 27, 1837.

"Ranaway, negress Caroline--had on a _collar with one prong turned
down."_


Mr. John Henderson, Washington, county, Mi., in the "Grand Gulf
Advertiser," August 29, 1838.

"Ranaway, a black woman, Betsey--had an _iron bar on her right leg."_


William Dyer sheriff, Claiborne, Louisiana, in the "Herald,"
Natchitoches, (La.) July 26, 1837.

"Was committed to jail, a negro named Ambrose--has a _ring of iron
around his neck."_


Mr. Owen Cooke, "Mary street, between Common and Jackson streets," New
Orleans, in the N.O. "Bee," September 12, 1837.

"Ranaway, my slave Amos, had a _chain_ attached to one of his legs"


H.W. Rice, sheriff, Colleton district, South Carolina, in the
"Charleston Mercury," September 1, 1838.

"Committed to jail, a negro named Patrick, about forty-five years old,
and is _handcuffed._"


W.P. Reeves, jailor, Shelby county, Tennessee, in the "Memphis
Enquirer, June 17, 1837.

"Committed to jail, a negro--had on his right leg an _iron band_ with
one link of a chain."


Mr. Francis Durett, Lexington, Lauderdale county, Ala., in the
"Huntsville Democrat," August 29, 1837.

"Ranaway, a negro man named Charles--had on a _drawing chain,_
fastened around his ankle with a house lock."


Mr. A. Murat, Baton Rouge, in the New Orleans "Bee," June 20, 1837.

"Ranaway, the negro Manuel, _much marked with irons."_


Mr. Jordan Abbott, in the "Huntsville Democrat," Nov. 17, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro boy named Daniel, about nineteen years old, and was
_handcuffed."_


Mr. J. Macoin, No. 177 Ann street, New Orleans, in the "Bee," August
ll, 1838.

"Ranaway, the negress Fanny--had on an _iron band about her neck."_


Menard Brothers, parish of Bernard, Louisiana, In the N.O. "Bee,"
August 18, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro named John--having an _iron around his right foot."_


Messrs. J.L. and W.H. Bolton, Shelby county, Tennessee, in the
"Memphis Enquirer," June 7, 1837.

"Absconded, a colored boy named Peter--had an _iron round his neck_
when he went away."


H. Gridly, sheriff of Adams county, Mi., in the "Memphis (Tenn.)
Times," September, 1834.

"Was committed to jail, a negro boy--had on a _large neck iron_ with a
_huge pair of horns and a large bar or band of iron_ on his left leg."


Mr. Lambre, in the "Natchitoches (La.) Herald," March 29, 1837.

"Ranaway, the negro boy Teams--he had on his neck an _iron collar."_


Mr. Ferdinand Lemos, New Orleans, in the "Bee," January 29, 1838.

"Ranaway, the negro George--he had on _his neck an iron collar,_ the
branches of which had been taken off"


Mr. T.J. De Yampert, merchant, Mobile, Alabama, of the firm of De
Yampert, King & Co., in the "Mobile Chronicle," June 15, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro boy about _twelve_ years old--had round his neck _a
chain dog-collar_, with 'De Yampert' engraved on it."


J.H. Hand, jailor, St. Francisville, La., in the "Louisiana
Chronicle," July 26, 1837.

"Committed to jail, slave John--has several scars on his wrists,
occasioned, as he says, by _handcuffs."_


Mr. Charles Curener, New Orleans, in the "Bee," July 2, 1838.

"Ranaway, the negro, Hown--has a ring of iron on his left foot. Also,
Grise, his _wife,_ having a _ring and chain on the left leg."_


Mr. P.T. Manning, Huntsville, Alabama, in the "Huntsville Advocate,"
Oct. 23, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro boy named James--said boy was _ironed_ when he left
me."


Mr. William L. Lambeth, Lynchburg, Virginia, in the "Moulton [Ala.]
Whig," January 30, 1836.

"Ranaway, Jim--had on when he escaped a pair of _chain handcuffs."_


Mr. D.F. Guex, Secretary of the Steam Cotton Press Company, New
Orleans, in the "Commercial Bulletin," May 27, 1837.

"Ranaway, Edmund Coleman--it is supposed he must have _iron shackles
on his ankles_."


Mr. Francis Durett, Lexington, Alabama, in the "Huntsville Democrat,"
March 8, 1838.

"Ranaway ----, a mulatto--had on when he left, a _pair of handcuffs_
and a _pair of drawing chains_."


B.W. Hodges, jailor, Pike county, Alabama, in the "Montgomery
Advertiser," Sept. 29, 1837.

"Committed to jail, a man who calls his name John--he has a _clog of
iron on his right foot which will weigh four or five pounds_."


P. Bayhi captain of police, in the N.O. "Bee," June 9, 1838.

"Detained at the police jail, the negro wench Myra--has several marks
of _lashing_, and has _irons on her feet_."


Mr. Charles Kernin, parish of Jefferson, Louisiana, in the N.O. "Bee,"
August 11, 1837.

"Ranaway, Betsey--when she left she had on her _neck an iron collar_."


The foregoing advertisements are sufficient for our purpose, scores of
similar ones may be gathered from the newspapers of the slave states
every month.

To the preceding testimony of slaveholders, published by themselves,
and vouched for by their own signatures, we subjoin the following
testimony of other witnesses to the same point.

JOHN M. NELSON, Esq., a native of Virginia, now a highly respected
citizen of highland county, Ohio, and member of the Presbyterian
Church in Hillsborough, in a recent letter states the following:--

"In Staunton, Va., at the horse of Mr. Robert M'Dowell, a merchant of
that place, I once saw a colored woman, of intelligent and dignified
appearance, who appeared to be attending to the business of the house,
with an _iron collar_ around her neck, with horns or prongs extending
out on either side, and up, until they met at something like a foot
above her head, at which point there was a bell attached. This _yoke_,
as they called it, I understood was to prevent her from running away,
or to punish her for having done so. I had frequently seen _men_ with
iron collars, but this was the first instance that I recollect to have
seen a _female_ thus degraded."

Major HORACE NYE, an elder in the Presbyterian Church at Putnam,
Muskingum county, Ohio, in a letter, dated Dec. 5, 1838, makes the
following statement:--

"Mr. Wm. Armstrong, of this place, who is frequently employed by our
citizens as captain and supercargo of descending boats, whose word may
be relied on, has just made to me the following statement:--

"While laying at Alexandria, on Red River, Louisiana, he saw a slave
brought to a blacksmith's shop and a collar of iron fastened round his
neck, with two pieces rivetted to the sides, meeting some distance
above his head. At the top of the arch, thus formed, was attached a
large cow-bell, the motion of which, while walking the streets, made
it necessary for the slave to hold his hand to one of its sides, to
steady it.

"In New Orleans he saw several with iron collars, with horns attached
to them. The first he saw had three prongs projecting from the collar
ten or twelve inches, with the letter S on the end of each. He says
iron collars are quite frequent there."

To the preceding Major Nye adds:--

"When I was about twelve years of age I lived at Marietta, in this
state: I knew little of slaves, as there were few or none, at that
time, in the part of Virginia opposite that place. But I remember
seeing a slave who had run away from some place beyond my knowledge at
that time: he had an iron collar round his neck, to which was a strap
of iron rivetted to the collar, on each side, passing over the top of
the head; and another strap, from the back side to the top of the
first--thus inclosing the head on three sides. I looked on while the
blacksmith severed the collar with a file, which, I think, took him
more than an hour."

Rev. JOHN DUDLEY, Mount Morris, Michigan, resided as a teacher at the
missionary station, among the Choctaws, in Mississippi, during the
years 1830 and 31. In a letter just received Mr. Dudley says:--

"During the time I was on missionary ground, which was in 1830 and 31,
I was frequently at the residence of the agent, who was a
slaveholder.--I never knew of his treating his own slaves with
cruelty; but the poor fellows who were escaping, and lodged with him
when detected, found no clemency. I once saw there a fetter for '_the
d----d runaways_,' the weight of which can be judged by its size. It
was at least three inches wide, half an inch thick, and something over
a foot long. At this time I saw a poor fellow compelled to work in the
field, at 'logging,' with such a galling fetter on his ankles. To
prevent it from wearing his ankles, a string was tied to the centre,
by which the victim suspended it when he walked, with one hand, and
with the other carried his burden. Whenever he lifted, the fetter
rested on his bare ankles. If he lost his balance and made a misstep,
which must very often occur in lifting and rolling logs, the torture
of his fetter was severe. Thus he was doomed to work while wearing the
torturing iron, day after day, and at night he was confined in the
runaways' jail. Some time after this, I saw the same dejected,
heart-broken creature obliged to wait on the other hands, who were
husking corn. The privilege of sitting with the others was too much
for him to enjoy; he was made to hobble from house to barn and barn to
house, to carry food and drink for the rest. He passed round the end
of the house where I was sitting with the agent: he seemed to take no
notice of me, but fixed his eyes on his tormentor till he passed quite
by us."


Mr. ALFRED WILKINSON, member of the Baptist Church in Skeneateles,
N.Y. and an assessor of that town, testifies as follows :--

"I stayed in New Orleans three weeks: during that time there used to
pass by where I stayed a number of slaves, each with an iron band
around his ankle, a chain attached to it, and an eighteen pound ball
at the end. They were employed in wheeling dirt with a wheelbarrow;
they would put the ball into the barrow when they moved.--I recollect
one day, that I counted nineteen of them, sometimes there were not as
many; they were driven by a slave, with a long lash, as if they were
beasts. These, I learned, were runaway slaves from the plantations
above New Orleans.

"There was also a negro woman, that used daily to come to the market
with milk; she had an iron band around her neck, with three rods
projecting from it, about sixteen inches long, crooked at the ends."

For the fact which follows we are indebted to Mr. SAMUEL HALL, a
teacher in Marietta College, Ohio. We quote his letter.

"Mr. Curtis, a journeyman cabinet-maker, of Marietta, relates the
following, of which he was an eye witness. Mr. Curtis is every way
worthy of credit.

"In September, 1837, at 'Milligan's Bend,' in the Mississippi river, I
saw a negro with an iron band around his head, locked behind with a
padlock. In the front, where it passed the mouth, there was a
projection inward of an inch and a half, which entered the mouth.

"The overseer told me, he was so addicted to running away, it did not
do any good to whip him for it. He said he kept this gag constantly on
him, and intended to do so as long as he was on the plantation: so
that, if he ran away, he could not eat, and would starve to death. The
slave asked for drink in my presence; and the overseer made him lie
down on his back, and turned water on his face two or three feet high,
in order to torment him, as he could not swallow a drop.--The slave
then asked permission to go to the river; which being granted, he
thrust his face and head entirely under the water, that being the only
way he could drink with his gag on. The gag was taken off when he took
his food, and then replaced afterwards."


EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM MRS. SOPHIA LITTLE, of Newport, Rhode Island,
daughter of Hon. Asher Robbins, senator in Congress for that state.

"There was lately found, in the hold of a vessel engaged in the
southern trade, by a person who was clearing it out, an iron collar,
with three horns projecting from it. It seems that a young female
slave, on whose slender neck was riveted this fiendish instrument of
torture, ran away from her tyrant, and begged the captain to bring her
off with him. This the captain refused to do; but unriveted the collar
from her neck, and threw it away in the hold of the vessel. The collar
is now at the anti-slavery office, Providence. To the truth of these
facts Mr. William H. Reed, a gentleman of the highest moral character,
is ready to vouch.

"Mr. Reed is in possession of many facts of cruelty witnessed by
persons of veracity; but these witnesses are not willing to give their
names. One case in particular he mentioned. Speaking with a certain
captain, of the state of the slaves at the south, the captain
contended that their punishments were often very _lenient_; and, as an
instance of their excellent clemency, mentioned, that in one instance,
not wishing to whip a slave, they sent him to a blacksmith, and had an
iron band fastened around him, with three long projections reaching
above his head; and this he wore some time."


EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM MR. JONATHON F. BALDWIN, of Lorain county,
Ohio. Mr. B. was formerly a merchant in Massillon, Ohio, and an elder
in the Presbyterian Church there.

"Dear Brother,--In conversation with Judge Lyman, of Litchfield
county, Connecticut, last June, he stated to me, that several years
since he was in Columbia, South Carolina, and observing a colored man
lying on the floor of a blacksmith's shop, as he was passing it, his
curiosity led him in. He learned the man was a slave and rather
unmanageable. Several men were attempting to detach from his ankle an
iron which had been bent around it.

"The iron was a piece of a flat bar of the ordinary size from the
forge hammer, and bent around the ankle, the ends meeting, and forming
a hoop of about the diameter of the leg. There was one or more strings
attached to the iron and extending up around his neck, evidently so to
suspend it as to prevent its galling by its weight when at work, yet
it had galled or griped till the leg had swollen out beyond the iron
and inflamed and suppurated, so that the leg for a considerable
distance above and below the iron, was a mass of putrefaction, the
most loathsome of any wound he had ever witnessed on any living
creature. The slave lay on his back on the floor, with his leg on an
anvil which sat also on the floor, one man had a chisel used for
splitting iron, and another struck it with a sledge, to drive it
between the ends of the hoop and separate it so that it might be taken
off. Mr. Lyman said that the man swung the sledge over his shoulders
as if splitting iron, and struck many blows before he succeeded in
parting the ends of the iron at all, the bar was so large and
stubborn--at length they spread it as far as they could without
driving the chisel so low as to ruin the leg. The slave, a man of
twenty-five years, perhaps, whose countenance was the index of a mind
ill adapted to the degradations of slavery, never uttered a word or a
groan in all the process, but the copious flow of sweat from every
pore, the dreadful contractions and distortions of every muscle in his
body, showed clearly the great amount of his sufferings; and all this
while, such was the diseased state of the limb, that at every blow,
the bloody, corrupted matter gushed out in all directions several
feet, in such profusion as literally to cover a large area around the
anvil. After various other fruitless attempts to spread the iron, they
concluded it was necessary to weaken by filing before it could be got
off which he left them attempting to do."


Mr. WILLIAM DROWN, a well known citizen of Rhode Island, formerly of
Providence, who has traveled in nearly all the slave states, thus
testifies in a recent letter:

"I recollect seeing large gangs of slaves, generally a considerable
number in each gang, being chained, passing westward over the
mountains from Maryland, Virginia, &c. to the Ohio. On that river I
have frequently seen flat boats loaded with them, and their keepers
armed with pistols and dirks to guard them.

"At New Orleans I recollect seeing gangs of slaves that were driven
out every day, the Sabbath not excepted, to work on the streets.
These had heavy chains to connect two or more together, and some had
iron collars and yokes, &c. The noise as they walked, or worked in
their chains, was truly dreadful!"

Rev. THOMAS SAVAGE, pastor of the Congregational Church at Bedford,
New Hampshire, who was for some years a resident of Mississippi and
Louisiana, gives the following fact, in a letter dated January 9,
1839.

"In 1819, while employed as an instructor at Second Creek, near
Natchez, Mississippi, I resided on a plantation where I witnessed the
following circumstance. One of the slaves was in the habit of running
away. He had been repeatedly taken, and repeatedly whipped, with
great severity, but to no purpose. He would still seize the first
opportunity to escape from the plantation. At last his owner
declared, I'll fix him, I'll put a stop to his running away. He
accordingly took him to a blacksmith, and had an _iron head-frame_
made for him, which may be called lock-jaw, from the use that was made
of it. It had a lock and key, and was so constructed, that when on the
head and locked, the slave could not open his mouth to take food, and
the design was to prevent his running away. But the device proved
unavailing. He was soon missing, and whether by his own desperate
effort, or the aid of others, contrived to sustain himself with food;
but he was at last taken, and if my memory serves me, his life was
soon terminated by the cruel treatment to which he was subjected."

The Western Luminary, a religious paper published at Lexington,
Kentucky, in an editorial article, in the summer of 1833, says:

"A few weeks since we gave an account of a company of men, women and
children, part of whom were manacled, passing through our streets.
Last week, a number of slaves were driven through the main street of
our city, among whom were a number manacled together, two abreast, all
connected by, and supporting a _heavy iron chain_, which extended the
whole length of the line."

TESTIMONY OF A VIRGINIAN.

The _name_ of this witness cannot be published, as it would put him in
peril; but his _credibility_ is vouched for by the Rev. Ezra Fisher,
pastor of the Baptist Church, Quincy, Illinois, and Dr. Richard Eels,
of the same place. These gentlemen say of him, "We have great
confidence in his integrity, discretion, and strict Christian
principle."  He says--

"About five years ago, I remember to have passed, in _a single day_,
four droves of slaves for the south west; the largest drove had 350
slaves in it, and the smallest upwards of 200. I counted 68 or 70 in
a single _coffle_. The '_coffle chain_' is a chain fastened at one
end to the centre of the bar of a pair of hand cuffs, which are
fastened to the right wrist of one, and the left wrist of another
slave, they standing abreast, and the chain between them. These are
the head of the coffle. The other end is passed through a ring in the
bolt of the next handcuffs, and the slaves being manacled thus, two
and two together, walk up, and the coffle chain is passed, and they go
up towards the head of the coffle. Of course they are closer or wider
apart in the coffle, according to the number to be coffled, and to the
length of the chain. _I have seen HUNDREDS of droves and
chain-coffles of this description_, and every coffle was a scene of
misery and wo, of tears and brokenness of heart."


Mr. SAMUEL HALL a teacher in Marietta College, Ohio, gives, in a late
letter, the following statement of a fellow student, from Kentucky, of
whom he says, "he is a professor of religion, and worthy of entire
confidence."

"I have seen at least _fifteen_ droves of 'human cattle,' passing by
us on their way to the south; and I do not recollect an exception,
where there were not more or less of them _chained_ together."


Mr. GEORGE P.C. HUSSEY, of Fayetteville, Franklin county,
Pennsylvania, writes thus:

"I was born and raised in Hagerstown, Washington county, Maryland,
where slavery is perhaps milder than in any other part of the slave
states; and yet I have seen _hundreds_ of colored men and women
chained together, two by two, and driven to the south. I have seen
slaves tied up and lashed till the blood ran down to their heels."


Mr. GIDDINGS, member of Congress from Ohio, in his speech in the House
of Representatives, Feb. 13, 1839, made the following statement:

"On the beautiful avenue in front of the Capitol, members of Congress,
during this session, have been compelled to turn aside from their
path, to permit a coffle of slaves, males and females, _chained to
each other by their necks_, to pass on their way to this _national
slave market_."


Testimony of JAMES K. PAULDING, Esq. the present Secretary of the
United States' Navy.

In 1817, Mr. Paulding published a work, entitled 'Letters from the
South, written during an excursion in the summer of 1816.'  In the
first volume of that work, page 128, Mr. P. gives the following
description:

"The sun was shining out very hot--and in turning the angle of the
road, we encountered the following group: first, a little cart drawn
by one horse, in which five or six half naked black children were
tumbled like pigs together. The cart had no covering, and they seemed
to have been broiled to sleep. Behind the cart marched three black
women, with head, neck and breasts uncovered, and without shoes or
stockings: next came three men, bare-headed, and _chained together
with an ox-chain_. Last of all, came a white man on horse back,
carrying his pistols in his belt, and who, as we passed him, had the
impudence to look us in the face without blushing. At a house where we
stopped a little further on, we learned that he had bought these
miserable beings in Maryland, and was marching them in this manner to
one of the more southern states. Shame on the State of Maryland! and I
say, shame on the State of Virginia! and every state through which
this wretched cavalcade was permitted to pass! I do say, that when
they (the slaveholders) permit such flagrant and indecent outrages
upon humanity as that I have described; when they sanction a villain
in thus marching half naked women and men, loaded with chains, without
being charged with any crime but that of being _black_ from one
section of the United States to another, hundreds of miles in the face
of day, they disgrace themselves, and the country to which they
belong."[10]

[Footnote 10: The fact that Mr. Paulding, in the reprint of these
"Letters," in 1835, struck out this passage with all others
disparaging to slavery and its supporters, does not impair the force
of his testimony, however much it may sink the man. Nor will the next
generation regard with any more reverence, his character as a prophet,
because in the edition of 1835, two years after the American
Antislavery Society was formed, and when its auxiliaries were numbered
by hundreds, he inserted a _prediction_ that such movements would be
made at the North, with most disastrous results. "Wot ye not that such
a man as I can certainly divine!" Mr. Paulding has already been taught
by Judge Jay, that he who aspires to the fame of an oracle, without
its inspiration, must resort to other expedients to prevent detection,
than the clumsy one of _antedating_ his responses.]



III. BRANDINGS, MAIMINGS, GUY-SHOT WOUNDS, &c.

The slaves are often branded with hot irons, pursued with fire arms
and _shot_, hunted with dogs and torn by them, shockingly maimed with
knives, dirks, &c.; have their ears cut off, their eyes knocked out,
their bones dislocated and broken with bludgeons, their fingers and
toes cut off, their faces and other parts of their persons disfigured
with scars and gashes, _besides_ those made with the lash.

We shall adopt, under this head, the same course as that pursued under
previous ones,--first give the testimony of the slaveholders
themselves, to the mutilations, &c. by copying their own graphic
descriptions of them, in advertisements published under their own
names, and in newspapers published in the slave states, and,
generally, in their own immediate vicinity. We shall, as heretofore,
insert only so much of each advertisement as will be necessary to make
the point intelligible.


Mr. Micajah Ricks, Nash County, North Carolina, in the Raleigh
"Standard," July 18, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro woman and two children; a few days before she went
off, _I burnt her with a hot iron_, on the left side of her face,_ I
tried to make the letter M._"


Mr. Asa B. Metcalf, Kingston, Adams Co. Mi. in the "Natchez Courier;'
June 15, 1832.

"Ranaway Mary, a black woman, has a _scar_ on her back and right arm
near the shoulder, _caused by a rifle ball._"


Mr. William Overstreet, Benton, Yazoo Co. Mi. in the "Lexington
(Kentucky) Observer," July 22, 1838.

"Ranaway a negro man named Henry, _his left eye out_, some scars from
a _dirk_ on and under his left arm, and _much scarred_ with the whip."


Mr. R.P. Carney, Clark Co. Ala., in the Mobile Register, Dec. 22, 1832

One hundred dollars reward for a negro fellow Pompey, 40 years old, he
is _branded_ on the _left jaw_.


Mr. J. Guyler, Savannah Georgia, in the "Republican," April 12, 1837.

"Ranaway Laman, an old negro man, grey, has _only one eye._"


J.A. Brown, jailor, Charleston, South Carolina, in the "Mercury," Jan.
12, 1837.

"Committed to jail a negro man, has _no toes_ on his left foot."


Mr. J. Scrivener, Herring Bay, Anne Arundel Co. Maryland, in the
Annapolis Republican, April 18, 1837.

"Ranaway negro man Elijah, has a scar on his left cheek, apparently
occasioned by _a shot_."


Madame Burvant corner of Chartres and Toulouse streets, New Orleans,
in the "Bee," Dec. 21, 1838.

"Ranaway a negro woman named Rachel, has _lost all her toes_ except
the large one."


Mr. O.W. Lains, In the "Helena, (Ark.) Journal," June 1, 1833.

"Ranaway Sam, he was _shot_ a short time since, through the hand, and
has _several shots in his left arm and side_."


Mr. R.W. Sizer, in the "Grand Gulf, [Mi.] Advertiser," July 8, 1837.

"Ranaway my negro man Dennis, said negro has been _shot_ in the left
arm between the shoulders and elbow, which has paralyzed the left
hand."


Mr. Nicholas Edmunds, in the "Petersburgh [Va.] Intelligencer," May
22, 1838.

"Ranaway my negro man named Simon, _he has been shot badly_ in his
back and right arm."


Mr. J. Bishop, Bishopville, Sumpter District, South Carolina, in the
"Camden [S.C.] Journal," March 4, 1837.

"Ranaway a negro named Arthur, has a considerable _scar_ across his
_breast and each arm_, made by a knife; loves to talk much of the
goodness of God."


Mr. S. Neyle, Little Ogeechee, Georgia, in the "Savannah Republican,"
July 3, 1837.

"Ranaway George, he has a _sword cut_ lately received on his left
arm."


Mrs. Sarah Walsh, Mobile, Ala. in the "Georgia Journal," March 27,
1837.

"Twenty five dollars reward for my man Isaac, he has a scar on his
forehead caused by a _blow_, and one on his back made by _a shot from
a pistol_."


Mr. J.P. Ashford, Adams Co. Mi. in the "Natchez Courier," August 24,
1838.

"Ranaway a negro girl called Mary, has a small scar over her eye, a
_good many teeth missing_, the letter A _is branded on her cheek and
forehead_."


Mr. Ely Townsend, Pike Co. Ala. in the "Pensacola Gazette," Sep. 16,
1837.

"Ranaway negro Ben, has a scar on his right hand, his thumb and fore
finger being injured by being _shot_ last fall, a part of _the bone
came out_, he has also one or two _large scars_ on his back and hips."


S.B. Murphy, jailer, Irvington, Ga. in the "Milledgeville Journal,"
May 29, 1838.

"Committed a negro man, is _very badly shot in the right side_ and
right hand."


Mr. A. Luminais, Parish of St. John Louisiana, in the New Orleans
"Bee," March 3, 1838.

"Detained at the jail, a mulatto named Tom, has a _scar_ on the right
cheek and appears to have been _burned with powder_ on the face."


Mr. Isaac Johnson, Pulaski Co. Georgia, in the "Milledgeville
Journal," June 19, 1838.

"Ranaway a negro man named Ned, _three of his fingers_ are drawn into
the palm of his hand by a _cut_, has a _scar_ on the back of his neck
nearly half round, done by a _knife_."


Mr. Thomas Hudnall, Madison Co. Mi. in the "Vicksburg Register,"
September 5, 1838.

"Ranaway a negro named Hambleton, _limps_ on his left foot where he
was _shot_ a few weeks ago, while runaway."


Mr. John McMurrain, Columbus, Ga. in the "Southern Sun," August 7,
1838.

"Ranaway a negro boy named Mose, he has a _wound_ in the right
shoulder near the back bone, which was occasioned by a _rifle shot_."


Mr. Moses Orme, Annapolis, Maryland, in the "Annapolis Republican,"
June 20, 1837.

"Ranaway my negro man Bill, he has a _fresh wound in his head_ above
his ear."


William Strickland, Jailor, Kershaw District, S.C. in the "Camden
[S.C.] Courier," July 8, 1837.

"Committed to jail a negro, says his name is Cuffee, he is lame in one
knee, occasioned _by a shot_."


The Editor of the "Grand Gulf Advertiser," Dec. 7, 1838.

"Ranaway Joshua, his thumb is off of his left hand."


Mr. William Bateman, in the "Grand Gulf Advertiser," Dec. 7, 1838.

"Ranaway William, _scar_ over his left eye, one between his eye brows,
one on his breast, and his right leg has been _broken_."


Mr. B.G. Simmons, in the "Southern Argus," May 30, 1837.

"Ranaway Mark, his left arm has been _broken_."


Mr. James Artop, in the "Macon [Ga.] Messenger, May 25, 1837.

"Ranaway, Caleb, 50 years old, has an awkward gait occasioned by his
being _shot_ in the thigh."


J.L. Jolley, Sheriff of Clinton, Co. Mi. in the "Clinton Gazette,"
July 23, 1836.

"Was committed to jail a negro man, says his name is Josiah, his back
very much scarred by the whip, and _branded on the thigh and hips, in
three or four places_, thus (J.M.) the _rim of his right ear has been
bit or cut off_."


Mr. Thomas Ledwith, Jacksonville East Florida, in the "Charleston
[S.C.] Courier, Sept. 1, 1838.

"Fifty dollars reward, for my fellow Edward, he has a _scar_ on the
corner of his mouth, two _cuts_ on and under his arm, and the _letter
E on his arm_."


Mr. Joseph James, Sen., Pleasant Ridge, Paulding Co. Ga., in the
"Milledgeville Union," Nov. 7, 1837.

"Ranaway, negro boy Ellie, has a _scar_ on one of his arms _from the
bite of a dog_."


Mr. W. Riley, Orangeburg District, South Carolina, in the "Columbia
[S.C.] Telescope," Nov. 11, 1837.

"Ranaway a negro man, has a _scar_ on the ankle produced by a _burn_,
and a _mark on his arm_ resembling the letter S."


Mr. Samuel Mason, Warren Co, Mi. in the "Vicksburg Register," July 18,
1838."

"Ranaway, a negro man named Allen, he has a scar on his breast, also a
scar under the left eye, and has _two buck shot in his right arm_."


Mr. F.L.C. Edwards, in the "Southern Telegraph", Sept. 25, 1837

"Ranaway from the plantation of James Surgette, the following negroes,
Randal, _has one ear cropped_; Bob, _has lost one eye_, Kentucky Tom,
_has one jaw broken_."


Mr. Stephen M. Jackson, in the "Vicksburg Register", March 10, 1837.

"Ranaway, Anthony, _one of his ears cut off_, and his left hand cut
with an axe."


Philip Honerton, deputy sheriff of Halifax Co. Virginia, Jan. 1837.

"Was committed, a negro man, has a _scar_ on his right side by a burn,
one on his knee, and one on the calf of his leg _by the bite of a
dog_."


Stearns & Co. No. 28, New Levee, New Orleans, in the "Bee", March 22,
1837.

"Absconded, the mulatto boy Tom, his fingers _scarred_ on his right
hand, and has a _scar_ on his right cheek"


Mr. John W. Walton, Greensboro, Ala. in the "Alabama Beacon", Dec. 13,
1838.

"Ranaway my black boy Frazier, with a _scar_ below and one above his
right ear."


Mr. R. Furman, Charleston, S.C. in the "Charleston Mercury" Jan. 12,
1839.

"Ranaway, Dick, about 19, has lost the small toe of one foot."


Mr. John Tart, Sen. in the "Fayetteville [N.C.] Observer", Dec. 26,
1838

"Stolen a mulatto boy, _ten_ years old, he has a _scar_ over his eye
which was made by an axe."


Mr. Richard Overstreet, Brook Neal, Campbell Co. Virginia, in the
"Danville [Va.] Reporter", Dec. 21, 1838.

"Absconded my negro man Coleman, has a _very large scar_ on one of his
legs, also one on _each_ arm, by a burn, and his heels have been
frosted."


The editor of the New Orleans "Bee" in that paper, August 27, 1837.

"Fifty dollars reward, for the negro Jim Blake--has a _piece cut out
of each ear_, and the middle finger of the left hand _cut off_ to the
second joint."


Mr. Bryant Jonson, Port Valley, Houston county, Georgia, in the
Milledgeville "Union", Oct. 2, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro woman named Maria--has a scar on one side of her
cheek, by a _cut_--some scars on her back."


Mr. Leonard Miles, Steen's Creek, Rankin county, Mi. in the "Southern
Sun", Sept. 22, 1838

"Ranaway, Gabriel--has _two or three scars across his neck_ made with
a knife."


Mr. Bezou, New Orleans, in the "Bee" May 23, 1838.

"Ranaway, the mulatto wench Mary--has a _cut on the left arm, a scar
on the shoulder, and two upper teeth missing_."


Mr. James Kimborough, Memphis, Tenn. in the "Memphis Enquirer" July
13, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro boy, named Jerry--has a _scar_ on his right check
two inches long, from the cut of a knife."


Mr. Robert Beasley, Macon, Georgia, in the "Georgia Messenger", July
27, 1837.

"Ranaway, my man Fountain--has _holes in his ears, a scar_ on the
right side of his forehead--has been _shot in the hind parts of his
legs_--is marked on the back with the whip."


Mr. B.G. Barrer, St. Louis, Missouri, in the "Republican", Sept. 6,
1837.

"Ranaway, a negro man named Jarret--_has a scar_ on the under part of
one of his arms, occasioned by a wound from a knife."


Mr. John D. Turner, near Norfolk, Virginia, in the "Norfolk Herald",
June 27, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro by the name of Joshua--he has a cut across one of
his ears, which he will conceal as much as possible--one of his
ankles is _enlarged by an ulcer_."


Mr. William Stansell, Picksville, Ala. in the "Huntsville Democrat",
August 29, 1837.

"Ranaway, negro boy Harper--has a scar on one of his hips in the form
of a G."


Hon. Ambrose H. Sevier Senator, in Congress, from Arkansas in the
"Vicksburg Register", of Oct. 18.

"Ranaway, Bob, a slave--has a _scar across his breast_, another on the
_right side of his head_--his back is _much scarred_ with the whip."


Mr. R.A. Greene, Milledgeville, Georgia, in the "Macon Messenger" July
27, 1837.

"Two hundred and fifty dollars reward, for my negro man Jim--he is
much marked with _shot_ in his right thigh,--the shot entered on the
outside, half way between the hip and knee joints."


Benjamin Russel, deputy sheriff, Bibb county, Ga. in the "Macon
Telegraph", December 25, 1837.

"Brought to jail, John--_left ear cropt_."


Hon. H Hitchcock, Mobile, judge of the Supreme Court, in the
"Commercial Register", Oct. 27, 1837.

"Ranaway, the slave Ellis--he has _lost one of his ears_."


Mrs. Elizabeth L. Carter, near Groveton, Prince William county,
Virginia, in the "National Intelligencer", Washington, D.C. June 10,
1837.

"Ranaway, a negro man, Moses--he has _lost a part_ of one of his
ears."


Mr. William D. Buckels, Natchez, Mi. in the "Natchez Courier," July
28, 1838.

"Taken up, a negro man--is _very much scarred_ about the face and
body, and has the left _ear bit off_."


Mr. Walter R. English, Monroe county, Ala. in the "Mobile Chronicle,"
Sept. 2, 1837.

"Ranaway, my slave Lewis--he has lost a _piece of one ear_, and a
_part of one of his fingers_, a _part of one of his toes_ is also
lost."


Mr. James Saunders, Grany Spring, Hawkins county, Tenn. in the
"Knoxville Register," June 6, 1838.

"Ranaway, a black girl named Mary--has a _scar_ on her cheek, and the
end of one of her toes _cut off_."


Mr. John Jenkins, St Joseph's, Florida, captain of the steamboat
Ellen, "Apalachicola Gazette," June 7, 1838.

"Ranaway, the negro boy Caesar--he has _but one eye_."


Mr. Peter Hanson, Lafayette city, La., in the New Orleans "Bee," July
28, 1838.

"Ranaway, the negress Martha--she has _lost her right eye_."


Mr. Orren Ellis, Georgeville, Mi. in the "North Alabamian," Sept. 15,
1837.

"Ranaway, George--has had the lower part of _one of his ears bit
off_."


Mr. Zadock Sawyer, Cuthbert, Randolph county, Georgia, in the
"Milledgeville Union," Oct. 9, 1838.

"Ranaway, my negro Tom--has a piece _bit off the top of his right
ear_, and his little finger is _stiff_."


Mr. Abraham Gray, Mount Morino, Pike county, Ga. in the "Milledgeville
Union," Oct. 9, 1838.

"Ranaway, my mulatto woman Judy--she has had her _right arm broke_."


S.B. Tuston, jailer, Adams county, Mi. in the "Natchez Courier," June
15, 1838.

"Was committed to jail, a negro man named Bill--has had the _thumb of
his left hand split_."

Mr. Joshua Antrim, Nineveh, Warren county, Virginia, in the
"Winchester Virginian," July 11, 1837.

"Ranaway, a mulatto man named Joe--his fingers on the left hand are
_partly amputated_."


J.B. Randall, jailor,  Marietta, Cobb county, Ga., in the "Southern
Recorder;" Nov. 6, 1838.

"Lodged in jail, a negro man named Jupiter--is very _lame in his left
hip_, so that he can hardly walk--has lost a joint of the middle
finger of his left hand."


Mr. John N. Dillahunty, Woodville, Mi., in the "N.O. Commercial
Bulletin," July 21, 1837.

"Ranaway, Bill--has a scar over one eye, also one on his leg, from
_the bite of a dog_--has a _burn on his buttock, from a piece of hot
iron in shape of a T_."


William K. Ratcliffe, sheriff, Franklin county, Mi. in the "Natchez
Free Trader," August 23, 1838.

"Committed to jail, a negro named Mike--_his left ear off_"


Mr. Preston Halley, Barnwell, South Carolina, in the "Augusta [Ga.]
Chronicle," July 27, 1838.

"Ranaway, my negro man Levi--his left hand has been _burnt_, and I
think the end of his fore finger _is off_."


Mr. Welcome H. Robbins, St. Charles county, Mo. in the "St. Louis
Republican," June 30, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro named Washington--has _lost a part of his middle
finger and the end of his little finger_."


G. Gourdon & Co. druggists, corner of Rampart and Hospital streets,
New Orleans, in the "Commercial Bulletin," Sept. 18, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro named David Drier--has _two toes cut_."


Mr. William Brown, in the "Grand Gulf Advertiser," August 29, 1838.

"Ranaway, Edmund--has a _scar_ on his right temple, and under his
right eye, and _holes in both ears_."


Mr. James McDonnell, Talbot county, Georgia, in the "Columbus
Enquirer," Jan. 18, 1838.

"Runaway, a negro boy _twelve or thirteen_ years old--has a scar on
his left cheek _from the bite of a dog_."


Mr. John W. Cherry, Marengo county, Ala. in the "Mobile Register,"
June 15, 1838.

"Fifty dollars reward, for my negro man John--he has a considerable
scar on his _throat_, done with a _knife_."


Mr. Thos. Brown, Roane co. Tenn. in the "Knoxville Register," Sept 12,
1838.

"Twenty-five dollars reward, for my man John--the _tip_ of his nose is
_bit off_."


Messrs. Taylor, Lawton & Co., Charleston, South Carolina, in the
"Mercury," Nov. 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro fellow called Hover--has a _cut_ above the right
eye."


Mr. Louis Schmidt, Faubourg, Sivaudais, La. in the New Orleans "Bee,"
Sept. 5, 1837.

"Ranaway, the negro man Hardy--has a _scar_ on the upper lip, and
another made with a _knife_ on his neck."


W.M. Whitehead, Natchez, in the "New Orleans Bulletin," July 21,
1837.

"Ranaway, Henry--has half of one _ear bit off_."


Mr. Conrad Salvo, Charleston, South Carolina, in the "Mercury," August
10, 1837.

"Ranaway, my negro man Jacob--he has but _one eye_."


William Baker, jailer, Shelby county, Ala., in the "Montgomery (Ala.)
Advertiser," Oct. 5, 1838.

"Committed to jail, Ben--his _left thumb off_ at the first joint."


Mr. S.N. Hite, Camp street, New Orleans, in the "Bee," Feb. 19, 1838.

"Twenty-five dollars reward for the negro slave Sally--walks as though
_crippled_ in the back."


Mr. Stephen M. Richards, Whitesburg, Madison county, Alabama, in the
"Huntsville Democrat," Sept 8, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro man named Dick--has a _little finger off_ the right
hand."


Mr. A. Brose, parish of St. Charles, La. in the "New Orleans Bee,"
Feb. 19, 1838.

"Ranaway, the negro Patrick--has his little finger of the right hand
_cut close to the hand_."


Mr. Needham Whitefield, Aberdeen, Mi. in the "Memphis (Tenn.)
Enquirer," June 15, 1838.

"Ranaway, Joe Dennis--has a small _notch_ in one of his ears."


Col. M.J. Keith, Charleston, South Carolina, in the "Mercury," Nov.
27, 1837.

"Ranaway, Dick--has _lost the little toe_ of one of his feet."


Mr. R. Faucette, Haywood, North Carolina, in the "Raleigh Register,"
April 30, 1838.

"Escaped, my negro man Eaton--his _little finger_ of the right hand
has been _broke_."


Mr. G.C. Richardson, Owen Station, Mo., in the St. Louis "Republican,"
May 5, 1838.

"Ranaway, my negro man named Top--has had one of his _legs broken_."


Mr. E. Han, La Grange, Fayette county, Tenn. in the Gallatin "Union,"
June 23, 1837.

"Ranaway, negro boy Jack--has a small _crop out of his left ear_."


D. Herring, warden of Baltimore city jail, in the "Marylander," Oct 6,
1837.

"Was committed to jail, a negro man--has _two scars_ on his forehead,
and the _top of his left ear cut off_."


Mr. James Marks, near Natchitoches, La. in the "Natchitoches Herald,"
July 21, 1838.

"Stolen, a negro man named Winter--has a _notch_ cut out of the left
ear, and the mark of _four or five buck shot_ on his legs."


Mr. James Barr, Amelia Court House, Virginia, in the "Norfolk Herald,"
Sept. 12, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro man--_scar back of his left eye_, as if from the
_cut_ of a knife."


Mr. Isaac Michell, Wilkinson county, Georgia, in the "Augusta
Chronicle," Sept 21, 1837.

"Ranaway, negro man Buck--has a very _plain mark_ under his ear on his
jaw, about the size of a dollar, having been _inflicted by a knife._"


Mr. P. Bayhi, captain of the police, Suburb Washington, third
municipality, New Orleans, in the "Bee," Oct. 13, 1837.

"Detained at the jail, the negro boy Hermon--has a scar below his left
ear, from the _wound of a knife_."


Mr. Willie Paterson, Clinton, Jones county, Ga. in the "Darien
Telegraph," Dec. 5, 1837.

"Ranaway, a negro man by the name of John--he has a _scar_ across his
cheek, and one on his right arm, apparently done with a _knife_."


Mr. Samuel Ragland, Triana, Madison county, Alabama, in the
"Huntsville Advocate," Dec. 23, 1837.

"Ranaway, Isham--has a _scar_ upon the breast and upon the under lip,
from the _bite of a dog_."


Mr. Moses E. Bush, near Clayton, Ala. in the "Columbus (Ga.)
Enquirer," July 5, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro man--has a _scar_ on his hip and on his breast, and
_two front teeth out_."


C.W. Wilkins, sheriff Baldwin Co, Ala, is the "Mobile Advertiser;"
Sept. 24, 1837.

"Committed to jail, a negro man, he is _crippled_ in the right leg."


Mr. James H. Taylor, Charleston South Carolina, in the "Courier,"
August 7, 1837.

"Absconded, a colored boy, named Peter, _lame_ in the right leg."


N.M.C. Robinson, jailer, Columbus, Georgia, in the "Columbus (Ga.)
Enquirer," August 2, 1838.

"Brought to jail, a negro man, his left ankle has been _broke_."


Mr. Littlejohn Rynes, Hinds Co. Mi. in the "Natchez Courier," August,
17, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro man named Jerry, has a small piece _cut out of the
top of each ear_."


The Heirs of J.A. Alston, near Georgetown, South Carolina, in the
"Georgetown [S.C.] Union," June 17, 1837.

"Absconded a negro named Cuffee, has _lost one finger_; has an
_enlarged leg_."


A.S. Ballinger, Sheriff, Johnston Co, North Carolina, In the "Raleigh
Standard," Oct. 18, 1838.

"Committed to jail, a negro man; has a _very sore leg_."


Mr. Thomas Crutchfield, Atkins, Ten. in the "Tennessee Journal," Oct.
17, 1838.

"Ranaway, my mulatto boy Cy, has but _one hand_, all the fingers of
his right hand were _burnt off_ when young."


J.A. Brown, jailer, Orangeburg, South Carolina, in the "Charleston
Mercury," July 18, 1838.

"Was committed to jail, a negro named Bob, appears to be _crippled_ in
the right leg."


S.B. Turton, jailer, Adams Co. Miss. in the "Natchez Courier," Sept.
29, 1838.

"Was committed to jail, a negro man, has his _left thigh broke_."


Mr. John H. King,  High street, Georgetown, in the "National
Intelligencer," August 1, 1837.

"Ranaway, my negro man, he has the _end of one_ of his fingers
_broken_."


Mr. John B. Fox, Vicksburg, Miss. in the "Register," March 29, 1837.

"Ranaway, a yellowish negro boy named Tom, has a _notch_ in the back
of one of his ears."


Messrs. Fernandez and Whiting, auctioneers, New Orleans, in the "Bee,"
April 8, 1837.

"Will be sold Martha, aged nineteen, _has one eye out_."


Mr. Marshall Jett, Farrowsville, Fauquier Co. Virginia, in the
"National Intelligencer," May 30, 1837.

"Ranaway, negro man Ephraim, has a _mark_ over one of his eyes,
occasioned by a _blow_."


S.B. Turton, jailer Adams Co. Miss. in the "Natches Courier," Oct. 12,
1838.

"Was committed a negro, calls himself Jacob, has been _crippled_ in
his right leg."


John Ford, sheriff of Mobile County, in the "Mississippian," Jackson
Mi. Dec. 28, 1838.

"Committed to jail, a negro man Cary, a _large scar on his forehead_."


E.W. Morris, sheriff of Warren County, in the "Vicksburg [Mi.]
Register," March 28, 1838.

"Committed as a runaway, a negro man Jack, he has _several scars_ on
his face."


Mr. John P. Holcombe, In the "Charleston Mercury," April 17, 1828.

"Absented himself, his negro man Ben, _has scars_ on his throat,
occasioned by the _cut of a knife_."


Mr. Geo. Kinlock, in the "Charleston, S.C. Courier," May 1, 1839.

"Ranaway, negro boy Kitt, 15 or 16 years old, _has a piece taken out
of one of his ears_."


Wm. Magee, sheriff, Mobile Co. in the "Mobile Register," Dec. 27, 1837.

"Committed to jail, a runaway slave, Alexander, a _scar_ on his left
check."


Mr. Henry M. McGregor, Prince George County, Maryland, in the
"Alexandria [D.C.] Gazette," Feb. 6, 1838.

"Ranaway, negro Phil, _scar through the right eye brow_ part of the
_middle toe_ right foot _cut off_."


Green B Jourdan, Baldwin County Ga. in the "Georgia Journal," April
18, 1837.

"Ranaway, John, has a _scar_ on one of his hands extending from the
wrist joint to the little finger, also a _scar_ on one of his legs."


Messrs. Daniel and Goodman, New Orleans, in the "N.O. Bee," Feb. 2,
1838.

"Absconded, mulatto slave Alick, has a _large scar over_ one of his
cheeks."


Jeremiah Woodward, Gonchland, Co. Va. in the "Richmond Va. Whig," Jan.
30, 1838.

"200 DOLLARS REWARD for Nelson, has a _scar_ on his forehead
occasioned by a _burn_, and one on his lower lip and one about the
knee."


Samuel Rawlins, Gwinet Co. Ga. in the "Columbus Sentinel," Nov. 29,
1838.

"Ranaway, a negro man and his wife, named Nat and Priscilla, he has a
small _scar_ on his left cheek, _two stiff fingers_ on his right hand
with a _running sore_ on them; his wife has a _scar_ on her left arm,
and one _upper tooth out_."


The reader perceives that we have under this head, as under previous
ones, given to the testimony of the slaveholders themselves, under
their own names, a precedence over that of all other witnesses. We now
ask the reader's attention to the testimonies which follow. They are
endorsed by responsible names--men who 'speak what they know, and
testify what they have seen'--testimonies which show, that the
slaveholders who wrote the preceding advertisements, describing the
work of their own hands, in branding with hot irons, maiming,
mutilating, cropping, shooting, knocking out the teeth and eyes of
their slaves, breaking their bones, &c., have manifested, _as far as
they have gone_ in the description, a commendable fidelity to truth.

It is probable that some of the scars and maimings in the preceding
advertisements were the result of accidents; and some _may be_ the
result of violence inflicted by the slaves upon each other. Without
arguing that point, we say, these are the _facts_; whoever reads and
ponders them, will need no argument to convince him, that the
proposition which they have been employed to sustain, _cannot be
shaken_. That any considerable portion of them were _accidental_, is
totally improbable, from the nature of the case; and is in most
instances disproved by the advertisements themselves. That they have
not been produced by assaults of the slaves upon each other, is
manifest from the fact, that injuries of that character inflicted by
the slaves upon each other, are, as all who are familiar with the
habits and condition of slaves well know, exceedingly rare; and of
necessity must be so, from the constant action upon them of the
strongest dissuasives from such acts that can operate on human nature.

Advertisements similar to the preceding may at any time be gathered by
scores from the daily and weekly newspapers of the slave states.
Before presenting the reader with further testimony in proof of the
proposition at the head of this part of our subject, we remark, that
some of the tortures enumerated under this and the preceding heads,
are not in all cases inflicted by slaveholders as _punishments_, but
sometimes merely as preventives of escape, for the greater security of
their 'property'. Iron collars, chains, &c. are put upon slaves when
they are driven or transported from one part of the country to
another, in order to keep them from running away. Similar measures are
often resorted to upon plantations. When the master or owner suspects
a slave of plotting an escape, an iron collar with long 'horns,' or a
bar of iron, or a ball and chain, are often fastened upon him, for the
double purpose of retarding his flight, should he attempt it, and of
serving as an easy means of detection.

Another inhuman method of _marking_ slaves, so that they may be easily
described and detected when they escape, is called _cropping_. In the
preceding advertisements, the reader will perceive a number of cases,
in which the runaway is described as '_cropt_,' or a '_notch cut_ in
the ear, or a part or the whole of the ear _cut off_,' &c.

Two years and a half since, the writer of this saw a letter, then just
received by Mr. Lewis Tappan, of New York, containing a negro's ear
cut off close to the head. The writer of the letter, who signed
himself Thomas Oglethorpe, Montgomery, Alabama, sent it to Mr. Tappan
as 'a specimen of a negro's ears,' and desired him to add it to his
'collection.'

Another method of _marking_ slaves, is by drawing out or breaking off
one or two _front teeth_--commonly the upper ones, as the mark would
in that case be the more obvious. An instance of this kind the reader
will recall in the testimony of Sarah M. Grimké, page 30, and of which
she had _personal_ knowledge; being well acquainted both with the
inhuman master, (a distinguished citizen of South Carolina,) by whose
order the brutal deed was done, and with the poor young girl whose
mouth was thus barbarously mutilated, to furnish a convenient mark by
which to describe her in case of her elopement, as she had frequently
run away.

The case stated by Miss G. serves to unravel what, to one uninitiated,
seems quite a mystery: i.e. the frequency with which, in the
advertisements of runaway slaves published in southern papers, they
are described as having _one or two front teeth out_. Scores of such
advertisements are in southern papers now on our table. We will
furnish the reader with a dozen or two.


Jesse Debruhl, sheriff, Richland District, "Columbia (S.C.)
Telescope," Feb. 24, 1839.

"Committed to jail, Ned, about 25 years of age, has lost his _two
upper front teeth_."


Mr. John Hunt, Black Water Bay, "Pensacola (Ga.) Gazette," October 14,
1837.

"100 DOLLARS REWARD, for Perry, _one under front tooth_ missing, aged
23 years."


Mr. John Frederick, Branchville, Orangeburgh District, S.C.
"Charleston (S.C.) Courier," June 12, 1837.

"10 DOLLARS REWARD, for Mary, _one or two upper teeth_ out, about 25
years old."


Mr. Egbert A. Raworth, eight miles west of Nashville on the Charlotte
road "Daily Republican Banner," Nashville, Tennessee, April 30, 1938.

"Ranaway, Myal, 23 years old, one of his _fore teeth out_."


Benjamin Russel, Deputy sheriff Bibb Co. Ga. "Macon (Ga.) Telegraph,"
Dec. 25, 1837.

"Brought to jail John, 23 years old, _one fore tooth out_."


F. Wisner, Master of the Work House, "Charleston (S.C.) Courier." Oct.
17, 1837.

"Committed to the Charleston Work House Tom, _two of his upper front
teeth out_, about 30 years of age."

Mr. S. Neyle, "Savannah (Ga.) Republican," July 3, 1837.

"Ranaway Peter, has lost _two front teeth_ in the upper jaw."


Mr. John McMurrain, near Columbus, "Georgia Messenger," Aug. 2, 1838.

"Ranaway, a boy named Moses, some of his _front teeth out_."


Mr. John Kennedy, Stewart Co. La. "New Orleans Bee," April 7, 1837.

"Ranaway, Sally, her _fore teeth out_."


Mr. A.J. Hutchings, near Florence, Ala. "North Alabamian," August 25,
1838

"Ranaway, George Winston, two of his _upper fore teeth out_
immediately in front."


Mr. James Purdon, 33 Commons street, N.O. "New Orleans Bee," Feb. 13,
1838.

"Ranaway, Jackson, has lost _one of his front teeth_."


Mr. Robert Calvert, in the "Arkansas State Gazette," August 22, 1838.

"Ranaway, Jack, 25 years old, has lost _one of his fore teeth_."


Mr. A.G.A. Beazley, in the Memphis Gazette, March 18, 1838.

"Ranaway, Abraham, 20 or 22 years of age, _his front teeth out_."


Mr. Samuel Townsend, in the "Huntsville [Ala.] Democrat," May 24,
1837.

"Ranaway, Dick, 18 or 20 years of age, _has one front tooth out_."


Mr. Philip A. Dew, in the "Virginia Herald," of May 24, 1837.

"Ranaway, Washington, about 25 years of age, has _an upper front tooth
out_."


J.G. Dunlap, "Georgia Constitutionalist," April 24, 1838.

"Ranaway, negro woman Abbe, _upper front teeth out_."


John Thomas, "Southern Argus," August 7, 1838.

"Ranaway, Lewis, 25 or 26 years old, _one or two of his front teeth
out_."


M.E.W. Gilbert, in the "Columbus [Ga.] Enquirer," Oct. 5. 1837.

"50 DOLLARS REWARD, for Prince, 25 or 26 years old, _one or two teeth
out_ in front on the upper jaw."


Publisher of the "Charleston Mercury," Aug. 31, 1838.

"Ranaway, Seller Saunders, _one fore tooth out_, about 22 years of
age."


Mr. Byrd M. Grace, in the "Macon [Ga.] Telegraph," Oct. 16, 1383.

"Ranaway, Warren, about 25 or 26 years old, has lost _some of his
front teeth_."


Mr. George W. Barnes, in the "Milledgeville [Ga.] Journal," May 22,
1837.

"Ranaway, Henry, about 23 years old, has one of his _upper front teeth
out_."


D. Herring, Warden of Baltimore Jail, in "Baltimore Chronicle," Oct.
6, 1837.

"Committed to jail Elizabeth Steward, 17 or 18 years old, has _one of
her front teeth out_."


Mr. J.L. Colborn, in the "Huntsville [Ala.] Democrat," July 4, 1837.

"Ranaway Liley, 26 years of age, _one fore tooth gone_."


Samuel Harman Jr. in the "New Orleans Bee," Oct. 12, 1838.

"50 DOLLARS REWARD, for Adolphe, 28 years old, _two of his front
teeth_ are missing."


Were it necessary, we might easily add to the preceding list,
_hundreds_. The reader will remark that all the slaves, whose ages are
given, are _young_--not one has arrived at middle age; consequently it
can hardly be supposed that they have lost their teeth either from age
or decay. The probability that their teeth were taken out by force, is
increased by the fact of their being _front teeth_ in almost every
case, and from the fact that the loss of no _other_ is mentioned in
the advertisements. It is well known that the front teeth are not
generally the first to fail. Further, it is notorious that the teeth
of the slaves are remarkably sound and serviceable, that they decay
far less, and at a much later period of life than the teeth of the
whites: owing partly, no doubt, to original constitution; but more
probably to their diet, habits, and mode of life.

As an illustration of the horrible mutilations _sometimes_ suffered by
them in the breaking and tearing out of their teeth, we insert the
following, from the New Orleans Bee of May 31, 1837.

$10 REWARD.--Ranaway, Friday, May 12, JULIA, a negress, EIGHTEEN OR
TWENTY YEARS OLD. SHE HAS LOST HER UPPER TEETH, and the under ones ARE
ALL BROKEN. Said reward will be paid to whoever will bring her to her
master, No. 172 Barracks-street, or lodge her in the jail.

The following is contained in the same paper.

Ranaway, NELSON, 27 years old,--"ALL HIS TEETH ARE MISSING."

This advertisement is signed by "S. ELFER," Faubourg Marigny.

We now call the attention of the reader to a mass of testimony in
support of our general proposition.

GEORGE B. RIPLEY, Esq. of Norwich, Connecticut, has furnished the
following statement, in a letter dated Dec. 12, 1838.

"GURDON CHAPMAN, Esq., a respectable merchant of our city, one of our
county commissioners,--last spring a member of our state
legislature,--and whose character for veracity is above suspicion,
about a year since visited the county of Nansemond, Virginia, for the
purpose of buying a cargo of corn. He purchased a large quantity of
Mr. ----, with whose family he spent a week or ten days; after he
returned, he related to me and several other citizens the following
facts. In order to prepare the corn for market by the time agreed
upon, the slaves were worked as hard as they would bear, from daybreak
until 9 or 10 o'clock at night. They were called directly from their
bunks in the morning to their work, without a morsel of food until
noon, when they took their breakfast and dinner, consisting of bacon
and corn bread. The quantity of meat was not one tenth of what the
same number of northern laborers usually have at a meal. They were
allowed but fifteen minutes to take this meal, at the expiration of
this time the horn was blown. The rigor with which they enforce
punctuality to its call, may be imagined from the fact, that a little
boy only nine years old was whipped so severely by the driver, that in
many places the whip cut through his clothes (which were of cotton,)
for tardiness of not over three minutes. They then worked without
intermission until 9 or 10 at night; after which they prepared and ate
their second meal, as scanty as the first. An aged slave, who was
remarkable for his industry and fidelity, was working with all his
might on the threshing floor; amidst the clatter of the shelling and
winnowing machines the master spoke to him, but he did not hear; he
presently gave him several severe cuts with the raw hide, saying, at
the same time, 'damn you, if you cannot hear I'll see if you can
feel.' One morning the master rose from breakfast and whipped most
cruelly, with a raw hide, a nice girl who was waiting on the table,
for not opening a _west_ window when he had told her to open an east
one. The number of slaves was only forty, and yet the lash was in
constant use. The bodies of all of them were literally covered with
old scars.

"Not one of the slaves attended church on the Sabbath. The social
relations were scarcely recognised among them, and they lived in a
state of promiscuous concubinage. The master said he took pains to
breed from his best stock--the whiter the progeny the higher they
would sell for house servants. When asked by Mr. C. if he did not fear
his slaves would run away if he whipped them so much, he replied, they
know too well what they must suffer if they are taken--and then said,
'I'll tell you how I treat my runaway niggers. I had a big nigger that
ran away the second time; as soon as I got track of him I took three
good fellows and went in pursuit, and found him in the night, some
miles distant, in a corn-house; we took him and ironed him hand and
foot, and carted him home. The next morning we tied him to a tree, and
whipped him until there was not a sound place on his back. I then tied
his ankles and hoisted him up to a _limb_--feet up and head down--we
then whipped him, until the damned nigger smoked so that I thought he
would take fire and burn up. We then took him down; and to make sure
that he should not run away the third time, I run my knife in back of
the ankles, and _cut off the large cords_,--and then I ought to have
put some lead into the wounds, but I forgot it'

"The truth of the above is from unquestionable authority; and you may
publish or suppress it, as shall best subserve the cause of God and
humanity."


EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM STEPHAN SEWALL, Esq., Winthrop, Maine, dated
Jan. 12th, 1839. Mr. S. is a member of the Congregational church in
Winthrop, and late agent of the Winthrop Manufacturing company.

"Being somewhat acquainted with slavery, by a residence of about five
years in Alabama, and having witnessed many acts of slaveholding
cruelty, I will mention one or two that came under my eye; and one of
excessive cruelty mentioned to me at the time, by the gentleman (now
dead,) that interfered in behalf of the slave.

"I was witness to such cruelties by an overseer to a slave, that he
twice attempted to drown himself, to get out of his power: this was on
a raft of slaves, in the Mobile river. I saw an owner take his runaway
slave, tie a rope round him, then get on his horse, give the slave and
horse a cut the whip, and run the poor creature barefooted, very fast,
over rough ground, where small black jack oaks had been cut up,
leaving the sharp stumps, on which the slave would frequently fall;
then the master would drag him as long as he could himself hold out;
then stop, and whip him up on his feet again--then proceed as before.
This continued until he got out of my sight, which was about half a
mile. But what further cruelties this wretched man, (whose passion was
so excited that he could scarcely utter a word when he took the slave
into his own power,) inflicted upon his poor victim, the day of
judgment will unfold.

"I have seen slaves severely whipped on plantations, but this _is an
every day occurrence_, and comes under the head of general treatment.

"I have known the case of a husband compelled to whip his wife. This I
did not witness, though not two rods from the cabin at the time.

"I will now mention the case of cruelty before referred to. In 1820 or
21, while the public works were going forward on Dauphin Island,
Mobile Bay, a contractor, engaged on the works, beat one of his slaves
so severely that the poor creature had no longer power to writhe under
his suffering: he then took out his knife, and began to _cut his flesh
in strips, from his hips down_. At this moment, the gentleman referred
to, who was also a contractor, shocked at such inhumanity, stepped
forward, between the wretch and his victim, and exclaimed, 'If you
touch that slave again you do it at the peril of your life.' The
slaveholder raved at him for interfering between him and his slave;
but he was obliged to drop his victim, fearing the arm of my
friend--whose stature and physical powers were extraordinary."


EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM MRS. MARY COWLES, a member of the
Presbyterian church at Geneva, Ashtabula county, Ohio, dated 12th, mo.
18th, 1838. Mrs. Cowles is a daughter of Mr. James Colwell of Brook
county, Virginia, near West Liberty.

"In the year 1809, I think, when I was twenty-one years old, a man in
the vicinity where I resided, in Brooke co. Va. near West Liberty, by
the name of Morgan, had a little slave girl about six years old, who
had a habit or rather a natural infirmity common to children of that
age. On this account her master and mistress would pinch her ears with
hot tongs, and throw hot embers on her legs. Not being able to
accomplish their object by these means, they at last resorted to a
method too indelicate, and too horrible to describe in detail. Suffice
it to say, it soon put an end to her life in the most excruciating
manner. If further testimony to authenticate what I have stated is
necessary, I refer you to Dr. Robert Mitchel who then resided in the
vicinity, but now lives at Indiana, Pennsylvania, above Pittsburgh."

MARY COWLES.


TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM LADD, Esq., now of Minot, Maine, formerly a
slaveholder in Florida. Mr. Ladd is now the President of the American
Peace Society. In a letter dated November 29, 1838, Mr. Ladd says:

"While I lived in Florida I knew a slaveholder whose name was
Hutchinson, he had been a preacher and a member of the Senate of
Georgia. He told me that he dared not keep a gun in his house, because
he was so passionate; and that he had _been the death of three or four
men_. I understood him to mean _slaves_. One of his slaves, a girl,
once came to my house. She had run away from him at Indian river. The
cords of one of her hands were so much contracted that her hand was
useless. It was said that he had thrust her hand into the fire while
he was in a fit of passion, and held it there, and this was the
effect. My wife had hid the girl, when Hutchinson came for her. Out of
compassion for the poor slave, I offered him more than she was worth,
which he refused. We afterward let the girl escape, and I do not know
what became of her, but I believe he never got her again. It was
currently reported of Hutchinson, that he once knocked down a _new_
negro (one recently from Africa) who was clearing up land, and who
complained of the cold, as it was mid-winter. The slave was stunned
with the blow. Hutchinson, supposing he had the 'sulks,' applied fire
to the side of the slave until it was so roasted that he said the
slave was not worth curing, and ordered the other slaves to pile on
brush, and he was consumed.

"A murder occurred at the settlement, (Musquito) while I lived there.
An overseer from Georgia, who was employed by a Mr. Cormick, in a fit
of jealousy shot a slave of Samuel Williams, the owner of the next
plantation. He was apprehended, but afterward suffered to escape. This
man told me that he had rather whip a negro than sit down to the best
dinner. This man had, near his house, a contrivance like that which is
used in armies where soldiers are punished with the picket; by this
the slave was drawn up from the earth, by a cord passing round his
wrists, so that his feet could just touch the ground. It somewhat
resembled a New England well sweep, and was used when the slaves were
flogged.

"The treatment of slaves at Musquito I consider much milder than that
which I have witnessed in the United States. Florida was under the
Spanish government while I lived there. There were about fifteen or
twenty plantations at Musquito. I have an indistinct recollection of
four or five slaves dying of the cold in Amelia Island. They belonged
to Mr. Bunce of musquito. The compensation of the overseers was a
certain portion of the crop."


GERRIT SMITH, Esq. of Peterboro, in a letter, dated Dec. 15, 1838,
says:

"I have just been conversing with an inhabitant of this town, on the
subject of the cruelties of slavery. My neighbors inform me that he is
a man of veracity. The candid manner of his communication utterly
forbade the suspicion that he was attempting to deceive me.

"My informant says that he resided in Louisiana and Alabama during a
great part of the years 1819 and 1820:--that he frequently saw slaves
whipped, never saw any killed; but often heard of their being
killed:--that in several instances he had seen a slave receive, in the
space of two hours, five hundred lashes--each stroke drawing blood. He
adds that this severe whipping was always followed by the application
of strong brine to the lacerated parts.

"My informant further says, that in the spring of 1819, he steered a
boat from Louisville to New Orleans. Whilst stopping at a plantation
on the east bank of the Mississippi, between Natchez and New Orleans,
for the purpose of making sale of some of the articles with which the
boat was freighted, he and his fellow boatmen saw a shockingly cruel
punishment inflicted on a couple of slaves for the repeated offence of
running away. Straw was spread over the whole of their backs, and,
after being fastened by a band of the same material, was ignited, and
left to burn, until entirely consumed. The agonies and screams of the
sufferers he can never forget."


Dr. DAVID NELSON, late president of Marion College, Missouri, a native
of Tennessee, and till forty years old a slaveholder, said in an
Anti-Slavery address at Northampton, Mass. Jan. 1839--

"I have not attempted to harrow your feelings with stories of cruelty.
I will, however, mention one or two among the many incidents that came
under my observation as family physician. I was one day dressing a
blister, and the mistress of the house sent a little black girl into
the kitchen to bring me some warm water. She probably mistook her
message; for she returned with a bowl full of boiling water; which her
mistress no sooner perceived, than she thrust her hand into it, and
held it there till it was half cooked."


Mr. HENRY H. LOOMIS, a member of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary
in the city of New York, says, in a recent letter--

"The Rev. Mr. Hart, recently my pastor, in Otsego county, New York,
and who has spent some time at the south as a teacher, stated to me
that in the neighborhood in which he resided a slave was set to watch
a turnip patch near an academy, in order to keep off the boys who
occasionally trespassed on it. Attempting to repeat the trespass in
presence of the slave, they were told that his 'master forbad it.' At
this the boys were enraged, and hurled brickbats at the slave until
his face and other parts were much injured and wounded--but nothing
was said or done about it as an injury to the slave.

"He also said, that a slave from the same neighborhood was found out
in the woods, with his arms and legs burned almost to a cinder, up as
far as the elbow and knee joints; and there appeared to be but little
more said or thought about it than if he had been a brute. It was
supposed that his master was the cause of it--making him an example of
punishment to the rest of the gang!"

The following is an extract of a letter dated March 5, 1839, from Mr.
JOHN CLARKE, a highly respected citizen of Scriba, Oswego county, New
York, and a member of the Presbyterian church.

The 'Mrs. Turner' spoken of in Mr. C.'s letter, is the wife of Hon.
Fielding S. Turner, who in 1803 resided at Lexington, Kentucky, and
was the attorney for the Commonwealth. Soon after that, he removed to
New Orleans, and was for many years Judge of the Criminal Court of
that city. Having amassed an immense fortune, he returned to Lexington
a few years since, and still resides there. Mr. C. the writer, spent
the winter of 1836-7 in Lexington. He says,

"Yours of the 27th ult. is received, and I hasten to state the facts
which came to my knowledge while in Lexington, respecting the
occurrences about which you inquire. Mrs. Turner was originally a
Boston lady. She is from 35 to 40 years of age, and the wife of Judge
Turner, formerly of New Orleans, and worth a large fortune in slaves
and plantations. I repeatedly heard, while in Lexington, Kentucky,
during the winter of 1836-7, of the wanton cruelty practised by this
woman upon her slaves, and that she had caused several to be _whipped
to death_; but I never heard that she was suspected of being deranged,
otherwise than by the indulgence of an ungoverned temper, until I
heard that her husband was attempting to incarcerate her in the
Lunatic Asylum. The citizens of Lexington, believing the charge to be
a false one, rose and prevented the accomplishment for a time, until,
lulled by the fair promises of his friends, they left his domicil, and
in the dead of night she was taken by force, and conveyed to the
asylum. This proceeding being judged illegal by her friends, a suit
was instituted to liberate her. I heard the testimony on the trial,
which related only to proceedings had in order to getting her admitted
into the asylum; and no facts came out relative to her treatment of
her slaves, other than of a general character.

"Some days after the above trial, (which by the way did not come to an
ultimate decision, as I believe) I was present in my brother's office,
when Judge Turner, in a long conversation with my brother on the
subject of his trials with his wife, said, '_That woman has been the
immediate cause of the death of_ six _of my servants, by her
severities_!

"I was repeatedly told, while I was there, that she drove a colored
boy from the second story window, a distance of 15 to 18 feet, on to
the pavement, which made him a cripple for a time.

"I heard the trial of a man for the murder of his slave, by whipping,
where the evidence was to my mind perfectly conclusive of his guilt;
but the jury were two of them for convicting him of manslaughter, and
the rest for acquitting him; and as they could not agree were
discharged--and on a subsequent trial, as I learned by the papers, the
culprit was acquitted."


Rev. THOMAS SAVAGE, of Bedford, New Hampshire, in a recent letter,
states the following fact:

"The following circumstance was related to me last summer, by my
brother, now residing as a physician, at Rodney, Mississippi; and who,
though a pro-slavery man, spoke of it in terms of reprobation, as an
act of capricious, wanton cruelty. The planter who was the actor in it
I myself knew; and the whole transaction is so characteristic of the
man, that, independent of the strong authority I have, I should
entertain but little doubt of its authenticity. He is a wealthy
planter, residing near Natchez, eccentric, capricious and intemperate.
On one occasion he invited a number of guests to an elegant
entertainment, prepared in the true style of southern luxury. From
some cause, none of the guests appeared. In a moody humor, and under
the influence, probably, of mortified pride, he ordered the overseer
to call the people (a term by which the field hands are generally
designated,) on to the piazza. The order was obeyed, and the people
came. 'Now,' said he, 'have them seated at the table. Accordingly they
were seated at the well-furnished, glittering table, while he and his
overseer waited on them, and helped them to the various dainties of
the feast. 'Now,' said he, after awhile, raising his voice, 'take
these rascals, and give them twenty lashes a piece. I'll show them how
to eat at my table.' The overseer, in relating it, said he had to
comply, though reluctantly, with this brutal command."


Mr. HENRY P. THOMPSON, a native and still a resident of Nicholasville,
Kentucky, made the following statement at a public meeting in Lane
Seminary, Ohio, in 1833. He was at that time a slaveholder.

"_Cruelties_, said he, _are so common_, I hardly know what to relate.
But one fact occurs to me just at this time, that happened in the
village where I live. The circumstances are these. A colored man, a
slave, ran away. As he was crossing Kentucky river, a white man, who
suspected him, attempted to stop him. The negro resisted. The white
man procured help, and finally succeeded in securing him. He then
wreaked his vengeance on him for resisting--flogging him till he was
not able to walk. They then put him on a horse, and came on with him
ten miles to Nicholasville. When they entered the village, it was
noticed that he sat upon his horse like a drunken man. It was a very
hot day; and whilst they were taking some refreshment, the negro sat
down upon the ground, under the shade. When they ordered him to go, he
made several efforts before he could get up; and when he attempted to
mount the horse, his strength was entirely insufficient. One of the
men struck him, and with an oath ordered him to get on the horse
without any more fuss. The negro staggered back a few steps, fell
down, and died. I do not know that any notice was ever taken of it."


Rev. COLEMAN S. HODGES, a native and still a resident of Western
Virginia, gave the following testimony at the same meeting.

"I have frequently seen the mistress of a family in Virginia, with
whom I was well acquainted, beat the woman who performed the kitchen
work, with a stick two feet and a half long, and nearly as thick as my
wrist; striking her over the head, and across the small of the back,
as she was bent over at her work, with as much spite as you would a
snake, and for what I should consider no offence at all. There lived
in this same family a young man, a slave, who was in the habit of
running away. He returned one time after a week's absence. The master
took him into the barn, stripped him entirely naked, tied him up by
his hands so high that he could not reach the floor, tied his feet
together, and put a small rail between his legs, so that he could not
avoid the blows, and commenced whipping him. He told me that he gave
him five hundred lashes. At any rate, he was covered with wounds from
head to foot. Not a place as big as my hand but what was cut. Such
things as these are perfectly common all over Virginia; at least so
far as I am acquainted. Generally, planters avoid punishing their
slaves before strangers."


Mr. CALVIN H. TATE, of Missouri, whose father and brothers were
slaveholders, related the following at the same meeting. The
plantation on which it occurred, was in the immediate neighborhood of
his father's.

"A young woman, who was generally very badly treated, after receiving
a more severe whipping than usual, ran away. In a few days she came
back, and was sent into the field to work. At this time the garment
next her skin was stiff like a scab, from the running of the sores
made by the whipping. Towards night, she told her master that she was
sick, and wished to go to the house. She went, and as soon as she
reached it, laid down on the floor exhausted. The mistress asked her
what the matter was? She made no reply. She asked again; but received
no answer. 'I'll see,' said she, 'if I can't make you speak.' So
taking the tongs, she heated them red hot, and put them upon the
bottoms of her feet; then upon her legs and body; and, finally, in a
rage, took hold of her throat. This had the desired effect. The poor
girl faintly whispered, 'Oh, misse, don't--I am most gone;' and
expired."


Extract of a letter from Rev. C.S. RENSHAW, pastor of the
Congregational Church, Quincy, Illinois.

"Judge Menzies of Boone county, Kentucky, an elder in the Presbyterian
Church, and a slaveholder, told me that _he knew_ some overseers in
the tobacco growing region of Virginia, who, to make their slaves
careful in picking the tobacco, that is taking the worms off; (you
know what a loathsome thing the tobacco worm is) would make them _eat_
some of the worms, and others who made them eat every worm they missed
in picking."


"Mrs. NANCY JUDD, a member of the Non-Conformist Church in Osnaburg,
Stark county, Ohio, and formerly a resident of Kentucky, testifies
that she knew a slaveholder,

"Mr. Brubecker, who had a number of slaves, among whom was one who
would frequently avoid labor by hiding himself; for which he would get
severe floggings without the desired effect, and that at last Mr. B.
would tie large cats on his naked body and whip them to make them tear
his back, in order to break him of his habit of hiding."


Rev. HORACE MOULTON, a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
Marlborough, Massachusetts, says:

"Some, when other modes of punishment will not subdue them, _cat-haul_
them; that is, take a cat by the nape of the neck and tail, or by its
hind legs, and drag the claws across the back until satisfied; this
kind of punishment, as I have understood, poisons the flesh much worse
than the whip, and is more dreaded by the slave."


Rev. ABEL BROWN, Jr. late pastor of the first Baptist Church, Beaver,
Pennsylvania, in a communication to Rev. C.P. Grosvenor, Editor of
the Christian Reflector, says:

"I almost daily see the poor heart-broken slave making his way to a
land of freedom. A short time since, I saw a noble, pious, distressed,
spirit-crushed slave, a member of the Baptist church, escaping from a
(professed Christian) bloodhound, to a land where he could enjoy that
of which he had been robbed during forty years. His prayers would have
made us all feel. I saw a Baptist sister of about the same age, her
children had been torn from her, her head was covered with fresh
wounds, while her upper lip had scarcely ceased to bleed, in
consequence of a blow with the poker, which knocked out her teeth; she
too, was going to a land of freedom. Only a very few days since, I saw
a girl of about eighteen, with a child as white as myself, aged ten
months; a Christian master was raising her child (as well his own
perhaps) to sell to a southern market. She had heard of the
intention, and at midnight took her only treasure and traveled twenty
miles on foot through a land of strangers--she found friends."


Rev. HENRY T. HOPKINS, pastor of the Primitive Methodist Church in New
York City, who resided in Virginia from 1821 to 1826, relates the
following fact:

"An old colored man, the slave of Mr. Emerson; of Portsmouth,
Virginia, being under deep conviction for sin, went into the back part
of his master's garden to pour out his soul in prayer to God. For this
offence he was whipped thirty-nine lashes."


Extract of a letter from DOCTOR F. JULIUS LEMOYNE, of Washington,
Pennsylvania, dated Jan. 9, 1839.

"Lest you should not have seen the statement to which I am going to
allude, I subjoin a brief outline of the facts of a transaction which
occurred in Western Virginia, adjacent to this county, a number of
years ago--a full account of which was published in the "Witness"
about two years since by Dr. Mitchell, who now resides in Indiana
county, Pennsylvania. A slave boy ran away in cold weather, and during
his concealment had his legs frozen; he returned, or was retaken.
After some time the flesh decayed and _sloughed_--of course was
offensive--he was carried out to a field and left there without bed,
or shelter, _deserted to die_. His only companions were the house dogs
which he called to him. After several days and nights spent in
suffering and exposure, he was visited by Drs. McKitchen and Mitchell
in the field, of their own accord, having heard by report of his
lamentable condition; they remonstrated with the master; brought the
boy to the house, amputated both legs, and he finally recovered."


Hon. JAMES K. PAULDING, the Secretary of the Navy of the U. States, in
his "Letters from the South" published in 1817, relates the following:

"At one of the taverns along the road we were set down in the same
room with an elderly man and a youth who seemed to be well acquainted
with him, for they conversed familiarly and with true republican
independence--for they did not mind who heard them. From the tenor of
his conversation I was induced to look particularly at the elder. He
was telling the youth something like the following detested tale. He
was going, it seems, to Richmond, to inquire about a draft for seven
thousand dollars, which he had sent by mail, but which, not having
been acknowledged by his correspondent, he was afraid had been stolen,
and the money received by the thief. 'I should not like to lose it,'
said he, 'for I worked hard for it, and sold many a poor d----l of a
black to Carolina and Georgia, to scrape it together.' He then went on
to tell many a perfidious tale. All along the road it seems he made it
his business to inquire where lived a man who might be tempted to
become a party in this accursed traffic, and when he had got some half
dozen of these poor creatures, _he tied their hands behind their
backs_, and drove them three or four hundred miles or more,
bare-headed and half naked through the burning southern sun. Fearful
that _even southern humanity_ would revolt at such an exhibition of
human misery and human barbarity, he gave out that they were runaway
slaves he was carrying home to their masters. On one occasion a poor
black woman exposed this fallacy, and told the story of her being
_kidnapped_, and when he got her into a wood out of hearing, he beat
her, to use his own expression, 'till her back was white.' It seems he
married all the men and women he bought, himself, because they would
sell better for being man and wife! But, said the youth, were you not
afraid, in traveling through the wild country and sleeping in lone
houses, these slaves would rise and kill you? 'To be sure I was,' said
the other, 'but I always fastened my door, put a chair on a table
before it, so that it might wake me in falling, and slept with a
loaded pistol in each hand. It was a bad life, and I left it off as
soon as I could live without it; for many is the time I have separated
wives from husbands, and husbands from wives, and parents from
children, but then I made them amends by marrying them again as soon
as I had a chance, that is to say, I made them call each other man and
wife, and sleep together, which is quite enough for negroes. I made
one bad purchase though,' continued he. 'I bought a young mulatto
girl, a lively creature, a great bargain. She had been the favorite of
her master, who had lately married. The difficulty was to get her to
go, for the poor creature loved her master. However, I swore most
bitterly I was only going to take to take her to her mother's at ----
and she went with me, though she seemed to doubt me very much. But
when she discovered, at last, that we were out of the state, I thought
she would go mad, and in fact, the next night she drowned herself in
the river close by. I lost a good five hundred dollars by this foolish
trick.'" Vol. I. p. 121.


Mr. ---- SPILLMAN, a native, and till recently, a resident of
Virginia, now a member of the Presbyterian church in Delhi, Hamilton
co., Ohio, has furnished the two following facts, of which he had
personal knowledge.

"David Stallard, of Shenandoah co., Virginia, had a slave, who run
away; he was taken up and lodged in Woodstock jail. Stallard went with
another man and took him out of the jail--tied him to their
horses--and started for home. The day was excessively hot, and they
rode so fast, dragging the man by the rope behind them, that he became
perfectly exhausted--fainted--dropped down, and died.

"Henry Jones, of Culpepper co., Virginia, owned a slave, who ran away.
Jones caught him, tied him up, and for two days, at intervals,
continued to flog him, and rub salt into his mangled flesh, until his
back was literally cut up. The slave sunk under the torture; and for
some days it was supposed he must die. He, however, slowly recovered;
though it was some weeks before he could walk."


Mr. NATHAN COLE, of St. Louis, Missouri, in a letter to Mr. Arthur
Tappan, of New-York, dated July 2, 1834, says,--

"You will find inclosed an account of the proceedings of an inquest
lately held in this city upon the body of a slave, the details of
which, if published, not one in ten could be induced to believe
true.[11] It appears that the master or mistress, or both, suspected
the unfortunate wretch of hiding a bunch of keys which were missing;
and to extort some explanation, which, it is more than probable, the
slave was as unable to do as her mistress, or any other person, her
master, Major Harney, an officer of our army, had whipped her for
three successive days, and it is supposed by some, that she was kept
tied during the time, until her flesh was so lacerated and torn that
it was impossible for the jury to say whether it had been done with a
whip or hot iron; some think both--but she was tortured to death. It
appears also that the husband of the said slave had become suspected
of telling some neighbor of what was going on, for which Major Harney
commenced torturing him, until the man broke from him, and ran into
the Mississippi and drowned himself. The man was a pious and very
industrious slave, perhaps not surpassed by any in this place. The
woman has been in the family of John Shackford, Esq., the present
doorkeeper of the Senate of the United States, for many years; was
considered an excellent servant--was the mother of a number of
children--and I believe was sold into the family where she met her
fate, as matter of conscience, to keep her from being sent below."

[Footnote 11: The following is the newspaper notice referred to:--

An inquest was held at the dwelling house of Major Harney, in this
city, on the 27th inst. by the coroner, on the body of Hannah, a
slave. The jury, on their oaths, and after hearing the testimony of
physicians and several other witnesses, found, that said slave "came
to her death by wounds inflicted by William S. Harney."]




MR. EZEKIEL BIRDSEYE, a highly respected citizen of Cornwall,
Litchfield co., Connecticut, who resided for many years at the south,
furnished to the Rev. E. R. Tyler, editor of the Connecticut Observer,
the following personal testimony.

"While I lived in Limestone co., Alabama, in 1826-7, a tavern-keeper
of the village of Moresville discovered a negro carrying away a piece
of old carpet. It was during the Christmas holidays, when the slaves
are allowed to visit their friends. The negro stated that one of the
servants of the tavern owed him some twelve and a half or twenty-five
cents, and that he had taken the carpet in payment. This the servant
denied. The innkeeper took the negro to a field near by, and whipped
him cruelly. He then struck him with a stake, and punched him in the
face and mouth, knocking out some of his teeth. After this, he took
him back to the house, and committed him to the care of his son, who
had just then come home with another young man. This was at evening.
They whipped him by turns, with heavy cowskins, and made the _dogs
shake him_. A Mr. Phillips, who lodged at the house, heard the cruelty
during the night. On getting up he found the negro in the bar-room,
terribly mangled with the whip, and his flesh so torn by the dogs,
that the cords were bare. He remarked to the landlord that he was
dangerously hurt, and needed care. The landlord replied that he
deserved none. Mr. Phillips went to a neighboring magistrate, who took
the slave home with him, where he soon died. The father and son were
both tried, and acquitted!! A suit was brought, however, for damages
in behalf of the owner of the slave, a young lady by the name of Agnes
Jones. _I was on the jury when these facts were stated on oath_. Two
men testified, one that he would have given $1000 for him, the other
$900 or $950. The jury found the latter sum.

"At Union Court House, S.C., a tavern-keeper, by the name of Samuel
Davis, procured the conviction and execution of his own slave, for
stealing a cake of gingerbread from a grog shop. The slave raised the
latch of the back door, and took the cake, doing no other injury. The
shop keeper, whose name was Charles Gordon, was willing to forgive
him, but his master procured his conviction and execution by hanging.
The slave had but one arm; and an order on the state treasury by the
court that tried him, which also assessed his value, brought him more
money than he could have obtained for the slave in market."


Mr. ----, an elder of the Presbyterian Church in one of the slave
states, lately wrote a letter to an agent of the Anti-Slavery Society,
in which he states the following fact. The name of the writer is with
the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society.

"I was passing through a piece of timbered land, and on a sudden I
heard a sound as of murder; I rode in that direction, and at some
distance discovered a naked black man, hung to the limb of a tree by
his hands, his feet chained together, and a pine rail laid with one
end on the chain between his legs, and the other upon the ground, to
steady him; and in this condition the overseer gave him _four hundred
lashes_. The miserably lacerated slave was then taken down, and put to
the care of a physician. And what do you suppose was the offence for
which all this was done? Simply this; his owner, observing that he
laid off corn rows too crooked, he replied, 'Massa, much corn grow on
crooked row as on straight one!' This was it--this was enough. His
overseer, boasting of his skill in managing a _nigger_, he was
submitted to him, and treated as above."


DAVID L. CHILD, Esq., of Northampton, Massachusetts, Secretary of the
United States' minister at the Court of Lisbon during the
administration of President Monroe, stated the following fact in an
oration delivered by him in Boston, in 1831. (See Child's "Despotism
of Freedom," p. 30.

"An honorable friend, who stands high in the state and in the nation,
[12] was _present at the_ burial of a female slave in Mississippi, who
_had been whipped to death_ at the stake by her master, because she
was gone longer of an errand to the neighboring town than her master
thought necessary. Under the lash she protested tlat she was ill, and
was obliged to rest in the fields. To complete the climax of horror,
she was delivered of a dead infant while undergoing the punishment."

[Footnote 12: "The narrator of this fact is now absent from the United
States, and I do not feel at liberty to mention his name."]


The same fact is stated by MRS. CHILD in her "Appeal." In answer to a
recent letter, inquiring of Mr. and Mrs. Child if they were now at
liberty to disclose the name of their informant, Mr. C. says,--

"The witness who stated to us the fact was John James Appleton, Esq.,
of Cambridge, Mass. He is now in Europe, and it is not without some
hesitation that I give his name. He, however, has openly embraced our
cause, and taken a conspicuous part in some anti-slavery public
meetings since the time that I felt a scruple at publishing his name.
Mr. Appleton is a gentleman of high talents and accomplishments. He
has been Secretary of Legation at Rio Janeiro, Madrid, and the Hague;
Commissioner at Naples, and Charge d'Affaires at Stockholm."


The two following facts are stated upon the authority of the REV.
JOSEPH G. WILSON, pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Salem,
Washington co., Indiana.

"In Bath co., Kentucky, Mr. L., in the year '32 or '33, while
intoxicated, in a fit of rage whipped a female slave until she fainted
and fell on the floor. Then he whipped her to get up; then with red
hot tongs he burned off her ears, and whipped her again! but all in
vain. He then ordered his negro men to carry her to the cabin. There
she was found dead next morning.

"One Wall, in Chester district, S.C., owned a slave, whom he hired to
his brother-in-law, Wm. Beckman, for whom the slave worked eighteen
months, and worked well. Two weeks after returning to his master he
ran away on account of bad treatment. To induce him to return, the
master sold him _nominally_ to his neighbor, to whom the slave gave
himself up, and by whom he was returned to his master:--Punishment,
_stripes_. To prevent escape a bar of iron was fastened with three
bands, at the waist, knee, and ankle. That night he broke the bands
and bar, and escaped. Next day he was taken and whipped to death, by
three men, the master, Thorn, and the overseer. First, he was whipped
and driven towards home; on the way he attempted to escape, and was
shot at by the master,--caught, and knocked down with the butt of the
gun by Thorn. In attempting to cross a ditch he fell, with his feet
down, and face on the bank; they whipped in vain to get him up--he
died. His soul ascended to God, to be a swift witness against his
oppressors. This took place at 12 o'clock. Next evening an inquest was
held. Of thirteen jurors, summoned by the coroner, nine said it was
murder; two said it was manslaughter, and two said it was JUSTIFIABLE!
He was bound over to court, tried, and acquitted--not even fined!"


The following fact is stated on the authority of Mr. WM. WILLIS,  of
Green Plains, Clark co. Ohio; formerly of Caroline co. on the eastern
shore of Maryland.

"Mr. W. knew a slave called Peter White, who was sold to be taken to
Georgia; he escaped, and lived a long time in the woods--was finally
taken. When he found himself surrounded, he surrendered himself
quietly. When his pursuers had him in their possession, they shot him
in the leg, and broke it, out of mere wantonness. The next day a
Methodist minister set his leg, and bound it up with splints. The man
who took him, then went into his place of confinement, wantonly jumped
upon his leg and crushed it. His name was William Sparks."


Most of our readers are familiar with the horrible atrocities
perpetrated in New Orleans, in 1834, by a certain Madame La Laurie,
upon her slaves. They were published extensively in northern
newspapers at the time. The following are extracts from the accounts
as published in the New Orleans papers immediately after the
occurrence. The New Orleans Bee says:--

"Upon entering one of the apartments, the most appalling spectacle met
their eyes. Seven slaves, more or less horribly mutilated, were seen
suspended by the neck, with their limbs apparently stretched and torn,
from one extremity to the other. They had been confined for several
months in the situation from which they had thus providentially been
rescued; and had been merely kept in existence to prolong their
sufferings, and to make them taste all that a most refined cruelty
could inflict."


The New Orleans Mercantile Advertiser says:

"A negro woman was found chained, covered with bruises and wounds from
severe flogging.--All the apartments were then forced open. In a room
on the ground floor, two more were found chained, and in a deplorable
condition. Up stairs and in the garret, four more were found chained;
some so weak as to be unable to walk, and all covered with wounds and
sores. One mulatto boy declares himself to have been chained for five
months, being fed daily with only a handful of meal, and receiving
every morning the most cruel treatment."


The New Orleans Courier says:--

"We saw one of these miserable beings.--He had a large hole in his
head--his body, from head to foot, was covered with scars and filled
with worms."


The New Orleans Mercantile Advertiser says:

"Seven poor unfortunate slaves were found--some chained to the floor,
others with chains around their necks, fastened to the ceiling; and
one poor old man, upwards of sixty years of age, chained hand and
foot, and made fast to the floor, in a _kneeling position_. His head
bore the appearance of having been beaten until it was broken, and the
worms were actually to be seen making a feast of his brains!! A woman
had her back literally cooked (if the expression may be used) with the
lash; _the very bones might be seen projecting through the skin!_"


The New York Sun, of Feb. 21, 1837, contains the following:--

"Two negroes, runaways from Virginia, were overtaken a few days since
near Johnstown, Cambria co. Pa. when the persons in pursuit called out
for them to stop or they would shoot them.--One of the negroes turned
around and said, he would die before he would be taken, and at the
moment received a rifle ball through his knee: the other started to
run, but was brought to the ground by a ball being shot in his back.
After receiving the above wounds they made battle with their pursuers,
but were captured and brought into Johnstown. It is said that the
young men who shot them had orders to take them dead or alive."


Mr. M.M. SHAFTER, of Townsend, Vermont, recently a graduate of the
Wesleyan University at Middletown, Connecticut, makes the following
statement:

"Some of the events of the Southampton, Va. insurrection were narrated
to me by Mr. Benjamin W. Britt, from Riddicksville, N.C. Mr. Britt
claimed the honor of having shot a black on that occasion, for the
crime of disobeying Mr. Britt's imperative 'Stop.' And Mr. Ashurst, of
Edenton, Georgia, told me that a neighbor of his 'fired at a likely
negro boy of his mother,' because the said boy encroached upon his
premises."


Mr. DAVID HAWLEY, a class leader in the Methodist Episcopal Church at
St. Albans, Licking county, Ohio, who moved from Kentucky to Ohio in
1831, certifies as follows:--

"About the year 1825, a slave had escaped for Canada, but was arrested
in Hardin county. On his return, I saw him in Hart county--his wrists
tied together before, his arms tied close to his body, the rope then
passing behind his body, thence to the neck of a horse on which rode
the master, with a club about three feet long, and of the size of a
hoe handle; which, by the appearance of the slave, had been used on
his head, so as to wear off the hair and skin in several places, and
the blood was running freely from his mouth and nose; his heels very
much bruised by the horse's feet, as his master had rode on him
because he _would_ not go fast enough. Such was the slave's appearance
when passing through where I resided. Such cases were not unfrequent."


The following is furnished by Mr. F.A. HART, of Middletown,
Connecticut, a manufacturer, and an influential member of the
Methodist Episcopal Church. It occurred in 1824, about twenty-five
miles this side of Baltimore, Maryland.--

"I had spent the night with a Methodist brother; and while at
breakfast, a person came in and called for help. We went out and found
a crowd collected around a carriage. Upon approaching we discovered
that a slave-trader was endeavoring to force a woman into his
carriage. He had already put in three children, the youngest
apparently about eight years of age. The woman was strong, and
whenever he brought her to the side of the carriage, she resisted so
effectually with her feet that he could not get her in. The woman
becoming exhausted, at length, by her frantic efforts, he thrust her
in with great violence, _stamped her down upon the bottom with his
feet_! shouted to the driver to go on; and away they rolled, the
miserable captives moaning and shrieking, until their voices were lost
in the distance."


Mr. SAMUEL HALL, a teacher in Marietta College, Ohio, writes as
follows:--

"Mr. ISAAC C. FULLER is a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
Marietta. He was a fellow student of mine while in college, and now
resides in this place. He says:--In 1832, as I was descending the Ohio
with a flat boat, near the 'French Islands,' so called, below
Cincinnati, I saw two negroes on horseback. The horses apparently took
fright at something and ran. Both jumped over a rail fence; and one of
the horses, in so doing, broke one of his fore-legs, falling at the
same time and throwing the negro who was upon his back. A white man
came out of a house not over two hundred yards distant, and came to
the spot. Seizing a stake from the fence, he knocked the negro down
five or six times in succession.

"In the same year I worked for a Mr. Nowland, eleven miles above Baton
Rouge, La. at a place called 'Thomas' Bend.' He had an overseer who
was accustomed to flog more or less of the slaves every morning. I
heard the blows and screams as regularly as we used to hear the
college bell that summoned us to any duty when we went to school. This
overseer was a nephew of Nowland, and there were about fifty slaves on
his plantation. Nowland himself related the following to me. One of
his slaves ran away, and came to the Homo Chitto river, where he found
no means of crossing. Here he fell in with a white man who knew his
master, being on a journey from that vicinity. He induced the slave to
return to Baton Rouge, under the promise of giving him a pass, by
which he might escape, but, in reality, to betray him to his master.
This he did, instead of fulfilling his promise. Nowland said that he
took the slave and inflicted five hundred lashes upon him, cutting his
back all to pieces, and then thew on hot embers. The slave was on the
plantation at the time, and told me the same story. He also rolled up
his sleeves, and showed me the scars on his arms, which, in
consequence, appeared in places to be callous to the bone. I was with
Nowland between five and six months."


Rev. JOHN RANKIN, formerly of Tennessee, now pastor of the
Presbyterian Church of Ripley, Ohio, has furnished the following
statement:--

"The Rev. LUDWELL G. GAINES, now pastor of the Presbyterian Church of
Goshen, Clermont county, Ohio, stated to me, that while a resident of
a slave state, he was summoned to assist in taking a man who had made
his black woman work naked several days, and afterwards murdered her.
The murderer armed himself, and threatened to shoot the officer who
went to take him; and although there was ample assistance at hand, the
officer declined further interference."


Mr. RANKIN adds the following:--

"A Presbyterian preacher, now resident in a slave state, and therefore
it is not expedient to give his name, stated, that he saw on board of
a steamboat at Louisville, Kentucky, a woman who had been forced on
board, to be carried off from all she counted dear on earth. She ran
across the boat and threw herself into the river, in order to end a
life of intolerable sorrows. She was drawn back to the boat and taken
up. The brutal driver beat her severely, and she immediately threw
herself again into the river. She was hooked up again, chained, and
carried off."


Testimony of M. WILLIAM HANSBOROUGH, of Culpepper county, Virginia,
the "owner" of sixty slaves.

"I saw a slave taken out of prison by his master, on a hot summer's
day, and driven, by said master, on the road before him, till he
dropped down dead."


The above statement was made by Mr. Hansborough to Lindley Coates, of
Lancaster county, Pa. a distinguished member of the Society of
Friends, and a member of the late Convention in Pa. for altering the
State Constitution. The letter from Mr. C. containing this testimony
of Mr. H. is now before us.


Mr. TOBIAS BOUDINOT, a member of the Methodist Church in St. Albans,
Licking county, Ohio, says:

"In Nicholasville, Ky. in the year 1823, he saw a slave fleeing before
the patrol, but he was overtaken near where he stood, and a man with a
knotted cane, as large as his wrist, struck the slave a number of
times on his head, until the club was broken and he made tame; the
blood was thrown in every direction by the violence of the blows."


The Rev. WILLIAM DICKEY, of Bloomingburg, Fayette county, Ohio, wrote
a letter to the Rev. John Rankin, of Ripley, Ohio thirteen years
since, containing a description of the cutting up of a slave with a
broad axe; beginning at the feet and gradually cutting the legs, arms,
and body into pieces! This diabolical atrocity was committed in the
state of Kentucky, in the year 1807. The perpetrators of the deed were
two brothers, Lilburn and Isham Lewis, NEPHEWS OF PRESIDENT JEFFERSON.
The writer of this having been informed by Mr. Dickey, that some of
the facts connected with this murder were not contained in his letter
published by Mr. Rankin, requested him to write the account _anew_,
and furnish the additional facts. This he did, and the letter
containing it was published in the "Human Rights" for August, 1837. We
insert it here, slightly abridged, with the introductory remarks which
appeared in that paper.

"Mr. Dickey's first letter has been scattered all over the country,
south and north; and though multitudes have affected to disbelieve its
statements, _Kentuckians_ know the truth of them quite too well to
call them in question. The story is fiction or fact--if _fiction_, why
has it not been nailed to the wall? Hundreds of people around the
mouth of Cumberland River are personally knowing to these facts.
_There_ are the records of the court that tried the wretches.--_There_
their acquaintances and kindred still live. All over that region of
country, the brutal butchery of George is a matter of public
notoriety. It is quite needless, perhaps, to add, that the Rev. Wm.
Dickey is a Presbyterian clergyman, one of the oldest members of the
Chilicothe Presbytery, and greatly respected and beloved by the
churches in Southern Ohio. He was born in South Carolina, and was for
many years pastor of a church in Kentucky."

REV. WM. DICKEY'S LETTER.

"In the county of Livingston, KY. near the mouth of Cumberland River,
lived Lilburn Lewis, a sister's son of the celebrated Jefferson. He
was the wealthy owner of a considerable gang of negroes, whom he drove
constantly, fed sparingly, and lashed severely. The consequence was,
that they would run away. Among the rest was an ill-thrived boy of
about seventeen, who, having just returned from a skulking spell, was
sent to the spring for water, and in returning let fall an elegant
pitcher: it was dashed to shivers upon the rocks. This was made the
occasion for reckoning with him. It was night, and the slaves were all
at home. The master had them all collected in the most roomy negro
house, and a rousing fire put on. When the door was secured, that none
might escape, either through _fear of him_ or _sympathy with George_,
he opened to them the design of the interview, namely, that they might
be effectually advised to _stay at home and obey his orders_. All
things now in train, he called up George, who approached his master
with unreserved submission. He bound him with cords; and by the
assistance of Isham Lewis, his youngest brother, laid him on a broad
bench, the _meat-block_. He then proceeded to _hack off George at the
ankles_! It was with the _broad axe_! In vain did the unhappy victim
_scream and roar_! for he was completely in his master's power; not a
hand among so many durst interfere; casting the feet into the fire, he
lectured them at some length.--He next _chopped him off below the
knees_! George _roaring out_ and praying his master to begin at the
_other end_! He admonished them again, throwing the legs into the
fire--then, above the knees, tossing the joints into the fire--the
next stroke severed the thighs from the body; these were also
committed to the flames--and so it may be said of the arms, head, and
trunk, until all was in the fire! He threatened any of them with
similar punishment who should in future disobey, run away, or disclose
the proceedings of that evening. Nothing now remained but to consume
the flesh and bones; and for this purpose the fire was brightly
stirred until two hours after midnight; when a coarse and heavy
back-wall, composed of rock and clay, covered the fire and the remains
of George. It was the Sabbath--this put an end to the _amusements_ of
the evening. The negroes were now permitted to disperse, with charges
to keep this matter among themselves, and never to whisper it in the
neighbourhood, under the penalty of a like punishment.

"When he returned home and retired, his wife exclaimed, 'Why, Mr.
Lewis, where have you been, and what were you doing?' She had heard a
strange _pounding_ and dreadful _screams_, and had smelled something
like fresh meat _burning_. The answer he returned was, that he had
never enjoyed himself at a ball so well as he had enjoyed himself that
night.

"Next morning he ordered the hands to rebuild the back-wall, and he
himself superintended the work, throwing the pieces of flesh that
still remained, with the bones, behind, as it went up--thus hoping to
conceal the matter. But it _could not be hid_--much as the negroes
seemed to hazard, they did _whisper the horrid deed_. The neighbors
came, and in his presence tore down the wall; and finding the
_remains_ of the boy, they apprehended Lewis and his brother, and
testified against them. They were committed to jail, that they might
answer at the coming court for this shocking outrage; but finding
security for their appearance at court, THEY WERE ADMITTED TO BAIL!

"In the interim, other articles of evidence leaked out. That of Mrs.
Lewis hearing a pounding, and screaming and her smelling fresh meat
burning, for not till now had this come out. He was offended with her
for disclosing these things, alleging that they might have some weight
against him at the pending trial.

"In connection with this is another item, full of horror. Mr.s. Lewis,
or her girl, in making her bed one morning after this, found, under
her bolster, a keen BUTCHER KNIFE! The appalling discovery forced from
her the confession that she considered her life in jeopardy. Messrs.
Rice and Philips, whose wives were her sisters, went to see her and to
bring her away if she wished it. Mr. Lewis received them with all the
expressions of _Virginia hospitality_. As soon as they were seated
they said, 'Well, Letitia, we supposed that you might be unhappy here,
and afraid for your life; and we have come to-day to take you to your
father's, if you desire it.' She said, 'Thank you, kind brothers, I am
indeed afraid for my life.'--We need not interrupt the story to tell
how much surprised he affected to be with this strange procedure of
his brothers-in-law, and with this declaration of his wife. But all
his professions of fondness for her, to the contrary notwithstanding,
they rode off with her before his eyes.--He followed and overtook, and
went with them to her father's; but she was locked up from him, with
her own consent, and he returned home.

"Now he saw that his character was gone, his respectable friends
believed that he had massacred George; but, worst of all, he saw that
they considered the life of the harmless Letitia was in danger from
his perfidious hands. It was too much for his chivalry to sustain. The
proud Virginian sunk under the accumulated load of public odium. He
proposed to his brother Isham, who had been his accomplice in the
George affair, that they should finish the play of life with a still
deeper tragedy. The plan was, that they should shoot one another.
Having made the hot-brained bargain, they repaired with their guns to
the grave-yard, which was on an eminence in the midst of his
plantation. It was inclosed with a railing, say thirty feet square.
One was to stand at one railing, and the other over against him at the
other. They were to make ready, take aim, and count deliberately 1, 2,
3, and then fire. Lilburn's will was written, and thrown down open
beside him. They cocked their guns and raised them to their faces; but
the peradventure occurring that one of the guns might miss fire, Isham
was sent for a rod, and when it was brought, Lilburn cut it off at
about the length of two feet, and was showing his brother how the
survivor might do, provided one of the guns should fail; (for they
were determined upon going together;) but forgetting, perhaps, in the
perturbation of the moment that the gun was cocked, when he touched
trigger with the rod the gun fired, and he fell, and died in a few
minutes--and was with George in the eternal world, where _the slave is
free from his master_. But poor Isham was so terrified with this
unexpected occurrence and so confounded by the awful contortions of
his brother's face, that he had not nerve enough to follow up the
play, and finish the plan as was intended, but suffered Lilburn to go
alone. The negroes came running to see what it meant that a gun should
be fired in the grave-yard. There lay their master, dead! They ran for
the neighbors. Isham still remained on the spot. The neighbors at the
first charged him with the murder of his brother. But he, though as if
he had lost more than half his mind, told the whole story; and the
course of range of the ball in the dead man's body agreeing with his
statement, Isham was not farther charged with Lilburn's death.

"The Court sat--Isham was judged to be guilty of a capital crime in
the affair of George. He was to be hanged at Salem. The day was set.
My good old father visited him in the prison--two or three times
talked and prayed with him; I visited him once myself. We fondly hoped
that he was a sincere penitent. Before the day of execution came, by
some means, I never knew what, Isham was _missing_. About two years
after, we learned that he had gone down to Natchez, and had married a
lady of some refinement and piety. I saw her letters to his sisters,
who were worthy members of the church of which I was pastor. The last
letter told of his death. He was in Jackson's army, and fell in the
famous battle of New Orleans."

"I am, sir, your friend,

"WM. DICKEY."



PERSONAL NARRATIVES-PART III.


NARRATIVE AND TESTIMONY OF REV. FRANCIS HAWLEY.

Mr. Hawley is the pastor of the Baptist Church in Colebrook,
Litchfield county, Connecticut. He has resided fourteen years in the
slave states, North and South Carolina. His character and standing
with his own denomination at the south, may be inferred from the
fact, that the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina appointed
him, a few years since, their general agent to visit the Baptist
churches within their bounds, and to secure their co-operation in
the objects of the Convention. Mr. H. accepted the appointment, and
for some time traveled in that capacity.

"I rejoice that the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery
Society have resolved to publish a volume of facts and testimony
relative to the character and workings of American slavery. Having
resided fourteen years at the south, I cheerfully comply with your
request, to give the result of my observation and experience.

"And I would here remark, that one may reside at the south for years,
and not witness extreme cruelties; a northern man, and one who is not
a slaveholder, would be the last to have an opportunity of witnessing
the infliction of cruel punishments."


PLANTATIONS.

"A majority of the large plantations are on the banks of rivers, far
from the public eye. A great deal of low marshy ground lies in the
vicinity of most of the rivers at the south; consequently the main
roads are several miles from the rivers, and generally no _public_
road passes the plantations. A stranger traveling on the _ridge_,
would think himself in a miserably poor country; but every two or
three miles he will see a road turning off and leading into the swamp;
taking one of those roads, and traveling from two to six miles, he
will come to a large gate; passing which, he will find himself in a
clearing of several hundred acres of the first quality of land;
passing on, he will see 30, or 40, or more slaves--men, women, boys
and girls, at their task, every one with a hoe; or, if in cotton
picking season, with their baskets. The overseer, with his whip,
either riding or standing about among them; or if the weather is hot,
sitting under a shade. At a distance, on a little rising ground, if
such there be, he will see a cluster of huts, with a tolerable house
in the midst, for the overseer. Those huts are from ten to fifteen
feet square, built of logs, and covered, not with shingles, but with
boards, about four feet long, split out of pine timber with a
'_frow_'. The floors are very commonly made in this way. Clay is first
worked until it is soft; it is then spread upon the ground, about four
or five inches thick; when it dries, it becomes nearly as hard as a
brick. The crevices between the logs are sometimes filled with the
same. These huts generally cost the master nothing--they are commonly
built by the negroes at night, and on Sundays. When a slave of a
neighboring plantation takes a wife, or to use the phrase common at
the south, 'takes up' with one of the women, he builds a hut, and it
is called her house. Upon entering these huts, (not as comfortable in
many instances as the horse stable,) generally, you will find no
chairs, but benches and stools; no table, no bedstead, and no bed,
except a blanket or two, and a few rags or moss; in some instances a
knife or two, but very rarely a fork. You may also find a pot or
skillet, and generally a number of gourds, which serve them instead of
bowls and plates. The cruelties practiced on those secluded
plantations, the judgment day alone can reveal. Oh, Brother, could I
summon ten slaves from ten plantations that I could name, and have
them give but one year's history of their bondage, it would thrill the
land with horror. Those overseers who follow the business of
overseeing for a livelihood, are generally the most unprincipled and
abandoned of men. Their wages are regulated according to their skill
in extorting labor. The one who can make the most bags of cotton, with
a given number of hands, is the one generally sought after; and there
is a competition among them to see who shall make the largest crop,
according to the hands he works. I ask, what must be the condition of
the poor slaves, under the unlimited power of such men, in whom, by
the long-continued practise of the most heart-rending cruelties, every
feeling of humanity has been obliterated? But it may be asked, cannot
the slaves have redress by appealing to their masters? In many
instances it is impossible, as their masters live hundreds of miles
off. There are perhaps thousands in the northern slave states, [and
many in the free states,] who own plantations in the southern slave
states, and many more spend their summers at the north, or at the
various watering places. But what would the slaves gain, if they
should appeal to the master? He has placed the overseer over them,
with the understanding that he will make as large a crop as possible,
and that he is to have entire control, and manage them according to
his own judgment. Now suppose that in the midst of the season, the
slaves make complaint of cruel treatment. The master cannot get along
without an overseer--it is perhaps very sickly on the plantation he
dare not risk his own life there. Overseers are all enraged at that
season, and if he takes part with his slave against the overseer, he
would destroy his authority, and very likely provoke him to leave his
service--which would of course be a very great injury to him. Thus, in
nineteen cases out of twenty, self-interest would prevent the master
from paying any attention to the complaints of his slaves. And, if any
should complain, it would of course come to the ears of the overseer,
and the complainant would be inhumanly punished for it."


CLOTHING.

"The rule, where slaves are hired out, is two suits of clothes per
year, one pair of shoes, and one blanket; but as it relates to the
great body of the slaves, this cannot be called a general rule. On
many plantations, the children under ten or twelve years old, go
_entirely naked_--or, it clothed at all, they have nothing more than a
shirt. The cloth is of the coarsest kind, far from being durable or
warm; and their shoes frequently come to pieces in a few weeks. I
have never known any provision made, or time allowed for the washing
of clothes. If they wish to wash, as they have generally but one suit,
they go after their day's toil to some stream, build a fire, pull off
their clothes and wash them in the stream, and dry them by the fire;
and in some instances they wear their clothes until they are worn off;
without washing. I have never known an instance of a slaveholder
putting himself to any expense, that his slaves might have decent
clothes for the Sabbath. If by making baskets, brooms, mats, &c. at
night or on Sundays, the slaves can get money enough to buy a Sunday
suit, very well. I have never known an instance of a slaveholder
furnishing his slaves with stockings or mittens. I _know_ that the
slaves suffer much, and no doubt many die in consequence of not being
well clothed."


FOOD.

"In the grain-growing part of the south, the slaves, as it relates to
food, fare tolerably well; but in the cotton, and rice-growing, and
sugar-making portion, some of them fare badly. I have been on
plantations where, from the appearance of the slaves, I should judge
they were half-starved. They receive their allowance very commonly on
Sunday morning. They are left to cook it as they please, and when they
please. Many slaveholders rarely give their slaves meat, and very few
give them more food than will keep them in a working condition. They
rarely ever have a _change_ of food. I have never known an instance of
slaves on plantations being furnished either with sugar, butter,
cheese, or milk."


WORK.

"If the slaves on plantations were well fed and clothed, and had the
stimulus of wages, they could perhaps in general perform their tasks
without injury. The horn is blown soon after the dawn of day, when all
the hands destined for the field must be 'on the march!' If the field
is far from their huts, they take their breakfast with them. They toil
till about ten o'clock, when they eat it. They then continue their
toil till the sun is set.

"A neighbor of mine, who has been an overseer in Alabama, informs me,
that there they ascertain how much labor a slave can perform in a day,
in the following manner. When they commence a new cotton field, the
overseer takes his watch, and marks how long it takes them to hoe one
row, and then lays out the task accordingly. My neighbor also informs
me, that the slaves in Alabama are worked very hard; that the lash is
almost universally applied at the close of the day, if they fail to
perform their task in the cotton-picking season. You will see them,
with their baskets of cotton, slowly bending their way to the cotton
house, where each one's basket is weighed. They have no means of
knowing accurately, in the course of the day, how they make progress;
so that they are in suspense, until their basket is weighed. Here
comes the mother, with her children; she does not know whether
herself, or children, or all of them, must take the lash; they cannot
weigh the cotton themselves--the whole must be trusted to the
overseer. While the weighing goes on, all is still. So many pounds
short, cries the overseer, and takes up his whip, exclaiming, 'Step
this way, you d--n lazy scoundrel, or bitch.' The poor slave begs, and
promises, but to no purpose. The lash is applied until the overseer is
satisfied. Sometimes the whipping is deferred until the weighing is
all over. I have said that all must be _trusted_ to the overseer. If
he owes any one a grudge, or wishes to enjoy the fiendish pleasure of
whipping a little, (for some overseers really delight in it,) they
have only to tell a falsehood relative to the weight of their basket;
they can then have a pretext to gratify their diabolical disposition;
and from the character of overseers, I have no doubt that it is
frequently done. On all plantations, the male and female slaves fare
pretty much alike; those who are with child are driven to their task
till within a few days of the time of their delivery; and when the
child is a few weeks old, the mother must again go to the field. If it
is far from her hut, she must take her babe with her, and leave it in
the care of some of the children--perhaps of one not more than four or
five years old. If the child cries, she cannot go to its relief; the
eye of the overseer is upon her; and if, when she goes to nurse it,
she stays a little longer than the overseer thinks necessary, he
commands her back to her task, and perhaps a husband and father must
hear and witness it all. Brother, you cannot begin to know what the
poor slave mothers suffer, on thousands of plantations at the south.

"I will now give a few facts, showing the workings of the system. Some
years since, a Presbyterian minister moved from North Carolina to
Georgia. He had a negro man of an uncommon mind. For some cause, I
know not what, this minister whipped him most unmercifully. He next
nearly _drowned_ him; he then put him _in the fence_; this is done by
lifting up the corner of a 'worm' fence, and then putting the feet
through; the rails serve as _stocks_. He kept him there some time, how
long I was not informed, but the poor slave _died_ in a few days; and,
if I was rightly informed, nothing was done about it, either in church
or state. After some tame, he moved back to North Carolina, and is now
a member of ---- Presbytery. I have heard him preach, and have been in
the pulpit with him. May God forgive me!

"At Laurel Hill, Richmond county, North Carolina, it was reported that
a runaway slave was in the neighborhood. A number of young men took
their guns, and went in pursuit. Some of them took their station near
the stage road, and kept on the look-out. It was early in the
evening--the poor slave came along, when the ambush rushed upon him,
and ordered him to surrender. He refused, and kept them off with his
club. They still pressed upon him with their guns presented to his
breast. Without seeming to be daunted, he caught hold of the muzzle of
one of the guns, and came near getting possession of it. At length,
retreating to a fence on one side of the road, he sprang over into a
corn-field, and started to run in one of the rows. One of the young
men stepped to the fence, fired, and lodged the whole charge between
his shoulders; he fell, and died in a short time. He died without
telling who his master was, or whether he had any, or what his own
name was, or where he was from. A hole was dug by the side of the road
his body tumbled into it, and thus ended the whole matter.

"The Rev, Mr. C. a Methodist minister, held as his slave a negro man,
who was a member of his own church. The slave was considered a very
pious man, had the confidence of his master, and all who knew him, and
if I recollect right, he sometimes attempted to preach. Just before
the Nat Turner insurrection, in Southampton county, Virginia, by which
the whole south was thrown into a panic, then worthy slave obtained
permission to visit his relatives, who resided either in Southampton,
or the county adjoining. This was the only instance that ever came to
my knowledge, of a slave being permitted to go so far to visit his
relatives. He went and returned according to agreement. A few weeks
after his return, the insurrection took place, and the whole country
was deeply agitated. Suspicion soon fixed on this slave. Nat Turner
was a Baptist minister, and the south became exceedingly jealous of
all negro preachers. It seemed as if the whole community were
impressed with the belief that he knew all about it; that he and Nat
Turner had concocted an extensive insurrection; and so confident were
they in this belief, that they took the poor slave, tried him, and
hung him. It was all done in a few days. He protested his innocence to
the last. After the excitement was over, many were ready to
acknowledge that they believed him innocent. He was hung upon
_suspicion_!

"In R---- county, North Carolina, lived a Mr. B. who had the name of
being a cruel master. Three or four winters since, his slaves were
engaged in clearing a piece of new land. He had a negro girl, about 14
years old, whom he had severely whipped a few days before, for not
performing her task. She again failed. The hands left the field for
home; she went with them a part of the way, and fell behind; but the
negroes thought she would soon be along; the evening passed away, and
she did not come. They finally concluded that she had gone back to the
new ground, to lie by the log heaps that were on fire. But they were
mistaken: she had sat down by the foot of a large pine. She was thinly
clad--the night was cold and rainy. In the morning the poor girl was
found, but she was speechless and died in a short time.

"One of my neighbors sold to a speculator a negro boy, about 14 years
old. It was more than his poor mother could bear. Her reason fled, and
she became a perfect _maniac_, and had to be kept in close
confinement. She would occasionally get out and run off to the
neighbors. On one of these occasions she came to my house. She was
indeed a pitiable object. With tears rolling down her checks, and her
frame shaking with agony, she would cry out, _'don't you hear
him--they are whipping him now, and he is calling for me!'_ This
neighbor of mine, who tore the boy away from his poor mother, and thus
broke her heart, was a _member of the Presbyterian church._

"Mr. S----, of Marion District, South Carolina, informed me that a boy
was killed by the overseer on Mr. P----'s plantation. The boy was
engaged in driving the horses in a cotton gin. The driver generally
sits on the end of the sweep. Not driving to suit the overseer, he
knocked him off with the butt of his whip. His skull was fractured. He
died in a short time.

"A man of my acquaintance in South Carolina, and of considerable
wealth, had an only son, whom he educated for the bar; but not
succeeding in his profession, he soon returned home. His father having
a small plantation three or four miles off; placed his son on it as an
overseer. Following the example of his father, as I have good reason
to believe, he took the wife of one of the negro men. The poor slave
felt himself greatly injured, and expostulated with him. The wretch
took his gun, and deliberately shot him. Providentially he only
wounded him badly. When the father came, and undertook to remonstrate
with his son about his conduct, he threatened to shoot him also! and
finally, took the negro woman, and went to Alabama, where he still
resided when I left the south.

"An elder in the Presbyterian church related to me the following.--'A
speculator with his drove of negroes was passing my house, and I
bought a little girl, nine or ten years old. After a few months, I
concluded that I would rather have a plough-boy. Another speculator
was passing, and I sold the girl. She was much distressed, and was
very unwilling to leave.'--She had been with him long enough to become
attached to his own and his negro children, and he concluded by
saying, that in view of the little girl's tears and cries, he had
determined never to do the like again. I would not trust him, for I
know him to be a very avaricious man.

"While traveling in Anson county, North Carolina, I put up for a night
at a private house. The man of the house was not at home when I
stopped, but came in the course of the evening, and was noisy and
profane, and nearly drunk. I retired to rest, but not to sleep; his
cursing and swearing were enough to keep a regiment awake. About
midnight he went to his kitchen, and called out his two slaves, a man
and woman. His object, he said, was to whip them. They both begged and
promised, but to no purpose. The whipping began, and continued for
some time. Their cries might have been heard at a distance.

"I was acquainted with a very wealthy planter, on the Pedee river, in
South Carolina, who has since died in consequence of intemperance. It
was said that he had occasioned the death of twelve of his slaves, by
compelling them to work in water, opening a ditch in the midst of
winter. The disease with which they died was a pleurisy.

"In crossing Pedee river, at Cashway Ferry, I observed that the
ferryman had no hair on either side of his head, I asked him the
cause. He informed me that it was caused by his master's cane. I said,
you have a very bad master. 'Yes, a very bad master.' I understood
that he was once a number of Congress from South Carolina.

"While traveling as agent for the North Carolina Baptist State
Convention, I attended a three days' meeting in Gates county, Friday,
the first day, passed off. Saturday morning came, and the pastor of
the church, who lived a few miles off, did not make his appearance.
The day passed off, and no news from the pastor. On Sabbath morning,
he came hobbling along, having but little use of one foot. He soon
explained: said he had a hired negro man, who, on Saturday morning,
gave him a 'little _slack jaw.'_ Not having a stick at hand, he fell
upon him with his fist and foot, and in _kicking_ him, he injured his
foot so seriously, that he could not attend meeting on Saturday.

"Some of the slaveholding ministers at the south, put their slaves
under overseers, or hire them out, and then take the pastoral care of
churches. The Rev. Mr. B----, formerly of Pennsylvania, had a
plantation in Marlborough District, South Carolina, and was the pastor
of a church in Darlington District. The Rev. Mr. T----, of Johnson
county, North Carolina, has a plantation in Alabama.

"I was present, and saw the Rev. J---- W----, of Mecklenburg county,
North Carolina, hire out four slaves to work in the gold mines is
Burke county. The Rev. H---- M----, of Orange county, sold for $900, a
negro man to a speculator, on a Monday of a camp meeting.

"Runaway slaves are frequently hunted with guns and dogs. _I was once
out on such an excursion, with my rifle and two dogs._ I trust the
Lord has forgiven me this heinous wickedness! We did not take the
runaways.

"Slaves are sometimes most unmercifully punished for trifling
offences, or mere mistakes.

"As it relates to amalgamation, I can say, that I have been in
respectable families, (so called,) where I could distinguish the
family resemblance in the slaves who waited upon the table. I once
hired a slave who belonged to his own _uncle._ It is so common for the
female slaves to have white children, that little or nothing is ever
said about it. Very few inquiries are made as to who the father is.

"Thus, brother ----, I have given you very briefly, the result, in
part, of my observations and experience relative to slavery. You can
make what disposition of it you please. I am willing that my name
should go to the world with what I have now written.

"Yours affectionately, for the oppressed,

"FRANCIS HAWLEY."

_Colebrook, Connecticut, March_ 18, 1839.



TESTIMONY OF REUBEN G. MACY AND RICHARD MACY.


The following is an extract of a letter recently received from CHARLES
MARRIOTT of Hudson, New York. Mr. Marriott is an elder in the
Religious Society of Friends, and is extensively known and respected.

"The two following brief statements, are furnished by Richard Macy and
Reuben G. Macy, brothers, both of Hudson, New York. They are head
carpenters by trade, and have been well known to me for more than
thirty years, as esteemed members of the Religious Society of Friends.
They inform me that during their stay in South Carolina, a number more
similar cases to those here related, came under their notice, which to
avoid repetition they omit.

C. MARRIOTT."


TESTIMONY OF REUBEN G. MACY.

"During the winter of 1818 and 19, I resided on an island near the
mouth of the Savanna river, on the South Carolina side. Most of the
slaves that came under my particular notice, belonged to a widow and
her daughter, in whose family I lived. No white man belonged to the
plantation. Her slaves were under the care of an overseer who came
once a week to give orders, and settled the score laid up against such
as their mistress thought deserved punishment, which was from
twenty-five to thirty lashes on their naked backs, with a whip which
the overseer generally brought with him. This whip had a stout handle
about two feet long, and a lash about four and a half feet. From two
to four received the above, I believe nearly every week during the
winter, sometimes in my presence, and always in my hearing. I examined
the backs and shoulders of a number of the men, which were mostly
naked while they were about their labor, and found them covered with
hard ridges in every direction. One day, while busy in the cotton
house, hearing a noise, I ran to the door and saw a colored woman
pleading with the overseer, who paid no attention to her cries, but
tied her hands together, and passed the rope over a beam, over head,
where was a platform for spreading cotton, he then drew the rope as
tight as he could, so as to let her toes touch the ground; then
stripped her body naked to the waist, and went deliberately to work
with his whip, and put on twenty-five or thirty lashes, she pleading
in vain all the time. I inquired, the cause of such treatment, and was
informed it was for answering her mistress rather '_short_.'"

"A woman from a neighboring plantation came where I was, on a visit;
she came in a boat rowed by six slaves, who, according to the common
practice, were left to take care of themselves, and having laid them
down in the boat and fallen asleep, the tide fell, and the water
filling the stern of the boat, wet their mistresses trunk of clothes.
When she discovered it, she called them up near where I was, and
compelled them to whip each other, till they all had received a severe
flogging. She standing by with a whip in her hand to see that they did
not spare each other. Their usual allowance of food was one peck of
corn per week, which was dealt out to them every first day of the
week, and such as were not there to receive their portion at the
appointed time, had to live as they could during the coming week. Each
one had the privilege of planting a small piece of ground, and raising
poultry for their own use which they generally sold, that is, such as
did improve the privilege which were but few. They had nothing allowed
them besides the corn, except one quarter of beef at Christmas which a
slave brought three miles on his head. They were allowed three days
rest at Christmas. Their clothing consisted of a pair of trowsers and
jacket, made of whitish woollen cloth called negro cloth. The women
had nothing but a petticoat, and a very short short-gown, made of the
same king of cloth. Some of the women had an old pair of shoes, but
they generally went _barefoot_. The houses for the field slaves were
about fourteen feet square, built in the coarsest manner, having but
one room, without any chimney, or flooring, with a hole at the roof at
one end to let the smoke out.

"Each one was allowed one blanket in which they rolled themselves up.
I examined their houses but could not discover any thing like a bed. I
was informed that when they had a sufficiency of potatoes the slaves
were allowed some; but the season that I was there they did not raise
more than were wanted for seed. All their corn was ground in one
hand-mill, every night just as much as was necessary for the family,
then each one his daily portion, which took considerable time in the
night. I often awoke and heard the sound of the mill. Grinding the
corn in the night, and in the dark, after their day's labor, and the
want of other food, were great hardships.

"The traveling in those parts, among the islands, was altogether with
boats, rowed by from four to ten slaves, which often stopped at our
plantation, and staid through the night, when the slaves, after rowing
through the day, were left to shift for themselves; and when they went
to Savannah with a load of cotton the were obliged to sleep in the
open boats, as the law did not allow a colored person to be out after
eight o'clock in the evening, without a pass from his master."


TESTIMONY OF RICHARD MACY.

"The above account is from my brother, I was at work on Hilton Head
about twenty miles north of my brother, during the same winter. The
same allowance of one peck of corn for a week, the same kind of houses
to live in, and the same method of grinding their corn, and always in
the night, and in the dark, was practiced there.

"A number of instances of severe whipping came under my notice. The
first was this:--two men were sent out to saw some blocks out of large
live oak timber on which to raise my building. Their saw was in poor
order, and they sawed them badly, for which their master stripped them
naked and flogged them.

"The next instance was a boy about sixteen years of age. He had crept
into the coach to sleep; after two or three nights he was caught by
the coach driver, a _northern man_, and stripped _entirely naked_, and
whipped without mercy, his master looking on.

"Another instance. The overseer, a young white man, had ordered
several negroes a boat's crew, to be on the spot at a given time. One
man did not appear until the boat had gone. The overseer was very
angry and told him to strip and be flogged; he being slow, was told if
he did not instantly strip off his jacket, he, the overseer, would
whip it off which he did in shreds, whipping him cruelly.

"The man ran into the barrens and it was about a month before they
caught him. He was newly starved, and at last stole a turkey; then
another, and was caught.

"Having occasion to pass a plantation very early one foggy morning, in
a boat we heard the sound of the whip, before we could see, but as we
drew up in front of the plantation, we could see the negroes at work
in the field. The overseer was going from one to the other causing
them to lay down their hoe, strip off their garment, hold up their
hands and receive their number of lashes. Thus he went on from one to
the other until we were out of sight. In the course of the winter a
family came where I was, on a visit from a neighboring island; of
course, in a boat with negroes to row them--one of these a barber,
told me that he ran away about two years before, and joined a company
of negroes who had fled to the swamps. He said they suffered a great
deal--were at last discovered by a party of hunters, who fired among
them, and caused them to scatter. Himself and one more fled to the
coast, took a boat and put off to sea, a storm came on and swamped or
upset them, and his partner was drowned, he was taken up by a passing
vessel and returned to his master.

RICHARD MACY.

_Hudson, 12 mo. 29th_, 1838."



TESTIMONY OF MR. ELEAZAR POWELL


EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM MR. WILLIAM SCOTT, a highly respectable
citizen of Beaver co. Pennsylvania, dated Jan 7, 1839.

_Chippeca Township, Beaver co. Pa. Jan._ 7, 1839.

"I send you the statement of Mr. Eleazar Powell, who was born, and has
mostly resided in this township from his birth. His character for
sobriety and truth stands above impeachment.

"With sentiments of esteem,
I am your friend,
WILLIAM SCOTT.

"In the month of December, 1836, I went to the State of Mississippi to
work at my trade, (masonry and bricklaying,) and continued to work in
the counties of Adams and Jefferson, between four and five months. In
following my business I had an opportunity of seeing the treatment of
slaves in several places.

"In Adams county I built a chimney for a man named Joseph Gwatney; he
had forty-five field hands of both sexes. The field in which they
worked at that time, lay about two miles from the house; the hands had
to cook and eat their breakfast, prepare their dinner, and be in the
field at daylight, and continue there till dark. In the evening the
cotton they had picked was weighed, and if they fell short of their
task they were whipped. One night I attended the weighing--two women
fell short of their task, and the master ordered the black driver to
take them to the quarters and flog them; one of them was to receive
twenty-five lashes and pick a peck of cotton seed. I have been with
the overseer several times through the negro quarters. The huts are
generally built of split timber, some larger than rails, twelve and a
half feet wide and fourteen feet long--some with and some without
chimneys, and generally without floors; they were generally without
daubing, and mostly had split clapboards nailed on the cracks on the
outside, though some were without even that: in some there was a kind
of rough bedstead, made from rails, polished with the axe, and put
together in a very rough manner, the bottom covered with clapboards,
and over that a bundle of worn out clothes. In some huts there was no
bedstead at all. The above description applies to the places generally
with which I was acquainted, and they were mostly _old settlements._

"In the east part of Jefferson county I built a chimney for a man
named ---- M'Coy; he had forty-seven laboring hands. Near where I was
at work, M'Coy had ordered one of his slaves to set a post for a gate.
When he came to look at it, he said the slave had not set it in the
right place; and ordered him to strip, and lie down on his face;
telling him that if he struggled, or attempted to get up, two men, who
had been called to the spot, should seize and hold him fast. The slave
agreed to be quiet, and M'Coy commenced flogging him on the bare back,
with the wagon whip. After some time the sufferer attempted to get up;
one of the slaves standing by, seized him by the feet and held him
fast; upon which he yielded, and M'Coy continued to flog him ten or
fifteen minutes. When he was up, and had put on his trowsers, the
blood came through them.

"About half a mile from M'Coy's was a plantation owned by his
step-daughter. The overseer's name was James Farr, of whom it appears
Mrs. M'Coy's waiting woman was enamoured. One night, while I lived
there, M'Coy came from Natchez, about 10 o'clock at night. He said
that Dinah was gone, and wished his overseer to go with him to Farr's
lodgings. They went accordingly, one to each door, and caught Dinah as
she ran out, she was partly dressed in her mistress's clothes; M'Coy
whipped her unmercifully, and she afterwards made her escape. On the
next day, (Sabbath), M'Coy came to the overseer's, where I lodged, and
requested him and me to look for her, as he was afraid that she had
hanged herself. He then gave me the particulars of the flogging. He
stated that near Farr's he had made her strip and lie down, and had
flogged her until he was tired; that before he reached home he had a
second time made her strip, and again flogged her until he was tired;
that when he reached home he had tied her to a peach-tree, and after
getting a drink had flogged her until he was thirsty again; and while
he went to get a drink the woman made her escape. He stated that he
knew, from the whipping he had given her, there must be in her back
cuts an inch deep. He showed the place where she had been tied to the
tree; there appeared to be as much blood as if a hog had been stuck
there. The woman was found on Sabbath evening, near the sprang, and
had to be carried into the house.

"While I lived there I heard M'Coy say, if the slaves did not raise
him three hundred bales of cotton the ensuing season, he would kill
every negro he had.

"Another case of flogging came under my notice: Philip O. Hughes,
sheriff of Jefferson county, had hired a slave to a man, whose name I
do not recollect. On a Sabbath day the slave had drank somewhat
freely; he was ordered by the tavern keeper, (where his present master
had left his horse and the negro,) to stay in the kitchen; the negro
wished to be out. In persisting to go out he was knocked down three
times; and afterwards flogged until another young man and myself ran
about half a mile, having been drawn by the cries of the negro and the
sound of the whip. When we came up, a number of men that had been
about the tavern, were whipping him, and at intervals would ask him if
he would take off his clothes. At seeing them drive down the stakes
for a regular flogging he yielded, and took them off. They then
flogged him until satisfied. On the next morning I saw him, and his
pantaloons were all in a gore of blood.

"During my stay in Jefferson county, Philip O. Hughes was out one day
with his gun--he saw a negro at some distance, with a club in one hand
and an ear of corn in the other--Hughes stepped behind a tree, and
waited his approach; he supposed the negro to be a runaway, who had
escaped about nine months before from his master, living not very far
distant. The negro discovered Hughes before he came up, and started to
run; he refusing to stop, Hughes fired, and shot him through the arm.
Through loss of blood the negro was soon taken and put in jail. I saw
his wound twice dressed, and heard Hughes make the above statement.

"When in Jefferson county I boarded six weeks in Fayette, the county
town, with a tavern keeper named James Truly. He had a slave named
Lucy, who occupied the station of chamber maid and table waiter. One
day, just after dinner Mrs. Truly took Lucy and bound her arms round a
pine sapling behind the house, and commenced flogging her with a
riding-whip; and when tired would take her chair and rest. She
continued thus alternately flogging and resting, for at least an hour
and a half. I afterwards learned from the bar-keeper, and others, that
the woman's offence was that she had bought two candles to set on the
table the evening before, not knowing there were yet some in the box.
I did nor see the act of flogging above related; but it was commenced
before I left the house after dinner, and my work not being more than
twenty rods from the house, I distinctly heard the cries of the woman
all the time, and the manner of tying I had from those who did see it.

"While I boarded at Truly's, an overseer shot a negro about two miles
northwest of Fayette, belonging to a man named Hinds Stuart. I heard
Stuart himself state the particulars. It appeared that the negro's
wife fell under the overseer's displeasure, and he went to whip her.
The negro said she should not be whipped. The overseer then let her
go, and ordered him to be seized. The negro, having been a driver,
rolled the lash of his whip round his hand, and said he would not be
whipped at that time. The overseer repeated his orders. The negro took
up a hoe, and none dared to take hold of him. The overseer then went
to his coat, that he had laid off to whip the negro's wife, and took
out his pistol and shot him dead. His master ordered him to be buried
in a hole without a coffin. Stuart stated that he would not have taken
two thousand dollars for him. No punishment was inflicted on the
overseer.

ELEAZAR POWELL, Jr."


TESTIMONY ON THE AUTHORITY OF REV. WM. SCALES, LYNDON, VT

The following is an extract of a letter from two professional
gentlemen and their wives, who have lived for some years in a small
village in one of the slave states. They are all persons of the
highest respectability, and are well known in at least one of the New
England states. Their names are with the Executive Committee of the
American Anti-Slavery Society; but as the individuals would doubtless
be murdered by the slaveholders, if they were published, the Committee
feel sacredly bound to withhold them. The letter was addressed to a
respected clergyman in New England. The writers say:

"A man near us owned a valuable slave--his best--most faithful servant.
In a gust of passion, he struck him dead with a lever, or stick of
wood.

"During the years '36 and '37, the following transpired. A slave in
our neighborhood ran away and went to a place about thirty miles
distant. There he was found by his pursuers on horseback, and
compelled by the whip to run the distance of thirty miles. It was an
exceedingly hot day--and within a few hours after he arrived at the
end of his journey the slave was dead.

"Another slave ran away, but concluded to return. He had proceeded
some distance on his return, when he was met by a company of two or
three drivers who raced, whipped and abused him until he fell down and
expired. This took place on the Sabbath." The writer after speaking of
another murder of a slave in the neighborhood, without giving the
circumstances, say--"There is a powerful New England influence at
----" the village where they reside--"We may therefore suppose that
there would he as little of barbarian cruelty practiced there as any
where;--at least we might suppose that the average amount of cruelty
in that vicinity would be sufficiently favorable to the side of
slavery.--Describe a circle, the centre of which shall be--, the
residence of the writers, and the radius fifteen miles, and in about
one year three, and I think four slaves have been _murdered_, within
that circle, under circumstances of horrid cruelty.--What must have
been the amount of murder in the whole slave territory? The whole
south is rife with the crime of separating husbands and wives, parents
and children."



TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH IDE, ESQ.

Mr. IDE is a respected member of the Baptist Church in Sheffield,
Caledonia county, Vt.; and recently the Postmaster in that town. He
spent a few months at the south in the years 1837 and 8. In a letter
to the Rev. Wm. Scales of Lyndon, Vt. written a few weeks since, Mr.
Ide writes as follows.

"In answering the proposed inquiries, I will say first, that although
there are various other modes resorted to, whipping with the cowskin
is the usual mode of inflicting punishment on the poor slave. I have
never actually witnessed a whipping scene, for they are usually taken
into some back place for that purpose; but I have often heard their
groans and screams while writhing under the lash; and have seen the
blood flow from their torn and lacerated skins after the vengeance of
the inhuman master or mistress had been glutted. You ask if the woman
where I boarded whipped a slave to death. I can give you the
particulars of the transaction as they were related to me. My
informant was a gentleman--a member of the Presbyterian church in
Massachusetts--who the winter before boarded where I did. He said that
Mrs. T---- had a female slave whom she used to whip unmercifully, and on
one occasion, she whipped her as long as she had strength, and after
the poor creature was suffered to go, she crawled off into a cellar.
As she did not immediately return, search was made, and she was found
dead in the cellar, and the horrid deed was kept a secret in the
family, and it was reported that she died of sickness. This wretch at
the same time was a member of a Presbyterian church. Towards her
slaves she was certainly the most cruel wretch of any woman with whom
I was ever acquainted--yet she was nothing more than a slaveholder.
She would deplore slavery as much as I did, and often told me she was
much of an abolitionist as I was. She was constant in the declaration
that her kind treatment to her slaves was proverbial. Thought I, then
the Lord have mercy on the rest. She has often told me of the cruel
treatment of the slaves on a plantation adjoining her father's in the
low country of South Carolina. She says she has often seen them driven
to the necessity of eating frogs and lizards to sustain life. As to
the mode of living generally, my information is rather limited, being
with few exceptions confined to the different families where I have
boarded. My stopping places at the south have mostly been in cities.
In them the slaves are better fed and clothed than on plantations. The
house servants are fed on what the families leave. But they are kept
short, and I think are oftener whipped for stealing something to eat
than any other crime. On plantations their food is principally
hommony, as the southerners call it. It is simply cracked corn boiled.
This probably constitutes seven-eights of their living. The
house-servants in cities are generally decently clothed, and some
favorite ones are richly dressed, but those on the plantations,
especially in their dress, if it can be called dress, exhibit the most
haggard and squalid appearance. I have frequently seen those of both
sexes more than two-thirds naked. I have seen from forty to sixty,
male and female, at work in a field, many of both sexes with their
bodies entirely naked--who did not exhibit signs of shame more than
cattle. As I did not go among them much on the plantations, I have
had but few opportunities for examining the backs of slaves--but have
frequently passed where they were at work, and been occasionally
present with them, and in almost every case there were marks of
violence on some parts of them--every age, sex and condition being
liable to the whip. A son of the gentleman with whom I boarded, a
young man about twenty-one years of age, had a plantation and eight or
ten slaves. He used to boast almost every night of whipping some of
them. One day he related to me a case of whipping an old negro--I
should judge sixty years of age. He said he called him up to flog him
for some real or supposed offence, and the poor old man, being pious,
asked the privilege of praying before he received his punishment. He
said he granted him the favor, and to use his own expression, 'The old
nigger knelt down and prayed for me, and then got up and took his
whipping.' In relation to negro huts, I will say that planters usually
own large tracts of land. They have extensive clearings and a
beautiful mansion house--and generally some forty or fifty rods from
the dwelling are situated the negro cabins, or huts, built of logs in
the rudest manner. Some consist of poles rolled up together and
covered with mud or clay--many of them not as comfortable as northern
pig-sties."



TESTIMONY OF REV. PHINEAS SMITH

MR. SMITH is now pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Centreville,
Allegany county, N.Y. He has recently returned from a residence in the
slave states, and the American slave holding settlements in Texas. The
following is an extract of a letter lately received from him.

"You inquire respecting instances of cruelty that have come within my
knowledge. I reply. Avarice and cruelty constitute the very gist of
the whole slave system. Many of the enormities committed upon the
plantations will not be described till God brings to light the hidden
things of darkness, then the tears and groans and blood of innocent
men, women and children will be revealed, and the oppressor's spirit
must confront that of his victim.

"I will relate a case of _torture_ which occurred on the Brassos while
I resided a few miles distant upon the Chocolate Bayou. The case
should be remembered as a true illustration of the nature of slavery,
as it exists at the south. The facts are these. An overseer by the
name of Alexander, notorious for his cruelty, was found dead in the
timbered lands of the Brassos. It was supposed that he was murdered,
but who perpetrated the act was unknown. Two black men were however
seized, taken into the Prairie and put to the torture. A physician by
the name of Parrott from Tennessee, and another from New England by
the name of Anson Jones, were present on this occasion. The latter
gentleman is now the Texan minister plenipotentiary to the United
States, and resides at Washington. The unfortunate slaves being
stripped, and all things arranged, the torture commenced by whipping
upon their bare backs. Six athletic men were employed in this scene of
inhumanity, the names of some of whom I well remember. There was one
of the name of Brown, and one or two of the name of Patton. Those six
executioners were successively employed in cutting up the bodies of
these defenceless slaves, who persisted to the last in the avowal of
their innocence. The bloody whip was however kept in motion till
savage barbarity itself was glutted. When this was accomplished, the
bleeding victims were re-conveyed to the inclosure of the mansion
house where they were deposited for a few moments. '_The dying groans
however incommoding the ladies, they were taken to a back shed where
one of them soon expired_.'[13] The life of the other slave was for a
time despaired of, but after hanging over the grave for months, he at
length so far recovered as to walk about and labor at light work.
These facts _cannot be controverted_. They were disclosed under the
solemnity of an oath, at Columbia, in a court of justice. I was
present, and shall never forget them. The testimony of Drs. Parrott
and Jones was most appalling. I seem to hear the death-groans of that
murdered man. His cries for mercy and protestations of innocence fell
upon adamantine hearts. The facts above stated, and others in relation
to this scene of cruelty came to light in the following manner. The
master of the murdered man commenced legal process against the actors
in this tragedy for the _recovery of the value of the chattel_, as one
would institute a suit for a horse or an ox that had been unlawfully
killed. It was a suit for the recovery of _damages_ merely. No
_indictment_ was even dreamed of. Among the witnesses brought upon the
stand in the progress of this cause were the physicians, Parrott and
Jones above named. The part which they were called to act in this
affair was, it is said, to examine the pulse of the victims during the
process of _torture_. But they were mistaken as to the quantum of
torture which a human being can undergo and not die under it. Can it
be believed that one of these physicians was born and educated in the
land of the pilgrims? Yes, in my own native New England. It is even
so! The stone-like apathy manifested at the trial of the above cause,
and the screams and the death-groans of an innocent man, as developed
by the testimony of the witnesses, can never be obliterated from my
memory. They form an era in my life, a point to which I look back with
horror.

[Footnote 13: The words of Dr. Parrott, a witness on the trial hereafter
referred to.]

"Another case of cruelty occurred on the San Bernard near Chance
Prairie, where I resided for some time. The facts were these. A slave
man fled from his master, (Mr. Sweeny) and being closely _pursued_ by
the overseer and a son of the owner, he stepped a few yards in the
Bernard and placed himself upon a root, from which there was no
possibility of his escape, for he could not swim. In this situation he
was fired upon with a blunderbuss loaded heavily with ball and grape
shot. The overseer who shot the gun was at a distance of a few feet
only. The charge entered the body of the negro near the groin. He was
conveyed to the plantation, lingered in inexpressible agony a few days
and expired. A physician was called, but medical and surgical skill
was unavailing. No notice whatever was taken of this murder by the
public authorities, and the murderer was not discharged from the
service of his employer.

"When slaves flee, as they not unfrequently do, to the timbered lands
of Texas, they are hunted with guns and dogs.

"The sufferings of the slave not unfrequently drive him to despair and
suicide. At a plantation on the San Bernard, where there were but five
slaves, two during the same year committed suicide by drowning."



TESTIMONY OF PHILEMON BLISS, ESQ.

Mr. Bliss is a highly respectable member of the bar, in Elyria, Lorain
Co. Ohio, and member of the Presbyterian church, in that place. He
resided in Florida, during the years 1834 and 5.

The following extracts are from letters, written by Mr. B. in 1835,
while residing on a plantation near Tallahassee, and published soon
after in the Ohio Atlas; also from letters written in 1836 and
published in the New York Evangelist.

"In speaking of slavery as it is, I hardly know where to begin. The
physical condition of the slave is far from being accurately known at
the north. Gentlemen _traveling_ in the south can know nothing of it.
They must make the south their residence; they must live on
plantations, before they can have any opportunity of judging of the
slave. I resided in Augustine five months, and had I not made
_particular_ inquiries, which most northern visitors very seldom or
never do, I should have left there with the impression that the slaves
were generally very _well_ treated, and were a happy people. Such is
the report of many northern travelers who have no more opportunity of
knowing their real condition than if they had remained at home. What
confidence could we place in the reports of the traveler, relative to
the condition of the Irish peasantry, who formed his opinion from the
appearance of the waiters at a Dublin hotel, or the household servants
of a country gentleman? And it is not often on plantations even, that
_strangers_ can witness the punishment of the slave. I was conversing
the other day with a neighboring planter, upon the brutal treatment of
the slaves which I had witnessed: he remarked, that had I been with
him I should not have seen this. "When I whip niggers, I take them out
of sight and hearing." Such being the difficulties in the way of a
stranger's ascertaining the treatment of the slaves, it is not to be
wondered at that gentlemen, of undoubted veracity, should give
directly false statements relative to it. But facts cannot lie, and in
giving these I confine myself to what has come under my own personal
observation.

"The negroes commence labor by daylight in the morning, and, excepting
the plowboys, who must feed and rest their horses, do not leave the
field till dark in the evening. There is a good deal of contention
among planters, who shall make the most cotton to the hand, or, who
shall drive their negroes the hardest; and I have heard bets made and
staked upon the issue of the crops. Col. W. was boasting of his large
crops, and swore that 'he made for his force, the largest crops in the
country.' He was disputed of course. On riding home in company with
Mr. C. the conversation turned upon Col. W. My companion remarked,
that though Col. W. had the reputation of making a large crop, yet he
could beat him himself, and did do it the last year. I remarked that I
considered it no honor to _Col. W_. to drive his slaves to death to
make a large crop. I have heard no more about large crops from him
since. Drivers or overseers usually drive the slaves worse than
masters.--Their reputation for good overseers depends in a great
measure upon the crops they make, and the death of a slave is no loss
to them.

"Of the extent and cruelty of the punishment of the slave, the
northern public know nothing. From the nature of the case they can
know little, as I have before mentioned.

"I _have seen_ a woman, a mother, compelled, in the presence of her
master and mistress, _to hold up her clothes_, and endure the whip of
the driver on the naked body for more than _twenty minutes_, and while
her cries would have rent the heart of any one, who had not hardened
himself to human suffering. Her master and mistress were conversing
with apparent indifference. What was her crime? She had a task given
her of sewing which she _must finish_ that day. Late at night she
finished it; but _the stitches were too long_, and she must be
whipped. The same was repeated three or four nights for the same
offence. _I have seen_ a man tied to a tree, hands and feet, and
receive 305 blows with the paddle[14] on the fleshy parts of the body.
Two others received the same kind of punishment at the time, though I
did not count the blows. One received 230 lashes. Their crime was
stealing mutton. I have _frequently_ heard the shrieks of the slaves,
male and female, accompanied by the strokes of the paddle or whip,
when I have not gone near the scene of horror. I knew not their
crimes, excepting of one woman, which was stealing _four potatoes_ to
eat with her bread! The more common number of lashes inflicted was
fifty or eighty; and this I saw not once or twice, but so frequently
that I can not tell the number of times I have seen it. So frequently,
that my own heart was becoming so hardened that I could witness with
comparative indifference, the female writhe under the lash, and her
shrieks and cries for mercy ceased to pierce my heart with that
keenness, or give me that anguish which they first caused. It was not
always that I could learn their crimes; but of those I did learn, the
most common was non-performance of tasks. I have seen men strip and
receive from one to three hundred strokes of the whip and paddle. My
studies and meditations were almost nightly interrupted by the cries
of the victims of cruelty and avarice. Tom, a slave of Col. N.
obtained permission of his overseer on Sunday, to visit his son, on a
neighboring plantation, belonging in part to his master, but neglected
to take a "pass." Upon its being demanded by the other overseer, he
replied that he had permission to come, and that his having a mule was
sufficient evidence of it, and if he did not consider it as such, he
could take him up. The overseer replied he would take him up; giving
him at the same time a blow on the arm with a stick he held in his
hand, sufficient to lame it for some time. The negro collared him, and
threw him; and on the overseer's commanding him to submit to be tied
and whipped, he said he would not be whipped by _him_ but would leave
it to massa J. They came to massa J.'s. I was there. After the
overseer had related the case as above, he was blamed for not shooting
or stabbing him at once.--After dinner the negro was tied, and the
whip given to the overseer, and he used it with a severity that was
shocking. I know not how many lashes were given, but from his
shoulders to his heels there was not a spot unridged! and at almost
every stroke the blood flowed. He could not have received less than
300, _well laid on_. But his offence was great, almost the greatest
known, laying hands on a _white_ man! Had he struck the overseer,
under any provocation, he would have been in some way disfigured,
perhaps by the loss of his ears, in addition to a whipping: or he
might have been hung. The most common cause of punishments is, not
finishing tasks.

[Footnote 14: A piece of oak timber two and a half feet long, flat and
wide at one end.]


"But it would be tedious mentioning further particulars. The negro has
no other inducement to work but the _lash_; and as man never acts
without motive, the lash must be used so long as all other motives are
withheld. Hence corporeal punishment is a necessary part of slavery.

"Punishments for runaways are usually severe. Once whipping is not
sufficient. I have known runaways to be whipped for six or seven
nights in succession for one offence. I have known others who, with
pinioned hands, and a chain extending from an iron collar on their
neck, to the saddle of their master's horse, have been driven at a
smart trot, one or two hundred miles, being compelled to ford water
courses, their drivers, according to their own confession, not abating
a whit in the rapidity of their journey for the case of the slave. One
tied a kettle of sand to his slave to render his journey more arduous.

"Various are the instruments of torture devised to keep the slave in
subjection. The stocks are sometimes used. Sometimes blocks are filled
with pegs and nails, and the slave compelled to stand upon them.

"While stopping on the plantation of a Mr. C. I saw a whip with a
knotted lash lying on the table, and inquired of my companion, who was
also an acquaintance of Mr. C's, if he used that to whip his negroes?
"Oh," says he, "Mr. C. is not severe with his hands. He never whips
very hard. The _knots in the lash are so large_ that he does not
usually draw blood in whipping them."

"It was principally from hearing the conversation of southern men on
the subject, that I judge of the cruelty that is generally practiced
toward slaves. They will deny that slaves are generally ill treated;
but ask them if they are not whipped for certain offences, which
either a freeman would have no temptation to commit, or which would
not be an offence in any but a slave, and for non-performance of
tasks, they will answer promptly in the affirmative. And frequently
have I heard them excuse their cruelty by citing Mr. A. or Mr. B. who
is a Christian, or Mr. C. a preacher, or Mr. D. from the _north_, who
"drives his hands tighter, and whips them harder, than we ever do."
Driving negroes to the utmost extent of their ability, with
occasionally a hundred lashes or more, and a few switchings in the
field if they hang back in the driving seasons, viz: in the hoing and
picking months, is perfectly consistent with good treatment!

"While traveling across the Peninsula in a stage, in company with a
northern gentleman, and southern lady, of great worth and piety, a
dispute arose respecting the general treatment of slaves, the
gentleman contending that their treatment was generally good--'O, no!'
interrupted the lady, 'you can know nothing of the treatment they
receive on the plantations. People here do whip the poor negroes most
cruelly, and many half starve them. You have neither of you had
opportunity to know scarcely anything of the cruelties that are
practiced in this country,' and more to the same effect. I met with
several others, besides this lady, who appeared to feel for the sins
of the land, but they are few and scattered, and not usually of
sufficiently stern mould to withstand the popular wave.

"Masters are not forward to publish their "domestic regulations," and
as neighbors are usually several miles apart, one's observation must
be limited. Hence the few instances of cruelty which break out can be
but a fraction of what is practised. A planter, a professor of
religion, in conversation upon the universality of whipping, remarked
that a planter in G--, who had whipped a great deal, at length got
tired of it, and invented the following _excellent_ method of
punishment, which I saw practised while I was paying him a visit. The
negro was placed in a sitting position, with his hands made fast above
his head, and feet in the stocks, so that he could not move any part
of the body.

"The master retired, intending to leave him till morning, but we were
awakened in the night by the groans of the negro, which were so
doleful that we feared he was dying. We went to him, and found him
covered with a cold sweat, and almost gone. He could not have lived an
hour longer. Mr. ---- found the 'stocks' such an effective punishment,
that it almost superseded the whip."

"How much do you give your niggers for a task while hoeing cotton,"
inquired Mr. C---- of his neighbor Mr. H----."

H. "I give my men an acre and a quarter, and my women an acre."[15]

[Footnote 15: Cotton is planted in drills about three feet apart, and
is hilled like corn.]


C. "Well, that is a fair task. Niggers do a heap better if they are
drove pretty tight."

H. "O yes, I have driven mine into complete subordination. When I
first bought them they were discontented and wished me to sell them,
but I soon whipped _that_ out of them; and they now work very
contentedly!"

C. "Does Mary keep up with the rest?"

H. "No, she does'nt often finish the task alone, she has to get Sam to
help her out after he has done his, _to save her a whipping_. There's
no other way but to be severe with them."

C. "No other, sir, if you favor a nigger you spoil him."

"The whip is considered as necessary on a plantation as the plough;
and its use is almost as common. The negro whip is the common
teamster's whip with a black leather stock, and a short, fine, knotted
lash. The paddle is also frequently used, sometimes with holes bored
in the flattened end. The ladies (!) in chastising their domestic
servants, generally use the cowhide. I have known some use shovel and
tongs. It is, however, more common to commit them to the driver to be
whipped. The manner of whipping is as follows: The negro is tied by
his hands, and sometimes feet, to a post or tree, and stripped to the
skin. The female slave is not always tied. The number of lashes
depends upon the character for severity of the master or overseer.

"Another instrument of torture is sometimes used, how extensively I
know not. The negro, or, in the case which came to my knowledge, the
negress was compelled to stand barefoot upon a block filled with sharp
pegs and nails for two or three hours. In case of sickness, if the
master or overseer thinks them seriously ill, they are taken care of,
but their complaints are usually not much heeded. A physician told me
that he was employed by a planter last winter to go to a plantation of
his in the country, as many of the negroes were sick. Says he--"I
found them in a most miserable condition. The weather was cold, and
the negroes were barefoot, with hardly enough of _cotton_ clothing to
cover their nakedness. Those who had huts to shelter them were obliged
to build them nights and Sundays. Many were sick and some had died. I
had the sick taken to an older plantation of their masters, where they
could be made comfortable, and they recovered. I directed that they
should not go to work till after sunrise, and should not work in the
rain till their health became established. But the overseer refusing
to permit it, I declined attending on them farther. I was called,'
continued he, 'by the overseer of another plantation to see one of the
men. I found him lying by the side of a log in great pain. I asked him
how he did, 'O,' says he, 'I'm most dead, can live but little longer.'
How long have you been sick? I've felt for more than six weeks as
though I could hardly stir.' Why didn't you tell your master, you was
sick? 'I couldn't see my master, and the overseer always whips us when
we complain, I could not stand a whipping.' I did all I could for the
poor fellow, but his _lungs were rotten_. He died in three days from
the time he left off work.' The cruelty of that overseer is such that
the negroes almost tremble at his name. Yet he gets a high salary, for
he makes the largest crop of any other man in the neighborhood, though
none but the hardiest negroes can stand it under him. "That man," says
the Doctor, "would be hung in my country." He was a German."


TESTIMONY OF REV. WILLIAM A. CHAPIN.

REV. WILLIAM SCALES, of Lyndon, Vermont, has furnished the following
testimony, under date of Dec. 15, 1838.

"I send you an extract from a letter that I have just received, which
you may use _ad libitum_. The letter is from Rev. Wm. A. Chapin,
Greensborough, Vermont. To one who is acquainted with Mr. C. his
opinion and statements must carry conviction even to the most
obstinate and incredulous. He observes, 'I resided, as a teacher,
nearly two years in the family of Carroll Webb, Esq., of Hampstead,
New Kent co. about twenty miles from Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Webb had
three or four plantations, and was considered one of the two
wealthiest men in the county: it was supposed he owned about two
hundred slaves. He was a member of the Presbyterian Church, and was
elected an elder while I was with him. He was a native of Virginia,
but a graduate of a New-England college.

"The slaves were called in the morning before daylight, I believe at
all seasons of the year, that they might prepare their food, and be
ready to go to work as soon as it was light enough to see. I know that
at the season of husking corn, October and November, they were usually
compelled to work late--till 12 or 1 o'clock at night. I know this
fact because they accompanied their work with a loud singing of their
own sort. I usually retired to rest between 11 and 12 o'clock, and
generally heard them at their work as long as I was awake. The slaves
lived in wretched log cabins, of one room each, without floors or
windows. I believe the slaves sometimes suffer for want of food. One
evening, as I was sitting in the parlor with Mr. W. one of the most
resolute of the slaves came to the door, and said, "Master, I am
willing to work for you, but I want something to eat." The only reply
was, "Clear yourself." I learned that the slaves had been without food
all day, because the man who was sent to mill could not obtain his
grinding. He went again the next day, and obtained his grist, and the
slaves had no food till he returned. He had to go about five
miles.[16]

[Footnote 16: To this, Rev. Mr. Scales adds, "In familiar language, and
in more detail, as I have learned it in conversation with Mr. Chapin,
the fact is as follows:--

"Mr. W. kept, what he called a 'boy,' i.e. a _man_, to go to mill. It
was his custom not to give his slaves anything to eat while he was
gone to mill--let him have been gone longer or shorter--for this
reason, if he was lazy, and delayed, the slaves would become hungry:
hence indignant, and abuse him--this was his punishment. On that
occasion he went to mill in the morning. The slaves came up at noon,
and returned to work without food. At night, after having worked hard
all day, without food, went to bed without supper. About 10 o'clock
the next day, they came up in a company, to their master's door, (that
master an elder in the church), and deputed one more resolute than the
rest to address him. This he did in the most respectful tones and
terms. "We are willing to work for you, master, but we can't work
without food; we want something to eat." "Clear yourself," was the
answer. The slaves retired; and in the morning were driven away to
work without food. At noon, I think, or somewhat after, they were
fed."]



"I know the slaves were sometimes severely whipped. I saw the backs of
several which had numerous scars, evidently caused by long and deep
lacerations of the whip; and I have good reason to believe that the
slaves were generally in that condition; for I never saw the back of
one exposed that was not thus marked,--and from their tattered and
scanty clothing their backs were often exposed."


TESTIMONY OF MESSRS. T.D.M. AND F.C. MACY.

This testimony is communicated in a letter from Mr. Cyrus Pierce, a
respectable and well known citizen of Nantucket, Mass. Of the
witnesses, Messrs. T.D.M. and F.C. Macy, Mr. Pierce says, "They are
both inhabitants of this island, and have resided at the south; they
are both worthy men, for whose integrity and intelligence I can vouch
unqualifiedly; the former has furnished me with the following
statement.

"During the winter of 1832-3, I resided on the island of St. Simon,
Glynn county, Georgia. There are several extensive cotton plantations
on the island. The overseer of the plantation on that part of the
island where I resided was a Georgian--a man of stern character, and
at times _cruelly abusive_ to his slaves. I have often been witness of
the _abuse_ of his power. In South Carolina and Georgia, on the low
lands, the cultivation is chiefly of rice. The land where it is raised
is often inundated, and the labor of preparing it, and raising a crop,
is very arduous. Men and women are in the field from earliest dawn to
dark--often _without hats_, and up to their arm-pits in mud and water.
At St. Simon's, cotton was the staple article. Ocra, the driver,
usually waited on the overseer to receive orders for the succeeding
day. If any slave was insolent, or negligent, the driver was
authorized to punish him with the whip, with as many blows as the
magnitude of the crime justified. He was frequently cautioned, upon
the peril of his skin, to see that all the negroes were off to the
field in the morning. 'Ocra,' said the overseer, one evening, to the
driver, 'if any pretend to be sick, send me word--allow no lazy wench
or fellow to skulk in the negro house.' Next morning, a few minutes
after the departure of the hands to the field, Ocra was seen hastening
to the house of the overseer. He was soon in his presence. 'Well, Ocra,
what now?' 'Nothing, sir, only Rachel says she sick--can't go to de
field to-day.' 'Ah, sick, is she? I'll see to her; you may be off. She
shall see if I am longer to be fooled with in this way. Here,
Christmas, mix these salts--bring them to me at the negro house.' And
seizing his whip, he made off to the negro settlement. Having a strong
desire to see what would be the result, I followed him. As I
approached the negro house, I heard high words. Rachel was stating her
complaint--children were crying from fright--and the overseer
threatening. Rachel.--'I can't work to-day--I'm sick!' Overseer.--'But
you shall work, if you die for it. Here, take these salts. Now move
off--quick--let me see your face again before night, and, by G--d,
you shall smart for it. Be off--no begging--not a word;'--and he
dragged her from the house, and followed her 20 or 30 rods,
threatening. The woman did not reach the field. Overcome by the
exertion of walking, and by agitation, she sunk down exhausted by the
road side--was taken up, and carried back to the house, where an
_abortion_ occurred, and her life was greatly jeoparded.

"It was _no uncommon_ sight to see a whole family, father, mother, and
from two to five children, collected together around their piggin of
hommony, or pail of potatoes, watched by the overseer. One meal was
always eaten in the field. No time was allowed for relaxation.

"It was not unusual for a child of five or six years to perform the
office of nurse--because the mother worked in a remote part of the
field, and was not allowed to leave her employment to take care of her
infant. Want of proper nutriment induces sickness of the worst type.

"No matter what the nature of the service, a peck of corn, dealt out
on Sunday, must supply the demands of nature for a week.

"The Sabbath, on a southern plantation, is a mere nominal holiday. The
slaves are liable to be called upon at all times, by those who have
authority over them.

"When it rained, the slaves were allowed to collect under a tree until
the shower had passed. Seldom, on a week day, were they permitted to
go to their huts during rain; and even had this privilege been
granted, many of those miserable habitations were in so dilapidated a
condition, that they would afford little or no protection. Negro huts
are built of logs, covered with boards or thatch, having _no
flooring_, and but one apartment, serving all the purposes of
sleeping, cooking, &c. Some are furnished with a temporary loft. I
have seen a whole family herded together in a loft ten feet by twelve.
In cold weather, they gather around the fire, spread their blankets
_on the ground_, and keep as comfortable as they can. Their supply of
clothing is scanty--each slave being allowed a Holland coat and
pantaloons, of the coarsest manufacture, and one pair of cowhide
shoes. The women, enough of the same kind of cloth for one frock. They
have also one pair of shoes. Shoes are given to the slaves in the
winter only. In summer, their clothing is composed of osnaburgs.
Slaves on different plantations are not allowed without a written
permission, to visit their fellow bondsmen, under penalty of severe
chastisement. I witnessed the chastisement of a young male slave, who
was found lurking about the plantation, and could give no other
account of himself, than that he wanted to visit some of his
acquaintance. Fifty lashes was the penalty for this offence. I could
not endure the dreadful shrieks of the tortured slave, and rushed away
front the scene."

The remainder of this testimony is furnished by Mr. F.C. Macy.

"I went to Savannah in 1820. Sailing up the river, I had my first view
of slavery. A large number of men and women, with _a piece of board on
their heads, carrying mud_, for the purpose of dyking, near the river.
After tarrying a while in Savannah, I went down to the sea islands of
De Fuskee and Hilton Head, where I spent six months. Negro houses are
small, built of rough materials, _and no floor_. Their clothing, (one
suit,) coarse; which they received on Christmas day. Their food was
three pecks of potatoes per week, in the potatoe season, and one peck
of corn the remainder of the year. The slaves carried with them into
the field their meal, and a gourd of water. They cooked their hommony
in the field, and ate it with a wooden paddle. Their treatment was
little better than that of brutes. _Whipping_ was nearly an every-day
practice. On Mr. M----'s plantation, at the island De Fuskee, I saw an
old man whipped; he was about 60. He had no clothing on, except a
shirt. The man that inflicted the blows was Flim, a tall and stout
man. The whipping was _very severe_. I inquired into the cause. Some
vegetables had been stolen from his master's garden, of which he could
give no account. I saw several women whipped, some of whom were in
very _delicate_ circumstances. The case of one I will relate. She had
been purchased in Charleston, and separated from her husband. On her
passage to Savannah, or rather to the island, she was delivered of a
child; and in about three weeks after this, she appeared to be
deranged. She would leave her work, go into the woods, and sing. Her
master sent for her, and ordered the driver to whip her. I was near
enough to hear the strokes.

"I have known negro boys, partly by persuasion, and partly by force,
made to strip off their clothing and fight for _the amusement of their
masters_. They would fight until both got to crying.

"One of the planters told me that his boat had been used without
permission. A number of his negroes were called up, and put in a
building that was lathed and shingled. The covering could be easily
removed from the inside. He called one out for examination. While
examining this one, he discovered another negro, coming out of the
roof. He ordered him back: he obeyed. In a few moments he attempted it
again. The master took deliberate aim at his head, but his gun missed
fire. He told me he should probably have killed him, had his gun gone
off. The negro jumped and run. The master took aim again, and fired;
but he was so far distant, that he received only a few shots in the
calf of his leg. After several days he returned, and received a severe
whipping.

"Mr. B----, planter at Hilton Head, freely confessed, that he kept one
of his slaves as a mistress. She slept in the same room with him.
This, I think, is a very common practice."


TESTIMONY OF A CLERGYMAN.

The following letter was written to Mr. ARTHUR TAPPAN, of New York, in
the summer of 1833. As the name of the writer cannot be published with
safety to himself, it is withheld.

The following testimonials, from Mr. TAPPAN, Professor WRIGHT, and
THOMAS RITTER, M.D. of New York, establish the trust-worthiness and
high respectability of the writer.

"I received the following letters from the south during the year 1833.
They were written by a gentleman who had then resided some years in
the slave states. Not being at liberty to give the writer's name, I
cheerfully certify that he is a gentleman of established character, a
graduate of Yale College, and a respected minister of the gospel.

"ARTHUR TAPPAN."

"My acquaintance with the writer of the following letter commenced, I
believe, in 1823, from which time we were fellow students in Yale
College till 1826. I have occasionally seen him since. His character,
so far as it has come within my knowledge, has been that of an upright
and remarkably _candid_ man. I place great confidence both in his
habits of careful and unprejudiced observation and his veracity.

"E. WRIGHT, jun. New York, April 13, 1839."

"I have been acquainted with the writer of the following letter about
twelve years, and know him to be a gentleman of high respectability,
integrity, and piety. We were fellow students in Yale College, and my
opportunities for judging of his character, both at that time and
since our graduation, have been such, that I feel myself fully
warranted in making the above unequivocal declaration.

"THOMAS RITTER. 104, Cherry-street, New York."

"NATCHEZ, 1833.

"It has been almost four years since I came to the south-west; and
although I have been told, from month to month, that I should soon
wear off my northern prejudices, and probably have slaves of my own,
yet my judgment in regard to oppression, or my prejudices, if they are
pleased so to call them, remain with me still. I judge still from
those principles which were fixed in my mind at the north; and a
residence at the south has not enabled me so to pervert truth, as to
make injustice appear justice.

"I have studied the state of things here, now for years, coolly and
deliberately, with the eye of an uninterested looker on; and hence I
may not be altogether unprepared to state to you some facts, and to
draw conclusions from them.

"Permit me then to relate what I have seen; and do not imagine that
these are all exceptions to the general treatment, but rather believe
that thousands of cruelties are practised in this Christian land,
every year, which no eye that ever shed a tear of pity could look
upon.

"Soon after my arrival I made an excursion into the country, to the
distance of some twenty miles. And as I was passing by a cotton field,
where about fifty negroes were at work, I was inclined to stop by the
road side to view a scene which was then new to me. While I was, in my
mind, comparing this mode of labor with that of my own native place, I
heard the driver, with a rough oath, order one that was near him, who
seemed to be laboring to the extent of his power, to "lie down." In a
moment he was obeyed; and he commenced whipping the offender upon his
naked back, and continued, to the amount of about twenty lashes, with
a heavy raw-hide whip, the crack of which might have been heard more
than half a mile. Nor did the females escape; for although I stopped
scarcely fifteen minutes, no less than three were whipped in the same
manner, and that so severely, I was strongly inclined to interfere.

"You may be assured, sir, that I remained not unmoved: I could no
longer look on such cruelty, but turned away and rode on, while the
echoes of the lash were reverberating in the woods around me. Such
scenes have long since become familiar to me. But then the full effect
was not lost; and I shall never forget, to my latest day, the mingled
feelings of pity, horror, and indignation that took possession of my
mind. I involuntarily exclaimed, O God of my fathers, how dost thou
permit such things to defile our land! Be merciful to us! and visit us
not in justice, for all our iniquities and the iniquities of our
fathers!

"As I passed on I soon found that I had escaped from one horrible
scene only to witness another. A planter with whom I was well
acquainted, had caught a negro without a pass. And at the moment I was
passing by, he was in the act of fastening his feet and hands to the
trees, having previously made him take off all his clothing except his
trowsers. When he had sufficiently secured this poor creature, he beat
him for several minutes with a green switch more than six feet long;
while he was writhing with anguish, endeavoring in vain to break the
cords with which he was bound, and incessantly crying out, "Lord,
master! do pardon me this time! do, master, have mercy!" These
expressions have recurred to me a thousand times since; and although
they came from one that is not considered among the sons of men, yet I
think they are well worthy of remembrance, as they might lead a wise
man to consider whether such shall receive mercy from the righteous
Judge, as never showed mercy to their fellow men.

"At length I arrived at the dwelling of a planter of my acquaintance,
with whom I passed the night. At about eight o'clock in the evening I
heard the barking of several dogs, mingled with the most agonizing
cries that I ever heard from any human being. Soon after the gentleman
came in, and began to apologize, by saying that two of his runaway
slaves had just been brought home; and as he had previously tried
every species of punishment upon them without effect, he knew not what
else to add, except to set his blood hounds upon them. 'And,'
continued he, 'one of them has been so badly bitten that he has been
trying to die. I am only sorry that he did not; for then I should not
have been further troubled with him. If he lives I intend to send him
to Natchez or to New Orleans, to work with the ball and chain.'

"From this last remark I understood that private individuals have the
right of thus subjecting their unmanageable slaves. I have since seen
numbers of these 'ball and chain' men, both in Natchez and New
Orleans, but I do not know whether there were any among them except
the state convicts.

"As the summer was drawing towards a close, and the yellow fever
beginning to prevail in town, I went to reside some months in the
country. This was the cotton picking season, during which, the
planters say, there is a greater necessity for flogging than at any
other time. And I can assure you, that as I have sat in my window
night after night, while the cotton was being weighed, I have heard
the crack of the whip, without much intermission, for a whole hour,
from no less than three plantations, some of which were a full mile
distant.

"I found that the slaves were kept in the field from daylight until
dark; and then, if they had not gathered what the master or overseer
thought sufficient, they were subjected to the lash.

"Many by such treatment are induced to run away and take up their
lodging in the woods. I do not say that all who run away are thus
closely pressed, but I do know that many are; and I have known no less
than a dozen desert at a time from the same plantation, in consequence
of the overseer's forcing them to work to the extent of their power,
and then whipping them for not having done more.

"But suppose that they run away--what is to become of them in the
forest? If they cannot steal they must perish of hunger--if the nights
are cold, their feet will be frozen; for if they make a fire they may
be discovered, and be shot at. If they attempt to leave the country,
their chance of success is about nothing. They must return, be
whipped--if old offenders, wear the collar, perhaps be branded, and
fare worse than before.

"Do you believe it, sir, not six months since, I saw a number of my
_Christian_ neighbors packing up provisions, as I supposed for a deer
hunt; but as I was about offering myself to the party, I learned that
their powder and balls were destined to a very different purpose: it
was, in short, the design of the party to bring home a number of
runaway slaves, or to shoot them if they should not be able to get
possession of them in any other way.

"You will ask, Is not this murder? Call it, sir, by what name you
please, such are the facts:--many are shot every year, and that too
while the masters say they treat their slaves well.

"But let me turn your attention to another species of cruelty. About a
year since I knew a certain slave who had deserted his master, to be
caught, and for the first time fastened to the stocks. In those same
stocks, from which at midnight I have heard cries of distress, while
the master slept, and was dreaming, perhaps, of drinking wine and of
discussing the price of cotton. On the next morning he was chained in
an immovable posture, and branded in both cheeks with red hot stamps
of iron. Such are the tender mercies of men who love wealth, and are
determined to obtain it at any price.

"Suffer me to add another to the list of enormities, and I will not
offend you with more.

"There was, some time since, brought to trial in this town a planter
residing about fifteen miles distant, for whipping his slave to death.
You will suppose, of course, that he was punished. No, sir, he was
acquitted, although there could be no doubt of the fact. I heard the
tale of murder from a man who was acquainted with all the
circumstances. 'I was,' said he, 'passing along the road near the
burying-ground of the plantation, about nine o'clock at night, when I
saw several lights gleaming through the woods; and as I approached, in
order to see what was doing, I beheld the coroner of Natchez, with a
number of men, standing around the body of a young female, which by
the torches seemed almost perfectly white. On inquiry I learned that
the master had so unmercifully beaten this girl that she died under
the operation: and that also he had so severely punished another of
his slaves that he was but just alive.'"

We here rest the case for the present, so far as respects the
presentation of facts showing the condition of the slaves, and proceed
to consider the main objections which are usually employed to weaken
such testimony, or wholly to set it aside. But before we enter upon
the examination of specific objections, and introductory to them, we
remark,--

1. That the system of slavery must be a system of horrible cruelty,
follows of necessity, from the fact that two millions seven hundred
thousand human beings _are held by force_, and used as articles of
property. Nothing but a heavy yoke, and an iron one, could possibly
keep so many necks in the dust. That must be a constant and mighty
pressure which holds so still such a vast army; nothing could do it
but the daily experience of severities, and the ceaseless dread and
certainty of the most terrible inflictions if they should dare to toss
in their chains.

2. Were there nothing else to prove it a system of monstrous cruelty,
the fact that FEAR is the only motive with which the slave is plied
during his whole existence, would be sufficient to brand it with
execration as the grand tormentor of man. The slave's _susceptibility
of pain_ is the sole fulcrum on which slavery works the lever that
moves him. In this it plants all its stings; here it sinks its hot
irons; cuts its deep gashes; flings its burning embers, and dashes its
boiling brine and liquid fire: into this it strikes its cold flesh
hooks, grappling irons, and instruments of nameless torture; and by it
drags him shrieking to the end of his pilgrimage. The fact that the
master inflicts pain upon the slave not merely as an _end_ to gratify
passion, but constantly as a _means_ of extorting labor, is enough of
itself to show that the system of slavery is unmixed cruelty.

3. That the slaves must suffer frequent and terrible inflictions,
follows inevitably from the _character of those who direct their
labor_. Whatever may be the character of the slaveholders themselves,
all agree that the overseers are, as a class, most abandoned, brutal,
and desperate men. This is so well known and believed that any
testimony to prove it seems needless. The testimony of Mr. WIRT, late
Attorney General of the United States, a Virginian and a slaveholder,
is as follows. In his life of Patrick Henry, p. 36, speaking of the
different classes of society in Virginia, he says,--"Last and lowest a
feculum, of beings called 'overseers'--_the most abject, degraded,
unprincipled race_, always cap in hand to the dons who employ them,
and furnishing materials for the exercise of their _pride, insolence,
and spirit of domination_."

Rev. PHINEAS SMITH, of Centreville, New-York, who has resided some
years at the south, says of overseers--

"It need hardly be added that overseers are in general ignorant,
_unprincipled and cruel_, and in such low repute that they are not
permitted to come to the tables of their employers; yet they have the
constant control of all the human cattle that belong to the master.

"These men are continually advancing from their low station to the
higher one of masters. These changes bring into the possession of
power a class of men of whose mental and moral qualities I have
already spoken."

Rev. HORACE MOULTON, Marlboro', Massachusetts, who lived in Georgia
several years, says of them,--

"The overseers are _generally loose in their morals_; it is the object
of masters to employ those whom they think will get the most work out
of their hands,--hence those who _whip and torment the slaves the
most_ are in many instances called the best overseers. The masters
think those whom the slaves fear the most are the best. Quite a
portion of the masters employ their own slaves as overseers, or rather
they are called drivers; these are more subject to the will of the
masters than the white overseers are; some of them are as lordly as an
Austrian prince, and sometimes more cruel even than the whites."

That the overseers are, as a body, sensual, brutal, and violent men is
_proverbial_. The tender mercies of such men _must be cruel_.

4. The _ownership_ of human beings necessarily presupposes an utter
disregard of their happiness. He who assumes it monopolizes their
_whole capital_, leaves them no stock on which to trade, and out of
which to _make_ happiness. Whatever is the master's gain is the
slave's loss, a loss wrested from him by the master, for the express
purpose of making it _his own gain_; this is the master's constant
employment--forcing the slave to toil--violently wringing from him
all he has and all he gets, and using it as his own;--like the vile
bird that never builds its nest from materials of its own gathering,
but either drives other birds from theirs and takes possession of
them, or tears them in pieces to get the means of constructing their
own. This daily practice of forcibly robbing others, and habitually
living on the plunder, cannot but beget in the mind the _habit_ of
regarding the interests and happiness of those whom it robs, as of no
sort of consequence in comparison with its own; consequently whenever
those interests and this happiness are in the way of its own
gratification, they will be sacrificed without scruple. He who cannot
see this would be unable to _feel_ it, if it were seen.



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.


Objection I--"SUCH CRUELTIES ARE INCREDIBLE."

The enormities inflicted by slaveholders upon their slaves will never
be discredited except by those who overlook the simple fact, that he
who holds human beings as his bona fide property, _regards_ them as
property, and not as _persons;_ this is his permanent state of mind
toward them. He does not contemplate slaves as human beings,
consequently does not _treat_ them as such; and with entire
indifference sees them suffer privations and writhe under blows,
which, if inflicted upon whites, would fill him with horror and
indignation. He regards that as good treatment of slaves, which would
seem to him insufferable abuse if practiced upon others; and would
denounce that as a monstrous outrage and horrible cruelty, if
perpretated upon white men and women, which he sees every day meted
out to black slaves, without perhaps ever thinking it cruel.
Accustomed all his life to regard them rather as domestic animals, to
hear them stormed at, and to see them cuffed and caned; and being
himself in the constant habit of treating them thus, such practices
have become to him a mere matter of course, and make no impression on
his mind. True, it is incredible that men should treat as _chattels_
those whom they truly regard as _human beings;_ but that they should
treat as chattels and working animals those whom they _regard_ as
such, is no marvel. The common treatment of dogs, when they are in the
way, is to kick them out of it; we see them every day kicked off the
sidewalks, and out of shops, and on Sabbaths out of churches,--yet, as
they are but _dogs_, these do not strike us as outrages; yet, if we
were to see men, women, and children--our neighbors and friends,
kicked out of stores by merchants, or out of churches by the deacons
and sexton, we should call the perpetrators inhuman wretches.

We have said that slaveholders regard their slaves not as human
beings, but as mere working animals, or merchandise. The whole
vocabulary of slaveholders, their laws, their usages, and their entire
treatment of their slaves fully establish this. The same terms are
applied to slaves that are given to cattle. They are called "stock."
So when the children of slaves are spoken of prospectively, they are
called their "increase;" the same term that is applied to flocks and
herds. So the female slaves that are mothers, are called "breeders"
till past child bearing; and often the same terms are applied to the
different sexes that are applied to the males and females among
cattle. Those who compel the labor of slaves and cattle have the same
appellation, "drivers:" the names which they call them are the same
and similar to those given to their horses and oxen. The laws of slave
states make them property, equally with goats and swine; they are
levied upon for debt in the same way; they are included in the same
advertisements of public sales with cattle, swine, and asses; when
moved from one part of the country to another, they are herded in
droves like cattle, and like them urged on by drivers; their labor is
compelled in the same way. They are bought and sold, and separated
like cattle: when exposed for sale, their good qualities are described
as jockies show off the good points of their horses; their strength,
activity, skill, power of endurance, &c. are lauded,--and those who
bid upon them examine their persons, just as purchasers inspect horses
and oxen; they open their mouths to see if their teeth are sound;
strip their backs to see if they are badly scarred, and handle their
limbs and muscles to see if they are firmly knit. Like horses, they
are warranted to be "sound," or to be returned to the owner if
"unsound." A father gives his son a horse and a _slave_; by his will
he distributes among them his race-horses, hounds, game-cocks, and
_slaves_. We leave the reader to carry out the parallel which we have
only begun. Its details would cover many pages.

That slaveholders do not practically regard slaves as _human beings_
is abundantly shown by their own voluntary testimony. In a recent work
entitled, "The South vindicated from the Treason and Fanaticism of
Northern Abolitionists," which was written, we are informed, by
Colonel Dayton, late member of Congress from South Carolina; the
writer, speaking of the awe with which the slaves regard the whites,
says,--

"The northerner looks upon a band of negroes as upon so many _men_,
but the planter or southerner _views them in a very different light._"


Extract from the speech of Mr. SUMMERS, of Virginia, in the
legislature of that state, Jan. 26, 1832. See the Richmond Whig.

"When, in the sublime lessons of Christianity, he (the slaveholder) is
taught to 'do unto others as he would have others do unto him,' HE
NEVER DREAMS THAT THE DEGRADED NEGRO IS WITHIN THE PALE OF THAT HOLY
CANON."


PRESIDENT JEFFERSON, in his letter to GOVERNOR COLES, of Illinois,
dated Aug. 25, 1814, asserts, that slaveholders regard their slaves as
brutes, in the following remarkable language.

"Nursed and educated in the daily habit of seeing the degraded
condition, both bodily and mental, of these unfortunate beings [the
slaves], FEW MINDS HAVE YET DOUBTED BUT THAT THEY WERE AS LEGITIMATE
SUBJECTS OF PROPERTY AS THEIR HORSES OR CATTLE."


Having shown that slaveholders regard their slaves as mere working
animals and cattle, we now proceed to show that their actual treatment
of them, is _worse_ than it would be if they were brutes. We repeat
it, SLAVEHOLDERS TREAT THEIR SLAVES WORSE THAN THEY DO THEIR BRUTES.
Whoever heard of cows or sheep being deliberately tied up and beaten
and lacerated till they died? or horses coolly tortured by the hour,
till covered with mangled flesh, or of swine having their legs tied
and being suspended from a tree and lacerated with thongs for hours,
or of hounds stretched and made fast at full length, flayed with
whips, red pepper rubbed into their bleeding gashes, and hot brine
dashed on to aggravate the torture? Yet just such forms and degrees of
torture are _daily_ perpetrated upon the slaves. Now no man that knows
human nature will marvel at this. Though great cruelties have always
been inflicted by men upon brutes, yet incomparably the most horrid
ever perpetrated, have been those of men upon _their own species_. Any
leaf of history turned over at random has proof enough of this. Every
reflecting mind perceives that when men hold _human beings_ as
_property_, they must, from the nature of the case, treat them worse
than they treat their horses and oxen. It is impossible for _cattle_
to excite in men such tempests of fury as men excite in each other.
Men are often provoked if their horses or hounds refuse to do, or
their pigs refuse to go where they wish to drive them, but the feeling
is rarely intense and never permanent. It is vexation and impatience,
rather than settled rage, malignity, or revenge. If horses and dogs
were intelligent beings, and still held as property, their opposition
to the wishes of their owners, would exasperate them immeasurably more
than it would be possible for them to do, with the minds of brutes.
None but little children and idiots get angry at sticks and stones
that lie in their way or hurt them; but put into sticks and stones
intelligence, and will, and power of feeling and motion, while they
remain as now, articles of property, and what a towering rage would
men be in, if bushes whipped them in the face when they walked among
them, or stones rolled over their toes when they climbed hills! and
what exemplary vengeance would be inflicted upon door-steps and
hearth-stones, if they were to move out of their places, instead of
lying still where they were put for their owners to tread upon. The
greatest provocation to human nature is _opposition to its will_. If a
man's will be resisted by one far _below_ him, the provocation is
vastly greater, than when it is resisted by an acknowledged superior.
In the former case, it inflames strong passions, which in the latter
lie dormant. The rage of proud Haman knew no bounds against the poor
Jew who would not do as he wished, and so he built a gallows for him.
If the person opposing the will of another, be so far below him as to
be on a level with chattels, and be actually held and used as an
article of property; pride, scorn, lust of power, rage and revenge
explode together upon the hapless victim. The idea of _property_
having a will, and that too in opposition to the will of its _owner_,
and counteracting it, is a stimulant of terrible power to the most
relentless human passions and from the nature of slavery, and the
constitution of the human mind, this fierce stimulant must, with
various degrees of strength, act upon slaveholders almost without
ceasing. The slave, however abject and crushed, is an intelligent
being: he has a _will_, and that will cannot be annihilated, _it will
show itself_; if for a moment it is smothered, like pent up fires when
vent is found, it flames the fiercer. Make intelligence _property_,
and its manager will have his match; he is met at every turn by an
_opposing will_, not in the form of down-right rebellion and defiance,
but yet, visibly, an _ever-opposing will_. He sees it in the
dissatisfied look, and reluctant air and unwilling movement; the
constrained strokes of labor, the drawling tones, the slow hearing,
the feigned stupidity, the sham pains and sickness, the short memory;
and he _feels_ it every hour, in innumerable forms, frustrating his
designs by a ceaseless though perhaps invisible countermining. This
unceasing opposition to the will of its 'owner,' on the part of his
rational 'property,' is to the slaveholder as the hot iron to the
nerve. He raves under it, and storms, and gnashes, and smites; but the
more he smites, the hotter it gets, and the more it burns him.
Further, this opposition of the slave's will to his owner's, not only
excites him to severity, that he may gratify his rage, but makes it
necessary for him to use violence in breaking down this
resistance--thus subjecting the slave to additional tortures. There is
another inducement to cruel inflictions upon the slave, and a
necessity for it, which does not exist in the case of brutes.
Offenders must be made an example to others, to strike them with
terror. If a slave runs away and is caught, his master flogs him with
terrible severity, not merely to gratify his resentment, and to keep
him from running away again, but as a warning to others. So in every
case of disobedience, neglect, stubbornness, unfaithfulness,
indolence, insolence, theft, feigned sickness, when his directions are
forgotten, or slighted, or supposed to be, or his wishes crossed, or
his property injured, or left exposed, or his work ill-executed, the
master is tempted to inflict cruelties, not merely to wreak his own
vengeance upon him, and to make the slave more circumspect in future,
but to sustain his authority over the other slaves, to restrain them
from like practices, and to preserve his own property.

A multitude of facts, illustrating the position that slaveholders
treat their slaves _worse_ than they do their cattle, will occur to
all who are familiar with slavery. When cattle break through their
owners' inclosures and escape, if found, they are driven back and
fastened in again; and even slaveholders would execrate as a wretch,
the man who should tie them up, and bruise and lacerate them for
straying away; but when _slaves_ that have escaped are caught, they
are flogged with the most terrible severity. When herds of cattle are
driven to market, they are suffered to go in the easiest way, each by
himself; but when slaves are driven to market, they are fastened
together with handcuffs, galled by iron collars and chains, and thus
forced to travel on foot hundreds of miles, sleeping at night in their
chains. Sheep, and sometimes horned cattle are marked with their
owners' initials--but this is generally done with paint, and of course
produces no pain. Slaves, too, are often marked with their owners'
initials, but the letters are stamped into their flesh with a hot
iron. Cattle are suffered to graze their pastures without stint; but
the slaves are restrained in their food to a fixed allowance. The
slaveholders' horses are notoriously far better fed, more moderately
worked, have fewer hours of labor, and longer intervals of rest than
their slaves; and their valuable horses are far more comfortably
housed and lodged, and their stables more effectually defended from
the weather, than the slaves' huts. We have here merely _begun_ a
comparison, which the reader can easily carry out at length, from the
materials furnished in this work.

We will, however, subjoin a few testimonies of slaveholders, and
others who have resided in slave states, expressly asserting that
slaves are treated _worse than brutes_.


The late Dr. GEORGE BUCHANAN, of Baltimore, Maryland, a member of the
American Philosophical Society, in an oration delivered in Baltimore,
July 4, 1791, page 10, says:

"The Africans whom you despise, whom you _more inhumanly treat than
brutes_, are equally capable of improvement with yourselves."


The Rev. GEORGE WHITEFIELD, in his celebrated letter to the
slaveholders of Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and
Georgia, written one hundred years ago, (See Benezet's Caution to
Great Britain and her Colonies, page 13), says:

"Sure I am, it is sinful to use them as bad, nay worse than if they
were brutes; and whatever particular _exceptions_ there may be, (as I
would charitably hope there are _some_) I fear the _generality_ of you
that own negroes, _are liable to such a charge_."


Mr. RICE, of Kentucky in his speech in the Convention that formed the
Constitution of that state, in 1790, says:

"He [the slave] is a rational creature, reduced by the power of
legislation to the _state of a brute_, and thereby deprived of every
privilege of humanity.... The brute may steal or rob, to supply
his hunger; but the slave, though in the most starving condition,
_dare not do either, on penalty of death, or some severe punishment_."


Rev. HORACE MOULTON, a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in
Marlborough, Mass. who lived some years in Georgia, says:

"The southern horses and dogs have enough to eat, and good care is
taken of them; but southern negroes--who can describe their misery and
their wretchedness, their nakedness and their cruel scourgings!  None
but God. Should we _whip our horses_ as they whip their slaves, even
for small offences, we should expose ourselves to the penalty of the
law."


Rev. PHINEAS SMITH, Centerville, Allegany county, New York, who has
resided four years in the midst of southern slavery--

"Avarice and cruelty are twin sisters; and I do not hesitate to
declare before the world, as my deliberate opinion, that there is
_less compassion_ for working slaves at the south, than for working
oxen at the north."


STEVEN SEWALL, Esq. Winthrop, Maine, a member of the Congregational
Church, and late agent of the Winthrop Manufacturing Company, who
resided five years in Alabama, says--

"I do not think that brutes, not even horses, are treated with _so
much cruelty_ as American slaves."

If the preceding considerations are insufficient to remove incredulity
respecting the cruelties suffered by slaves, and if northern objectors
still say, 'We might believe such things of savages, but that
civilized men, and republicans, in this Christian country, can openly
and by system perpetrate such enormities, is impossible';--to such we
reply, that this incredulity of the people of the free states, is not
only discreditable to their intelligence, but to their consistency.

Who is so ignorant as not to know, or so incredulous as to disbelieve,
that the early Baptists of New England were fined, imprisoned,
scourged, and finally banished by our puritan forefathers?--and that
the Quakers were confined in dungeons, publicly whipped at the
cart-tail, had their ears cut off, cleft sticks put upon their
tongues, and that five of them, four men and one woman, were hung on
Boston Common, for propagating the sentiments of the Society of
Friends? Who discredits the fact, that the civil authorities in
Massachusetts, less than a hundred and fifty years ago, confined in
the public jail a little girl of four years old, and publicly hung the
Rev. Mr. Burroughs, and eighteen other persons, mostly women, and
killed another, (Giles Corey,) by extending him upon his back, and
piling weights upon his breast till he was crushed to death [17]--and
this for no other reason than that these men and women, and this
little child, were accused by others of _bewitching_ them.

[Footnote 17:  Judge Sewall, of Mass. in his diary, describing this
horrible scene, says that when the tongue of the poor sufferer had, in
the extremity of his dying agony, protruded from his mouth, a person
in attendance took his cane and thrust it back into his mouth.]


Even the children in Connecticut, know that the following was once a
law of that state:

"No food or lodging shall be allowed to a Quaker. If any person turns
Quaker, he shall be banished, and not be suffered to return on pain of
death."

These objectors can readily believe the fact, that in the city of New
York, less than a hundred years since, thirteen persons were publicly
burned to death, over a slow fire: and that the legislature of the
same State took under its paternal care the African slave-trade, and
declared that "all encouragement should be given to the _direct_
importation of slaves; that all _smuggling_ of slaves should be
condemned, as _an eminent discouragement to the fair trader_."

They do not call in question the fact that the African slave-trade was
carried on from the ports of the free states till within thirty years;
that even members of the Society of Friends were actively engaged in
it, shortly before the revolutionary war; [18] that as late as 1807,
no less than fifty-nine of the vessels engaged in that trade, were
sent out from the little state of Rhode Island, which had then only
about seventy thousand inhabitants; that among those most largely
engaged in these foul crimes, are the men whom the people of Rhode
Island delight to honor: that the man who dipped most deeply in that
trade of blood (James De Wolf,) and amassed a most princely fortune by
it, was not long since their senator in Congress; and another, who was
captain of one of his vessels, was recently Lieutenant Governor of the
state.

[Footnote 18: See Life and Travels of John Woolman, page 92.]


They can believe, too, all the horrors of the middle passage, the
chains, suffocation, maimings, stranglings, starvation, drownings, and
cold blooded murders, atrocities perpetrated on board these
slave-ships by their own citizens, perhaps by their own townsmen and
neighbors--possibly by their own _fathers_: but oh! they 'can't
believe that the slaveholders can be so hard-hearted towards their
slaves as to treat them with great cruelty.' They can believe that his
Holiness the Pope, with his cardinals, bishops and priests, have
tortured, broken on the wheel, and burned to death thousands of
Protestants--that eighty thousand of the Anabaptists were slaughtered
in Germany--that hundreds of thousands of the blameless Waldenses,
Huguenots and Lollards, were torn in pieces by the most titled
dignitaries of church and state, and that _almost every professedly
Christian sect, has, at some period of its history, persecuted unto
blood_ those who dissented from their creed. They can believe, also,
that in Boston, New York, Utica, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Alton, and
in scores of other cities and villages of the free states, 'gentlemen
of property and standing,' led on by civil officers, by members of
state legislatures, and of Congress, by judges and attorneys-general,
by editors of newspapers, and by professed ministers of the gospel,
have organized mobs, broken up lawful meetings of peaceable citizens,
committed assault and battery upon their persons, knocked them down
with stones, led them about with ropes, dragged them from their beds
at midnight, gagged and forced them into vehicles, and driven them
into unfrequented places, and there tormented and disfigured
them--that they have rifled their houses, made bonfires of their
furniture in the streets, burned to the ground, or torn in pieces the
halls or churches in which they were assembled--attacked them with
deadly weapons, stabbed some, shot others, and killed one. They can
believe all this--and further, that a majority of the citizens in the
places where these outrages have been committed, connived at them; and
by refusing to indict the perpetrators, or, if they were indicted, by
combining to secure their acquittal, and rejoicing in it, have
publicly adopted these felonies as their own. All these things they
can believe without hesitation, and that they have even been done by
their own acquaintances, neighbors, relatives; perhaps those with whom
they interchange courtesies, those for whom they _vote_, or to whose
_salaries they contribute_--but yet, oh! they can never believe that
slaveholders inflict cruelties upon their slaves!

They can give full credence to the kidnapping, imprisonment, and
deliberate murder of WILLIAM MORGAN, and that by men of high standing
in society; they can believe that this deed was aided and abetted, and
the murderers screened from justice, by a large number of influential
persons, who were virtually accomplices, either before or after the
fact; and that this combination was so effectual, as successfully to
defy and triumph over the combined powers of the government;--yet
that those who constantly rob men of their time, liberty, and wages,
and all their _rights_, should rob them of bits of flesh, and
occasionally of a tooth, make their backs bleed, and put fetters on
their legs, is too monstrous to be credited! Further these same
persons, who 'can't believe' that slaveholders are so iron-hearted as
to ill-treat their slaves, believe that the very _elite_ of these
slaveholders, those most highly esteemed and honored among them, are
continually daring each other to mortal conflict, and in the presence
of mutual friends, taking deadly aim at each other's hearts, with
settled purpose to _kill_, if possible. That among the most
distinguished governors of slave states, among their most celebrated
judges, senators, and representatives in Congress, there is hardly
_one_, who has not either killed, or tried to kill, or aided and
abetted his friends in trying to kill, one or more individuals. That
pistols, dirks, bowie knives, or other instruments of death are
generally carried throughout the slave states--and that deadly affrays
with them, in the streets of their cities and villages, are matters of
daily occurrence; that the sons of slaveholders in southern colleges,
bully, threaten, and fire upon their teachers, and their teachers upon
them; that during the last summer, in the most celebrated seat of
science and literature in the south, the University of Virginia, the
professors were attacked by more than seventy armed students, and, in
the words of a Virginia paper, were obliged 'to conceal themselves
from their fury;' also that almost all the riots and violence that
occur in northern colleges, are produced by the turbulence and lawless
passions of southern students. That such are the furious passions of
slaveholders, no considerations of personal respect, none for the
proprieties of life, none for the honor of our national legislature,
none for the character of our country abroad, can restrain the
slaveholding members of Congress from the most disgraceful personal
encounters on the floor of our nation's legislature--smiting their
fists in each other's faces, throttling and even _kicking_ and trying
to _gouge_ each other--that during the session of the Congress just
closed, no less than six slaveholders, taking fire at words spoken in
debate, have either rushed at each other's throats, or kicked, or
struck, or attempted to knock each other down; and that in all these
instances, they would doubtless have killed each other, if their
friends had not separated them. Further, they know full well, these
were not insignificant, vulgar blackguards, elected because they were
the head bullies and bottle-holders in a boxing ring, or because their
constituents went drunk to the ballot box; but they were some of the
most conspicuous members of the House--one of them a former speaker.

Our newspapers are full of these and similar daily occurrences among
slaveholders, copied verbatim from their own accounts of them in their
own papers and all this we fully credit; no man is simpleton enough to
cry out 'Oh, I can't believe that slaveholders do such things;'--and
yet when we turn to the treatment which these men mete out to their
_slaves_, and show that they are in the habitual practice of striking,
kicking, knocking down and shooting _them_ as well as each other--the
look of blank incredulity that comes over northern dough-faces, is a
study for a painter: and then the sentimental outcry, with eyes and
hands uplifted, 'Oh, indeed, I can't believe the slaveholders are so
cruel to their slaves.' Most amiable and touching charity! Truly, of
all Yankee notions and free state products, there is nothing like a
'_dough face_'--the great northern staple for the southern
market--'made to order,' in any quantity, and _always on hand_. 'Dough
faces!' Thanks to a slaveholder's contempt for the name, with its
immortality of truth, infamy and scorn.[19]

[Footnote 19: "_Doe_ face," which owes its paternity to John Randolph,
age has mellowed into "_dough_ face"--a cognomen quite as expressive
and appropriate, if not as classical.]


Though the people of the free states affect to disbelieve the
cruelties perpetrated upon the slaves, yet slaveholders believe _each
other_ guilty of them, and speak of them with the utmost freedom. If
slaveholders disbelieve any statement of cruelty inflicted upon a
slave, it is not on account of its _enormity_. The traveler at the
south will hear in Delaware, and in all parts of Maryland and
Virginia, from the lips of slaveholders, statements of the most
horrible cruelties suffered by the slaves _farther_ south, in the
Carolinas and Georgia; when he finds himself in those states he will
hear similar accounts about the treatment of the slaves in _Florida_
and _Louisiana_; and in Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee he will hear
of the tragedies enacted on the plantations in Arkansas, Alabama and
Mississippi. Since Anti-Slavery Societies have been in operation, and
slaveholders have found themselves on trial before the world, and put
upon their good behavior, northern slaveholders have grown cautious,
and now often substitute denials and set defences, for the voluntary
testimony about cruelty in the far south, which, before that period,
was given with entire freedom. Still, however, occasionally the 'truth
will out,' as the reader will see by the following testimony of an
East Tennessee newspaper, in which, speaking of the droves of slaves
taken from the upper country to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc.,
the editor says, they are 'traveling to a region where their condition
through time WILL BE SECOND ONLY TO THAT OF THE WRETCHED CREATURES IN
HELL.' See "Maryville Intelligencer," of Oct, 4, 1835. Distant
cruelties and cruelties _long past_, have been till recently, favorite
topics with slaveholders. They have not only been ready to acknowledge
that their _fathers_ have exercised great cruelty toward their slaves,
but have voluntarily, in their official acts, made proclamation of it
and entered it on their public records. The Legislature of North
Carolina, in 1798, branded the successive legislatures of that state
for more than thirty years previous, with the infamy of treatment
towards their slaves, which they pronounce to be 'disgraceful to
humanity, and degrading in the highest degree to the laws and
principles of a free, Christian, and enlightened country.' This
treatment was the enactment and perpetuation of a most barbarous and
cruel law.

But enough. As the objector can and does believe all the preceeding
facts, if he still '_can't_ believe' as to the cruelties of
slaveholders, it would be barbarous to tantalize his incapacity either
with evidence or argument. Let him have the benefit of the act in such
case made and provided.

Having shown that the incredulity of the objector respecting the
cruelty inflicted upon the slaves, is discreditable to his
consistency, we now proceed to show that it is equally so to his
_intelligence_.

Whoever disbelieves the foregoing statements of cruelties, on the
ground of their enormity, proclaims his own ignorance of the nature
and history of man. What! incredulous about the atrocities perpetrated
by those who hold human beings as property, to be used for their
pleasure, when history herself has done little else in recording human
deeds, than to dip her blank chart in the blood shed by arbitrary
power, and unfold to human gaze the great red scroll? That cruelty is
the natural effect of arbitrary power, has been the result of all
experience, and the voice of universal testimony since the world
began. Shall human nature's axioms, six thousand years old, go for
nothing? Are the combined product of human experience, and the
concurrent records of human character, to be set down as 'old wives'
fables?' To disbelieve that arbitrary power naturally and habitually
perpetrates cruelties, where it can do it with impunity, is not only
ignorance of man, but of _things_. It is to be blind to innumerable
proofs which are before every man's eyes; proofs that are stereotyped
in the very words and phrases that are on every one's lips. Take for
example the words _despot_ and _despotic_. Despot, signifies
etymologically, merely one who _possesses_ arbitrary power, and at
first, it was used to designate those alone who _possessed_ unlimited
power over human beings, entirely irrespective of the way in which
they exercised it, whether mercifully or cruelly. But the fact, that
those who possessed such power, made their subjects their _victims_,
has wrought a total change in the popular meaning of the word. It now
signifies, in common parlance, not one who _possesses_ unlimited power
over others, but one who exercises the power that he has, whether
little or much, _cruelly_. So _despotic_, instead of meaning what it
once did, something pertaining to the _possession_ of unlimited power,
signifies something pertaining to the _capricious, unmerciful and
relentless exercise_ of such power.

The word tyrant, is another example--formerly it implied merely a
_possession_ of arbitrary power, but from the invariable abuse of such
power by its possessors, the proper and entire meaning of the word is
lost, and it now signifies merely one who _exercises power to the
injury of others_. The words tyrannical and tyranny follow the same
analogy. So the word arbitrary; which formerly implied that which
pertains to the will of one, independently of others; but from the
fact that those who had no restraint upon their wills, were invariably
capricious, unreasonable and oppressive, these words convey accurately
the present sense of _arbitrary_, when applied to a person.

How can the objector persist in disbelieving that cruelty is the
natural effect of arbitrary power, when the very words of every day,
rise up on his lips in testimony against him--words which once
signified the _mere possession_ of arbitrary power, but have lost
their meaning, and now signify merely its cruel _exercise_; because
such a use of it has been proved by the experience of the world, to be
inseparable from its _possession_--words now frigid with horror, and
never used even by the objector without feeling a cold chill run over
him.

Arbitrary power is to the mind what alcohol is to the body; it
intoxicates. Man loves power. It is perhaps the strongest human
passion; and the more absolute the power, the stronger the desire for
it; and the more it is desired, the more its exercise is enjoyed: this
enjoyment is to human nature a fearful temptation,--generally an
overmatch for it. Hence it is true, with hardly an exception, that
arbitrary power is abused in proportion as it is _desired_. The fact
that a person intensely desires power over others, _without
restraint_, shows the absolute necessity of restraint. What woman
would marry a man who made it a condition that he should have the
power to divorce her whenever he pleased? Oh! he might never wish to
exercise it, but the _power_ he would have! No woman, not stark mad,
would trust her happiness in such hands.

Would a father apprentice his son to a master, who insisted that his
power over the lad should be _absolute_? The master might perhaps,
never wish to commit a battery upon the boy, but if he should, he
insists upon having full swing! He who would leave his son in the,
clutches of such a wretch, would be bled and blistered for a lunatic
as soon as his friends could get their hands upon him.

The possession of power, even when greatly restrained, is such a fiery
stimulant, that its lodgement in human hands is always perilous. Give
men the handling of immense sums of money, and all the eyes of Argus
and the hands of Briarcus can hardly prevent embezzlement.

The mutual and ceaseless accusations of the two great political
parties in this country, show the universal belief that this tendency
of human nature to abuse power, is so strong, that even the most
powerful legal restraints are insufficient for its safe custody. From
congress and state legislatures down to grog-shop caucuses and street
wranglings, each party keeps up an incessant din about _abuses of
power_. Hardly an officer, either of the general or state governments,
from the President down to the ten thousand postmasters, and from
governors to the fifty thousand constables, escapes the charge of
'_abuse of power_.' 'Oppression,' 'Extortion,' 'Venality,' 'Bribery,'
'Corruption,' 'Perjury,' 'Misrule,' 'Spoils,' 'Defalcation,' stand on
every newspaper. Now without any estimate of the lies told in these
mutual charges, there is truth enough to make each party ready to
believe of the other, and _of their best men too,_ any abuse of power,
however monstrous. As is the State, so is the Church. From General
Conferences to circuit preachers; and from General Assemblies to
church sessions, abuses of power spring up as weeds from the dunghill.

All legal restraints are framed upon the presumption, that men will
abuse their power if not hemmed in by them. This lies at the bottom of
all those checks and balances contrived for keeping governments upon
their centres. If there is among human convictions one that is
invariable and universal, it is, that when men possess unrestrained
power over others, over their time, choice, conscience, persons,
votes, or means of subsistence, they are under great temptations to
abuse it; and that the intensity with which such power is desired,
generally measures the certainty and the degree of its abuse.

That American slaveholders possess a power over their slaves which is
virtually absolute, none will deny.[20] That they _desire_ this
absolute power, is shown from the fact of their holding and exercising
it, and making laws to confirm and enlarge it. That the desire to
possess this power, every tittle of it, is _intense_, is proved by the
fact, that slaveholders cling to it with such obstinate tenacity, as
well as by all their doings and sayings, their threats, cursings and
gnashings against all who denounce the exercise of such power as
usurpation and outrage, and counsel its immediate abrogation.

[Footnote 20: The following extracts from the laws of slave-states are
proofs sufficient.

"The slave is ENTIRELY subject to the WILL of his master."--Louisiana
Civil Code, Art. 273.

"Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to
be _chattels personal,_ in the hands of their owner and possessors,
and their executors, administrators and assigns, TO ALL INTENTS,
CONSTRUCTIONS, AND PURPOSES, WHATSOEVER."--Laws of South Carolina, 2
Brev. Dig. 229; Prince's Digest, 446, &c.]


From the nature of the case--from the laws of mind, such power, so
intensely desired, griped with such a death-clutch, and with such
fierce spurnings of all curtailment or restraint, _cannot but be
abused._ Privations and inflictions must be its natural, habitual
products, with ever and anon, terror, torture, and despair let loose
to do their worst upon the helpless victims.

Though power over others is in every case liable to be used to their
injury, yet, in almost all cases, the subject individual is shielded
from great outrages by strong safeguards. If he have talents, or
learning, or wealth, or office, or personal respectability, or
influential friends, these, with the protection of law and the rights
of citizenship, stand round him as a body guard: and even if he lacked
all these, yet, had he the same color, features, form, dialect,
habits, and associations with the privileged caste of society, he
would find in _them_ a shield from many injuries, which would be
_invited,_ if in these respects he differed widely from the rest of
the community, and was on that account regarded with disgust and
aversion. This is the condition of the slave; not only is he deprived
of the artificial safeguards of the law, but has none of those
_natural_ safeguards enumerated above, which are a protection to
others. But not only is the slave destitute of those peculiarities,
habits, tastes, and acquisitions, which by assimilating the possessor
to the rest of the community, excite their interest in him, and thus,
in a measure, secure for him their protection; but he possesses those
peculiarities of bodily organization which are looked upon with deep
disgust, contempt, prejudice, and aversion. Besides this, constant
contact with the ignorance and stupidity of the slaves, their filth,
rags, and nakedness; their cowering air, servile employments,
repulsive food, and squalid hovels, their purchase and sale, and use
as brutes--all these associations, constantly mingling and circulating
in the minds of slaveholders, and inveterated by the hourly
irritations which must assail all who use human beings as things,
produce in them a permanent state of feeling toward the slave, made up
of repulsion and settled ill-will. When we add to this the corrosions
produced by the petty thefts of slaves, the necessity of constant
watching, their reluctant service, and indifference to their master's
interests, their ill concealed aversion to him, and spurning of his
authority; and finally, that fact, as old as human nature, that men
always hate those whom they oppress, and oppress those whom they hate,
thus oppression and hatred mutually begetting and perpetuating each
other--and we have a raging compound of fiery elements and disturbing
forces, so stimulating and inflaming the mind of the slaveholder
against the slave, that _it cannot but break forth upon him with
desolating fury._

To deny that cruelty is the spontaneous and uniform product of
arbitrary power, and that the natural and controlling tendency of such
power is to make its possessor cruel, oppressive, and revengeful
towards those who are subjected to his control, is, we repeat, to set
at nought the combined experience of the human race, to invalidate its
testimony, and to reverse its decisions from time immemorial.

A volume might be filled with the testimony of American slaveholders
alone, to the truth of the preceding position. We subjoin a few
illustrations, and first, the memorable declaration of President
Jefferson, who lived and died a slaveholder. It has been published a
thousand times, and will live forever. In his "Notes on Virginia,"
sixth Philadelphia edition, p. 251, he says,--

"The WHOLE COMMERCE between master and slave, is a PERPETUAL EXERCISE
of the most _boisterous passions_, the most unremitting DESPOTISM on
the one part, and degrading submission on the other..... The parent
_storms_, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of _wrath_, puts
on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, GIVES LOOSE TO THE
WORST OF PASSIONS; and thus _nursed, educated, and daily exercised in
tyranny,_ cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities."

Hon. Lewis Summers, Judge of the General Court of Virginia, and a
slaveholder, said in a speech before the Virginia legislature in 1832;
(see Richmond Whig of Jan. 26, 1832,)

"A slave population exercises _the most pernicious influence_ upon the
manners, habits and character, of those among whom it exists. Lisping
infancy learns the vocabulary of abusive epithets, and struts the
_embryo tyrant_ of its little domain. The consciousness of superior
destiny takes possession of his mind at its earliest dawning, and love
of power and rule, 'grows with his growth, and strengthens with his
strength.' Unless enabled to rise above the operation of those
powerful causes, he enters the world with miserable notions of
self-importance, and under the government of an unbridled temper."

The late JUDGE TUCKER of Virginia, a slaveholder, and Professor of Law
in the University of William and Mary, in his "Letter to a Member of
the Virginia Legislature," 1801, says,--

"I say nothing of the baneful effects of slavery on our _moral
character_, because I know you have been long sensible of this point."

The Presbyterian Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, consisting of
all the clergy of that denomination in those states, with a lay
representation from the churches, most, if not all of whom are
slaveholders, published a report on slavery in 1834, from which the
following is an extract.

"Those only who have the management of servants, know what the
_hardening effect_ of it is upon _their own feelings towards them._
There is no necessity to dwell on this point, as all _owners_ and
_managers_ fully understand it. He who commences to manage them with
tenderness and with a willingness to favor them in every way, must be
watchful, otherwise he will settle down in _indifference, if not
severity."_

GENERAL WILLIAM H. HARRISON, now of Ohio, son of the late Governor
Harrison of Virginia, a slaveholder, while minister from the United
States to the Republic of Colombia, wrote a letter to General Simon
Bolivar, then President of that Republic, just as he was about
assuming despotic power. The letter is dated Bogota, Sept. 22, 1826.
The following is an extract.

"From a knowledge of your own disposition and present feelings, your
excellency will not be willing to believe that you could ever be
brought to an act of tyranny, or even to execute justice with
unnecessary rigor. But trust me, sir, there is nothing more
corrupting, nothing more _destructive of the noblest and finest
feelings of our nature than the exercise of unlimited power_. The man,
who in the beginning of such a career, might shudder at the idea of
taking away the life of a fellow-being, might soon have his conscience
so seared by the repetition of crime, that the agonies of his murdered
victims might become music to his soul, and the drippings of the
scaffold afford blood to swim in. History is full of such excesses."

WILLIAM H. FITZHUGH, Esq. of Virginia, a slaveholder, says,--"Slavery,
in its mildest form, is cruel and unnatural; _its injurious effects on
our morals and habits are mutually felt."_

HON. SAMUEL S. NICHOLAS, late Judge of the Court of Appeals of
Kentucky, and a slaveholder, in a speech before the legislature of
that state, Jan. 1837, says,--

"The deliberate convictions of the most matured consideration I can
give the subject, are, that the institution of slavery is a _most
serious injury to the habits, manners and morals_ of our white
population--that it leads to sloth, indolence, dissipation, and vice."

Dr. THOMAS COOPER, late President of the College of South Carolina, in
a note to his edition of the "Institutes of Justinian" page 413,
says,--

"All absolute power has a direct tendency, not only to detract from
the happiness of the persons who are subject to it, but to DEPRAVE THE
GOOD QUALITIES of those who possess it..... the whole history of human
nature, in the present and every former age, will justify me in saying
that _such is the tendency of power_ on the one hand and slavery on
the other."

A South Carolina slaveholder, whose name is with the executive
committee of the Am. A.S. Society, says, in a letter, dated April 4,
1838:--

"I think it (slavery) _ruinous to the temper_ and to our spiritual
life; it is a thorn in the flesh, for ever and for ever goading us on
to say and to do what the Eternal God cannot but be displeased with. I
speak from experience, and oh! my desire is to be delivered from it."


Monsieur C.C. ROBIN, who was a resident of Louisiana from 1802 to
1806, published a work on that country; in which, speaking of the
effect of slaveholding on masters and their children, he says:--

"The young creoles make the negroes who surround them the play-things
of their whims: they flog, for pastime, those of their own age, just
as their fathers flog others at their will. These young creoles,
arrived at the age in which the passions are impetuous, do not _know
how to bear contradiction_; they will have every thing done which they
command, _possible or not_; and in default of this, they avenge their
offended pride by multiplied punishments."


Dr. GEORGE BUCHANAN, of Baltimore, Maryland, member of the American
Philosophical Society, in an oration at Baltimore, July 4, 1791,
said:--

"For such are the effects of subjecting man to slavery, that it
_destroys every humane principle_, vitiates the mind, instills ideas
of unlawful cruelties, and eventually subverts the springs of
government."--_Buchanan's Oration_, p. 12.


President EDWARDS the younger, in a sermon before the Connecticut
Abolition Society, in 1791, page 8, says:--

"Slavery has a most direct tendency to haughtiness, and a _domineering
spirit_ and conduct in the proprietors of the slaves, in their
children, and in all who have the control of them. A man who has been
bred up in domineering over negroes, can scarcely avoid contracting
such a habit of haughtiness and domination as will express itself in
his general treatment of mankind, whether in his private capacity, or
in any office, civil or military, with which he may be invested."


The celebrated MONTESQUIEU, in his "Spirit of the Laws," thus
describes the effect of slaveholding upon the master:--

"The master contracts all sorts of bad habits; and becomes _haughty,
passionate, obdurate, vindictive, voluptuous, and cruel_."


WILBERFORCE, in his speech at the anniversary of the London
Anti-Slavery Society, in March, 1828, said:--

"It is _utterly impossible_ that they who live in the administration
of the petty despotism of a slave community, whose minds have been
_warped_ and _polluted_ by that contamination, should not _lose that
respect_ for their fellow creatures over whom they tyrannize, which is
essential in the nature and moral being of man, to rescue them from
the abuse of power over their prostrate fellow creatures."

In the great debate, in the British Parliament, on the African
slave-trade, Mr. WHITBREAD said:

"Arbitrary power would spoil the hearts of the best."

But we need not multiply proofs to establish our position: it is
sustained by the concurrent testimony of sages, philosophers, poets,
statesmen, and moralists, in every period of the world; and who can
marvel that those in all ages who have wisely pondered men and things,
should be unanimous in such testimony, when the history of arbitrary
power has come down to us from the beginning of time, struggling
through heaps of slain, and trailing her parchments in blood.

Time would fail to begin with the first despot and track down the
carnage step by step. All nations, all ages, all climes crowd forward
as witnesses, with their scars, and wounds, and dying agonies.

But to survey a multitude bewilders; let us look at a single nation.
We instance Rome; both because its history is more generally known,
and because it furnishes a larger proportion of instances, in which
arbitrary power was exercised with comparative mildness, than any
other nation ancient or modern. And yet, her whole existence was a
tragedy, every actor was an executioner, the curtain rose amidst
shrieks and fell upon corpses, and the only shifting of the scenes was
from blood to blood. The whole world stood aghast, as under sentence
of death, awaiting execution, and all nations and tongues were driven,
with her own citizens, as sheep to the slaughter. Of her seven kings,
her hundreds of consuls, tribunes, decemvirs, and dictators, and her
fifty emperors, there is hardly one whose name has come down to us
unstained by horrible abuses of power; and that too, notwithstanding
we have mere shreds of the history of many of them, owing to their
antiquity, or to the perturbed times in which they lived; and these
shreds gathered from the records of their own partial countrymen, who
wrote and sung their praises. What does this prove? Not that the
Romans were worse than other men, nor that their rulers were worse
than other Romans, for history does not furnish nobler models of
natural character than many of those same rulers, when first invested
with arbitrary power. Neither was it mainly because the martial
enterprise of the earlier Romans and the gross sensuality of the
later, hardened their hearts to human suffering. In both periods of
Roman history, and in both these classes, we find men, the keen
sympathies, generosity, and benevolence of whose general character
embalmed their names in the grateful memories of multitudes. _They
were human beings, and possessed power without restraint_--this
unravels the mystery.

Who has not heard of the Emperor Trajan, of his moderation, his
clemency, his gashing sympathies, his forgiveness of injuries and
forgetfulness of self, his tearing in pieces his own robe, to furnish
bandages for the wounded--called by the whole world in his day, "the
best emperor of Rome;" and so affectionately regarded by his subjects,
that, ever afterwards, in blessing his successors upon their accession
to power, they always said, "May you have the virtue and goodness of
Trajan!" yet the deadly conflicts of gladiators who were trained to
kill each other, to make sport for the spectators, furnished his chief
pastime. At one time he kept up those spectacles for 123 days in
succession. In the tortures which he inflicted on Christians, fire
and poison, daggers and dungeons, wild beasts and serpents, and the
rack, did their worst. He threw into the sea, Clemens, the venerable
bishop of Rome, with an anchor about his neck; and tossed to the
famished lions in the amphitheatre the aged Ignatius.

Pliny the younger, who was proconsul under Trajan, may well be
mentioned in connection with the emperor, as a striking illustration
of the truth, that goodness and amiableness towards one class of men
is often turned into cruelty towards another. History can hardly show
a more gentle and lovely character than Pliny. While pleading at the
bar, he always sought out the grievances of the poorest and most
despised persons, entered into their wrongs with his whole soul, and
never took a fee. Who can read his admirable letters without being
touched by their tenderness and warmed by their benignity and
philanthropy: and yet, this tender-hearted Pliny coolly plied with
excruciating torture two spotless females, who had served as
deaconesses in the Christian church, hoping to extort from them matter
of accusation against the Christians. He commanded Christians to
abjure their faith, invoke the gods, pour out libations to the statues
of the emperor, burn incense to idols, and curse Christ. If they
refused, he ordered them to execution.

Who has not heard of the Emperor Titus--so beloved for his mild
virtues and compassionate regard for the suffering, that he was named
"The Delight of Mankind;" so tender of the lives of his subjects that
he took the office of high priest, that his hands might never be
defiled with blood; and was heard to declare, with tears, that he had
rather die than put another to death. So intent upon making others
happy, that when once about to retire to sleep, and not being able to
recall any particular act of beneficence performed during the day, he
cried out in anguish, "Alas! I have lost a day!"  And, finally, whom
the learned Kennet, in his Roman Antiquities, characterizes as "the
only prince in the world that has the character of _never doing an ill
action_."  Yet, witnessing the mortal combats of the captives taken to
war, killing each other in the amphitheatre, amidst the acclamations
of the populace, was a favorite amusement with Titus. At one time he
exhibited shows of gladiators, which lasted one hundred days, during
which the amphitheatre was flooded with human blood. At another of
his public exhibitions he caused five thousand wild beasts to be
baited in the amphitheatre. During the siege of Jerusalem, he set
ambushes to seize the famishing Jews, who stole out of the city by
night to glean food in the valleys: these he would first dreadfully
scourge, then torment them with all conceivable tortures, and, at
last, crucify them before the wall of the city. According to
Josephus, not less than five hundred a day were thus tormented. And
when many of the Jews, frantic with famine, deserted to the Romans,
Titus cut off their hands and drove them back. After the destruction
of Jerusalem, he dragged to Rome one hundred thousand captives, sold
them as slaves, and scattered them through every province of the
empire.

The kindness, condescension, and forbearance of Adrian were
proverbial; he was one of the most eloquent orators of his age; and
when pleading the cause of injured innocence, would melt and overwhelm
the auditors by the pathos of his appeals. It was his constant maxim,
that he was an Emperor, not for his own good, but for the benefit of
his fellow creatures. He stooped to relieve the wants of the meanest
of his subjects, and would peril his life by visiting them when sick
of infectious diseases; he prohibited, by law, masters from killing
their slaves, gave to slaves legal trial, and exempted them from
torture; yet towards certain individuals and classes, he showed
himself a monster of cruelty. He prided himself on his knowledge of
architecture, and ordered to execution the most celebrated architect
of Rome, because he had criticised one of the Emperor's designs. He
banished all the Jews from their native land, and drove them to the
ends of the earth; and unloosed the bloodhounds of persecution to rend
in pieces his Christian subjects.

The gentleness and benignity of the Emperor Aurelius, have been
celebrated in story and song. History says of him, 'Nothing could
quench his desire of being a blessing to mankind;' and Pope's eulogy
of him is in the mouth of every schoolboy--'Like good Aurelius, let
him reign;' and yet, '_good_ Aurelius,' lifted the flood gates of the
fourth, and one of the most terrible persecutions against Christians
that ever raged. He sent orders into different parts of his empire,
to have the Christians murdered who would not deny Christ. The
blameless Polycarp, trembling under the weight of a hundred years, was
dragged to the stake and burned to ashes. Pothinus, Bishop of Lyons,
at the age of ninety, was dragged through the streets, beaten, stoned,
trampled upon by the soldiers, and left to perish. Tender virgins
were put into nets, and thrown to infuriated wild bulls; others were
fastened in red hot iron chairs; and venerable matrons were thrown to
be devoured by dogs.

Constantine the Great has been the admiration of Christendom for his
virtues. The early Christian writers adorn his justice, benevolence
and piety with the most exalted eulogy. He was baptized, and admitted
to the Christian church. He abrogated Paganism, and made Christianity
the religion of his empire; he attended the councils of the early
fathers of the church, consulted with the bishops, and devoted himself
with the most untiring zeal to the propagation of Christianity, and to
the promotion of peace and love among its professors; he convened the
Council of Nice, to settle disputes which had long distracted the
church, appeared in the assembly with admirable modesty and temper,
moderated the heats of the contending parties, implored them to
exercise mutual forbearance, and exhorted them to love unfeigned, to
forgive one another, as they hoped to be forgiven by Christ. Who would
not think it uncharitable to accuse such a man of barbarity in the
exercise of power?--and yet he drove Arius and his associates into
banishment, for opinion's sake, denounced death against all with whom
his books should afterwards be found, and prohibited, on pain of
death, the exercise, however peaceably, of the functions of any other
religion than Christianity. In a fit of jealousy and rage, he ordered
his innocent son, Crispus, to execution, without granting him a
hearing; and upon finding him innocent, killed his own wife, who had
falsely accused him.

To the preceding maybe added Theodosius the Great, the last Roman
emperor before the division of the empire. He was a member of the
Christian church, and in his zeal against paganism, and what he deemed
heresy, surpassed all who were before him. The Christian writers of
his time speak of him as a most illustrious model of justice,
generosity, magnanimity, benevolence, and every virtue. And yet
Theodosius denounced capital punishments against those who held
'heretical' opinions, and commanded inter-marriage between cousins to
be punished by burning the parties alive. On hearing that the people
of Antioch had demolished the statues set up in that city, in honor of
himself, and had threatened the governor, he flew into a transport of
fury, ordered the city to be laid in ashes, and all the inhabitants to
be slaughtered; and upon hearing of a resistance to his authority in
Thessalonica, in which one of his lieutenants was killed, he instantly
ordered a _general massacre_ of the inhabitants; and in obedience to
his command, seven thousand men, women and children were butchered in
the space of three hours.

The foregoing are a few of many instances in the history of Rome, and
of a countless multitude in the history of the world, illustrating the
truth, that the lodgement of arbitrary power, in the best human hands,
is always a fearfully perilous experiment; that the mildest tempers,
the most humane and benevolent dispositions, the most blameless and
conscientious previous life, with the most rigorous habits of justice,
are no security, that, in a moment of temptation, the possessors of
such power will not make their subjects their victims; illustrating
also the truth, that, while men may exhibit nothing but honor,
honesty, mildness, justice, and generosity, in their intercourse with
those of their own grade, or language, or nation, or hue, they may
practice towards others, for whom they have contempt and aversion, the
most revolting meanness, perpetrate robbery unceasingly, and inflict
the severest privations, and the most barbarous cruelties. But this is
not all: history is full of examples, showing not only the effects of
arbitrary power on its victims, but its terrible reaction on those who
exercise it; blunting their sympathies, and hardening to adamant their
hearts toward _them_, at least, if not toward the human race
generally. This is shown in the fact, that almost every tyrant in the
history of the world, has entered upon the exercise of absolute power
with comparative moderation; multitudes of them with marked
forbearance and mildness, and not a few with the most signal
condescension, magnanimity, gentleness and compassion. Among these
last are included those who afterwards became the bloodiest monsters
that ever cursed the earth. Of the Roman Emperors, almost every one of
whom perpetrated the most barbarous atrocities, Vitellius seems to
have been the only one who cruelly exercised his power from the
_outset_. Most of the other emperors, sprung up into fiends in the
hot-bed of arbitrary power. If they had not been plied with its fiery
stimulants, but had lived under the legal restraints of other men,
instead of going to the grave under the curses of their generation,
multitudes might have called them blessed.

The moderation which has generally distinguished absolute monarchs at
the commencement of their reigns, was doubtless in some cases assumed
from policy; in the greater number, however, as is manifest from their
history, it has been the natural workings of minds held in check by
previous associations, and not yet hardened into habits of cruelty, by
being accustomed to the exercise of power without restraint. But as
those associations have weakened, and the wielding of uncontrolled
sway has become a habit, like other evil doers, they have, in the
expressive language of Scripture, 'waxed worse and worse.'

For eighteen hundred years an involuntary shudder has run over the
human race, at the mention of the name of Nero; yet, at the
commencement of his reign, he burst into tears when called upon to
sign the death-warrant of a criminal, and exclaimed, 'Oh, that I had
never learned to write!' His mildness and magnanimity won the
affections of his subjects; and it was not till the poison of absolute
power had worked within his nature for years, that it swelled him into
a monster.

Tiberius, Claudius, and Caligula, began the exercise of their power
with singular forbearance, and each grew into a prodigy of cruelty. So
averse was Caligula to bloodshed, that he refused to look at a list of
conspirators against his own life, which was handed to him; yet
afterwards, a more cruel wretch never wielded a sceptre. In his thirst
for slaughter, he wished all the necks in Rome _one_, that he might
cut them off at a blow.

Domitian, at the commencement of his reign, carried his abhorrence of
cruelty to such lengths, that he forbad the sacrificing of oxen, and
would sit whole days on the judgment-seat, reversing the unjust
decisions of corrupt judges; yet afterwards, he surpassed even Nero in
cruelty. The latter was content to torture and kill by proxy, and
without being a spectator; but Domitian could not be denied the luxury
of seeing his victims writhe, and hearing them shriek; and often with
his own hand directed the instrument of torture, especially when some
illustrious senator or patrician was to be killed by piece-meal.
Commodus began with gentleness and condescension, but soon became a
terror and a scourge, outstripping in his atrocities most of his
predecessors. Maximin too, was just and generous when first invested
with power, but afterwards rioted in slaughter with the relish of a
fiend. History has well said of this monarch, 'the change in his
disposition may readily serve to show how dangerous a thing is power,
that could transform a person of such rigid virtues into such a
monster.'

Instances almost innumerable might be furnished in the history of
every age, illustrating the blunting of sympathies, and the total
transformation of character wrought in individuals by the exercise of
arbitrary power. Not to detain the reader with long details, let a
single instance suffice.

Perhaps no man has lived in modern times, whose name excites such
horror as that of Robespierre. Yet it is notorious that he was
naturally of a benevolent disposition, and tender sympathies.

"Before the revolution, when as a judge in his native city of Arras he
had to pronounce judgment on an assassin, he took no food for two days
afterwards, but was heard frequently exclaiming, 'I am sure he was
guilty; he is a villain; but yet, to put a human being to death!!' He
could not support the idea; and that the same necessity might not
recur, he relinquished his judicial office.--(See Laponneray's Life of
Robespierre, p. 8.) Afterwards, in the Convention of 1791, he urged
strongly the abolition of the punishment of death; and yet, for
sixteen months, in 1793 and 1794, till he perished himself by the same
guillotine which he had so mercilessly used on others, no one at Paris
consigned and caused so many fellow-creatures to be put to death by
it, with more ruthless insensibility."--_Turner's Sacred history of
the World_, vol. 2 p. 119.

But it is time we had done with the objection, "such cruelties are
INCREDIBLE." If the objector still reiterates it, he shall have the
last word without farther molestation.

An objection kindred to the preceding now claims notice. It is the
profound induction that slaves _must_ be well treated because
_slaveholders say they are!_



OBJECTION. II.--'SLAVEHOLDERS PROTEST THAT THEY TREAT THEIR SLAVES
WELL.'

Self-justification is human nature; self-condemnation is a sublime
triumph over it, and as rare as sublime. What culprits would be
convicted, if their own testimony were taken by juries as good
evidence? Slaveholders are on trial, charged with cruel treatment to
their slaves, and though in their own courts they can clear themselves
_by their own oaths_,[21] they need not think to do it at the bar of
the world. The denial of crimes, by men accused of them, goes for
nothing as evidence in all _civilized_ courts; while the voluntary
confession of them, is the best evidence possible, as it is testimony
_against themselves_, and in the face of the strongest motives to
conceal the truth. On the preceding pages, are hundreds of just such
testimonies; the voluntary and explicit testimony of slaveholders
against themselves, their families and ancestors, their constituents
and their rulers; against their characters and their memories; against
their justice, their honesty, their honor and their benevolence. Now
let candor decide between those two classes of slaveholders, which is
most entitled to credit; that which testifies in its own favor, just
as self-love would dictate, or that which testifies against all
selfish motives and in spite of them; and though it has nothing to
gain, but every thing to lose by such testimony, still utters it.

But if there were no counter testimony, if all slaveholders were
unanimous in the declaration that the treatment of the slaves is
_good_, such a declaration would not be entitled to a feather's weight
as testimony; it is not _testimony_ but _opinion_. Testimony respects
matters of _fact_, not matters of opinion: it is the declaration of a
witness as to _facts_, not the giving of an opinion as to the nature
or qualities of actions, or the _character_ of a course of conduct.
Slaveholders organize themselves into a tribunal to adjudicate upon
their own conduct, and give us in their decisions, their estimate of
their own character; informing us with characteristic modesty, that
they have a high opinion of themselves; that in their own judgment
they are very mild, kind, and merciful gentlemen! In these conceptions
of their own merits, and of the eminent propriety of their bearing
towards their slaves, slaveholders remind us of the Spaniard, who
always took off his hat whenever he spoke of himself, and of the
Governor of Schiraz, who, from a sense of justice to his own character
added to his other titles, those of, 'Flower of Courtesy,' 'Nutmeg of
Consolation,' and 'Rose of Delight.'

[Footnote 21: The law of which the following is an extract, exists in
South Carolina. "If any slave shall suffer in life, limb or member,
when no white person shall be present, or being present, shall refuse
to give evidence, the owner or other person, who shall have the care
of such slave, and in whose power such slave shall be, shall be deemed
guilty of such offence, _unless_ such owner or other person shall make
the contrary appear by good and sufficient evidence, or shall BY HIS
OWN OATH CLEAR AND EXCULPATE HIMSELF. Which oath every court where
such offence shall be tried, is hereby compared to administer, and to
_acquit the offender_, if clear proof of the offence be not made by
_two_ witnesses at least."--2 Brevard's Digest, 242. The state of
Louisiana has a similar law.]


The _sincerity_ of those worthies, no one calls in question; their
real notions of their own merits doubtless ascended into the sublime:
but for aught that appears, they had not the arrogance to demand that
their own notions of their personal excellence, should be taken as the
_proof_ of it. Not so with our slaveholders. Not content with offering
incense at the shrine of their own virtues, they have the effrontery
to demand, that the rest of the world shall offer it, because _they_
do; and shall implicitly believe the presiding divinity to be a good
Spirit rather than a Devil, because _they_ call him so! In other
words, since slaveholders profoundly appreciate their own gentle
dispositions toward their slaves, and their kind treatment of them,
and everywhere protest that they do truly show forth these rare
excellencies, they demand that the rest of the world shall not only
believe that they _think_ so, but that they think _rightly_; that
these notions of themselves are _true_, that their taking off their
hats to themselves proves them worthy of homage, and that their
assumption of the titles of, 'Flower of Kindness,' and 'Nutmeg of
Consolation,' is conclusive evidence that they deserve such
appellations!

Was there ever a more ridiculous doctrine, than that a man's opinion
of his own actions is the true standard for measuring them, and the
certificate of their real qualities!--that his own estimate of his
treatment of others; is to be taken as the true one, and such
treatment be set down as _good_ treatment upon the strength of his
judgment. He who argues the good treatment of the slave, from the
slaveholder's _good opinion_ of such treatment, not only argues
against human nature and all history, his own common sense, and even
the testimony of his senses, but refutes his own arguments by his
daily practice. Every body acts on the presumption that men's feelings
will vary with their _practices_; that the light in which they view
individuals and classes, and their feelings towards them, will modify
their opinions of the treatment which they receive. In any case of
treatment that affects himself, his church, or his political party, no
man so stultifies himself as to argue that such treatment must be
good, because the _author_ of it thinks so.

Who would argue that the American Colonies were well treated by the
mother country, because parliament thought so? Or that Poland was well
treated by Russia, because Nicholas thought so? Or that the treatment
of the Cherokees by Georgia is proved good by Georgia notions of it?
Or that of the Greeks by the Turks, by Turkish opinions of it? Or that
of the Jews by almost all nations, by the judgment of their
persecutors? Or that of the victims of the Inquisition, by the
opinions of the Inquisitor general, or of the Pope and his cardinals?
Or that of the Quakers and Baptists, at the hands of the Puritans,--to
be judged of by the opinions of the legislatures that authorized, and
the courts that carried it into effect. All those classes of persons
did not, in their own opinion, abuse their victims. If charged with
perpetrating outrageous cruelty upon them, all those oppressors would
have repelled the charge with indignation.

Our slaveholders chime lustily the same song, and no man with human
nature within him, and human history before him, and with sense enough
to keep him out of the fire, will be gulled by such professions,
unless his itch to be humbugged has put on the type of a downright
chronic incurable. We repeat it--when men speak of the treatment of
others as being either good or bad, their declarations are not
generally to be taken as testimony to matters of _fact_, so much as
expressions of _their own feelings_ towards those persons or classes
who are the subjects of such treatment. If those persons are their
fellow citizens; if they are in the same class of society with
themselves; of the same language, creed, and color; similar in their
habits, pursuits, and sympathies; they will keenly feel any wrong done
to them, and denounce it as base, outrageous treatment; but let the
same wrongs be done to persons of a condition in all respects the
reverse, persons whom they habitually despise, and regard only in the
light of mere conveniences, to be used for their pleasure, and the
idea that such treatment is barbarous will be laughed at as
ridiculous. When we hear slaveholders say that their slaves are _well
treated_, we have only to remember that they are not speaking of
_persons_, but of _property_; not of men and women, but of _chattels_
and _things_; not of friends but of _vassals_ and _victims_; not of
those whom they respect and honor, but of those whom they _scorn_ and
trample on; not of those with whom they sympathize, and co-operate,
and interchange courtesies, but of those whom they regard with
contempt and aversion and disdainfully set with the dogs of their
flock. Reader, keep this fact in your mind, and you will have a clue
to the slaveholder's definition of "_good treatment_." Remember also,
that a part of this "good treatment" of which the slaveholders boast,
is plundering the slaves of all their inalienable rights, of the
ownership of their own bodies, of the use of their own limbs and
muscles, of all their time, liberty, and earnings, of the free
exercise of choice, of the rights of marriage and parental authority,
of legal protection, of the right to be, to do, to go, to stay, to
think, to feel, to work, to rest, to eat, to sleep, to learn, to
teach, to earn money, and to expend it, to visit, and to be visited,
to speak, to be silent, to worship according to conscience, in fine,
their right to be protected by just and equal laws, and to be
_amenable to such only_. Of _all these rights the slaves are
plundered_; and this is a _part_ of that "good treatment" of which
their plunderers boast! What then is the _rest_ of it? The above is
enough for a sample, at least a specimen-brick from the kiln. Reader,
we ask you no questions, but merely tell you what _you know_, when we
say that men and women who can habitually do such things to human
beings, _can do_ ANY THING _to them_.

The declarations of slaveholders, that they treat their slaves well,
will put no man in a quandary, who keeps in mind this simple
principle, that the state of mind towards others, which leads one to
inflict cruelties on them _blinds the inflicter to the real nature of
his own acts_. To him, they do not _seem_ to be cruelties;
consequently, when speaking of such treatment toward such persons, he
will protest that it is not cruelty; though if inflicted upon himself
or his friends, he would indignantly stigmatize it as atrocious
barbarity. The objector equally overlooks another every-day fact of
human nature, which is this, that cruelties invariably cease to _seem_
cruelties when the _habit_ is formed though previously the mind
regarded them as such, and shrunk from them with horror.

The following fact, related by the late lamented THOMAS PRINGLE, whose
Life and Poems have published in England, is an appropriate
illustration. Mr. Pringle states it on the authority of Captain W. F.
Owen, of the Royal Navy.

"When his Majesty's ships, the Leven and the Barracouta, employed in
surveying the coast of Africa, were at Mozambique, in 1823, the
officers were introduced to the family of Senor Manuel Pedro
d'Almeydra, a native of Portugal, who was a considerable merchant
settled on that coast; and it was an opinion agreed in by all, that
Donna Sophia d'Almeydra was the most superior woman they had seen
since they left England, Captain Owen, the leader of the expedition,
expressing to Senor d'Almeydra his detestation of slavery, the Senor
replied, 'You will not be long here before you change your sentiments.
Look at my Sophia there. Before she would marry me, she made me
promise that I should give up the slave trade. When we first settled
at Mozambique, she was continually interceding for the slaves, and she
_constantly wept when I punished them_; and now she is among the
slaves front morning to night; she regulates the whole of my slave
establishment; she inquires into every offence committed by them,
pronounces sentence upon the offender, and _stands by and sees them
punished_.'

"To this, Mr. Pringle, who was himself for six years a resident of the
English settlement at the Cape of Good Hope, adds, 'The writer of this
article has seen, in the course of five or six years, as great a
change upon English ladies and gentleman of respectability, as that
described to have taken place in Donna Sophia d'Almeydra; and one of
the individuals whom he has in his eye, while he writes this passage,
lately confessed to him this melancholy change, remarking at the same
time, 'how altered I am in my feelings with regard to slavery. I do
not appear to myself the same person I was on my arrival in this
colony, and if I would give the world for the feelings I then had, I
could not recall them.'"


Slaveholders know full well that familiarity with slavery produces
indifference to its cruelties and reconciles the mind to them. The
late Judge Tucker, a Virginia slaveholder and professor of law in the
University of William and Mary, in the appendix to his edition of
Blackstone's Commentaries, part 2, pp. 56, 57, commenting on the law
of Virginia previous to 1792, which outlawed fugitive slaves, says:

"Such are the cruelties to which slavery gives rise, such the horrors
to which the mind becomes _reconciled_ by its adoption."


The following facts from the pen of CHARLES STUART, happily illustrate
the same principle:

"A young lady, the daughter of a Jamaica planter, was sent at an early
age to school to England, and after completing her education, returned
to her native country.

"She is now settled with her husband and family in England. I visited
her near Bath, early last spring, (1834.) Conversing on the above
subject, the paralyzing effects of slaveholding on the heart, she
said:

"'While at school in England, I often thought with peculiar tenderness
of the kindness of a slave who had nursed and carried me about. Upon
returning to my father's, one of my first inquiries was about him. I
was deeply afflicted to find that he was on the point of undergoing a
"law flogging for having run away." I threw myself at my father's feet
and implored with tears, his pardon; but my father steadily replied,
that it would ruin the discipline of the plantation, and that the
punishment must take place. I wept in vain, and retired so grieved and
disgusted, that for some days after, I could scarcely bear with
patience, the sight of my own father. But many months had not elapsed
ere _I was as ready as any body_ to seize the domestic whip, _and flog
my slaves without hesitation_.'

"This lady is one of the most Christian and noble minds of my
acquaintance. She and her husband distinguished themselves several
years ago, in Jamaica, by immediately emancipating their slaves."

"A lady, now in the West Indies, was sent in her infancy, to her
friends, near Belfast, in Ireland, for education. She remained under
their charge from five to fifteen years of age, and grew up every
thing which her friends could wish. At fifteen, she returned to the
West Indies--was married--and after some years paid her friends near
Belfast, a second visit. Towards white people, she was the same
elegant, and interesting woman as before; apparently full of every
virtuous and tender feeling; but towards the colored people she was
like a tigress. If Wilberforce's name was mentioned, she would say,
'Oh, I wish we had the wretch in the West Indies, I would be one of
the first to help to tear his heart out!'--and then she would tell of
the manner in which the West Indian ladies used to treat their slaves.
'I have often,' she said, 'when my women have displeased me, snatched
their baby from their bosom, and running with it to a well, have tied
my shawl round its shoulders and pretended to be drowning it: oh, it
was so funny to hear the mother's screams!'--and then she laughed
almost convulsively at the recollection."


Mr. JOHN M. NELSON, a native of Virginia, whose testimony is on a
preceding page, furnishes a striking illustration of the principle in
his own case. He says:

"When I was quite a child, I recollect it grieved me very much to see
one tied up to be whipped, and I used to intercede _with tears in
their behalf_, and _mingle my cries with theirs_, and feel almost
willing to take part of the punishment. Yet such is the hardening
nature of such scenes, that from this kind of commiseration for the
suffering slave, I became so blunted that I could not only witness
their stripes with composure, but _myself_ inflict them, and that
without remorse. When I was perhaps fourteen or fifteen years of age,
I undertook to correct a young fellow named Ned, for some supposed
offence, I think it was leaving a bridle out of its proper place; he
being larger and stronger than myself took hold of my arms and held
me, in order to prevent my striking him; this I considered the height
of insolence, and cried for help, when my father and mother both came
running to my rescue. My father stripped and tied him, and took him
into the orchard, where switches were plenty, and directed me to whip
him; when one switch wore out he supplied me with others. After I had
whipped him a while, he fell on his knees to implore forgiveness, and
I kicked him in the face; my father said, 'don't kick him but whip
him,' this I did until his back was literally covered with _welts_."


W.C. GILDERSLEEVE, Esq., a native of Georgia, now elder of the
Presbyterian church, Wilkes-barre, Penn. after describing the flogging
of a slave, in which his hands were tied together, and the slave
hoisted by a rope, so that his feet could not touch the ground; in
which condition one hundred lashes were inflicted, says:

"I stood by and witnessed the whole without feeling the least
compassion; so _hardening_ is the influence of slavery that it _very
much destroys feeling for the slave_."


Mrs. CHILD, in her admirable "Appeal," has the following remarks:

"The ladies who remove from the free States into the slaveholding ones
almost invariably write that the sight of slavery was at first
exceedingly painful; but that they soon become habituated to it; and
after a while, they are very apt to vindicate the system, upon the
ground that it is extremely convenient to have such submissive
servants. This reason was actually given by a lady of my acquaintance,
who is considered an unusually fervent Christian. Yet Christianity
expressly teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves. This shows how
dangerous it is, for even the best of us, to become _accustomed_ to
what is wrong.

"A judicious and benevolent friend lately told me the story of one of
her relatives, who married a slave owner, and removed to his
plantation. The lady in question was considered very amiable, and had
a serene, affectionate expression of countenance. After several years
residence among her slaves, she visited New England. 'Her history was
written in her face,' said my friend; 'its expression had changed into
that of a fiend. She brought but few slaves with her; and those few
were of course compelled to perform additional labor. One faithful
negro woman nursed the twins of her mistress, and did all the washing,
ironing, and scouring. If, after a sleepless night with the restless
babes, (driven from the bosom of their mother,) she performed her
toilsome avocations with diminished activity, her mistress, with her
own lady-like hands, applied the cowskin, and the neighborhood
resounded with the cries of her victim. The instrument of punishment
was actually kept hanging in the entry, to the no small disgust of her
New England visitors. 'For my part,' continued my friend, 'I did not
try to be polite to her; for I was not hypocrite enough to conceal my
indignation.'"

The fact that the greatest cruelties may be exercised quite
unconsciously when cruelty has become a habit, and that at the same
time, the mind may feel great sympathy and commiseration towards other
persons and even towards irrational animals, is illustrated in the
case of Tameriane the Great. In his Life, written by himself, he
speaks with the greatest sincerity and tenderness of his grief at
having accidentally crushed an ant; and yet he ordered melted lead to
be poured down the throats of certain persons who drank wine contrary
to his commands. He was manifestly sincere in thinking himself humane,
and when speaking of the most atrocious cruelties perpetrated by
himself, it does not seem to ruffle in the least the self-complacency
with which he regards his own humanity and piety. In one place he
says, "I never undertook anything but I commenced it placing my faith
on God"--and he adds soon after, "the people of Shiraz took part with
Shah Mansur, and put my governor to death; I therefore ordered _a
general massacre of all the inhabitants_."

It is one of the most common caprices of human nature, for the heart
to become by habit, not only totally insensible to certain forms of
cruelty, which at first gave it inexpressible pain, but even to find
its chief amusement in such cruelties, till utterly intoxicated by
their stimulation; while at the same time the mind seems to be pained
as keenly as ever, at forms of cruelty to which it has not become
accustomed, thus retaining _apparently_ the same general
susceptibilities. Illustrations of this are to be found every where;
one happens to lie before us. Bourgoing, in his history of modern
Spain, speaking of the bull fights, the barbarous national amusement
of the Spaniards, says:

"Young ladies, old men, people of all ages and of all characters are
present, and yet the habit of attending these bloody festivals does
not correct their weakness or their timidity, nor injure the sweetness
of their manners. I have moreover known foreigners, distinguished by
the gentleness of their manners, who experienced at first seeing a
bull-fight such very violent emotions as made them turn pale, and they
became ill; but, notwithstanding, this entertainment became afterwards
an irresistible attraction, without operating any revolution in their
characters." Modern State of Spain, by J. F. Bourgoing, Minister
Plenipotentiary from France to the Court of Madrid, Vol ii., page 342.

It is the _novelty_ of cruelty, rather than the _degree_, which repels
most minds. Cruelty in a _new_ form, however slight, will often pain a
mind that is totally unmoved by the most horrible cruelties in a form
to which it is _accustomed_. When Pompey was at the zenith of his
popularity in Rome, he ordered some elephants to be tortured in the
amphitheatre for the amusement of the populace; this was the first
time they had witnessed the torture of those animals, and though for
years accustomed to witness in the same place, the torture of lions,
tigers, leopards, and almost all sorts of wild beasts, as well as that
of men of all nations, and to shout acclamations over their agonies,
yet, this _novel form_ of cruelty so shocked the beholders, that the
most popular man in Rome was execrated as a cruel monster, and came
near falling a victim to the fury of those who just before were ready
to adore him.

We will now briefly notice another objection, somewhat akin to the
preceding, and based mainly upon the same and similar fallacies.



OBJECTION III.--'SLAVEHOLDERS ARE PROVERBIAL FOR THEIR KINDNESS,
HOSPITALITY, BENEVOLENCE, AND GENEROSITY.'

Multitudes scout as fictions the cruelties inflicted upon slaves,
because slaveholders are famed for their courtesy and hospitality.
They tell us that their generous and kind attentions to their guests,
and their well-known sympathy for the suffering, sufficiently prove
the charges of cruelty brought against them to be calumnies, of which
their uniform character is a triumphant refutation.

Now that slaveholders are proverbially hospitable to their guests, and
spare neither pains nor expense in ministering to their accommodation
and pleasure, is freely admitted and easily accounted for. That those
who make their inferiors work for them, without pay, should be
courteous and hospitable to those of their equals and superiors whose
good opinions they desire, is human nature in its every-day dress. The
objection consists of a fact and an inference: the fact, that
slaveholders have a special care to the accommodation of their
_guests;_ the inference, that therefore they must seek the comfort of
their _slaves_--that as they are bland and obliging to their equals,
they must be mild and condescending to their inferiors--that as the
wrongs of their own grade excite their indignation, and their woes
move their sympathies, they must be touched by those of their
chattels--that as they are full of pains-taking toward those whose
good opinions and good offices they seek, they will, of course, show
special attention to those to whose good opinions they are
indifferent, and whose good offices they can _compel_--that as they
honor the literary and scientific, they must treat with high
consideration those to whom they deny the alphabet--that as they are
courteous to certain _persons_, they must be so to "property"--eager
to anticipate the wishes of visitors, they cannot but gratify those of
their vassals--jealous for the rights of the Texans, quick to feel at
the disfranchisement of Canadians and of Irishmen, alive to the
oppressions of the Greeks and the Poles, they must feel keenly for
their _negroes!_ Such conclusions from such premises do not call for
serious refutation. Even a half-grown boy, who should argue, that
because men have certain feelings toward certain persons in certain
circumstances, they must have the same feelings toward all persons in
all circumstances, or toward persons in opposite circumstances, of
totally different grades, habits, and personal peculiarities, might
fairly be set down as a hopeless simpleton: and yet, men of sense and
reflection on other subjects, seem bent upon stultifying themselves by
just such shallow inferences from the fact, that slaveholders are
hospitable and generous to certain persons in certain grades of
society belonging to their own caste. On the ground of this reasoning,
all the crimes ever committed may be disproved, by showing, that their
perpetrators were hospitable and generous to those who sympathized and
co-operated with them. To prove that a man does not hate one of his
neighbors, it is only necessary to show that he loves another; to make
it appear that he does not treat contemptuously the ignorant, he has
only to show that he bows respectfully to the learned; to demonstrate
that he does not disdain his inferiors, lord it over his dependents,
and grind the faces of the poor, he need only show that he is polite
to the rich, pays deference to titles and office, and fawns for favor
upon those above him! The fact that a man always smiles on his
customers, proves that he never scowls at those who dun him! and since
he has always a melodious "good morning!" for "gentlemen of property
and standing," it is certain that he never snarls at beggars. He who
is quick to make room for a doctor of divinity, will, of course, see
to it that he never runs against a porter; and he who clears the way
for a lady, will be sure never to rub against a market woman, or
jostle an apple-seller's board. If accused of beating down his
laundress to the lowest fraction, of making his boot-black call a
dozen times for his pay, of higgling and screwing a fish boy till he
takes off two cents, or of threatening to discharge his seamstress
unless she will work for a shilling a day, how easy to brand it all as
slander, by showing that he pays his minister in advance, is generous
in Christmas presents, gives a splendid new-year's party, expends
hundreds on elections, and puts his name with a round sum on the
subscription paper of the missionary society.

Who can forget the hospitality of King Herod, that model of generosity
"beyond all ancient fame," who offered half his kingdom to a guest, as
a compensation for an hour's amusement.--Could such a noble spirit
have murdered John the Baptist? Incredible! Joab too! how his soft
heart was pierced at the exile of Absalom! and how his bowels yearned
to restore him to his home! Of course, it is all fiction about his
assassinating his nephew, Amasa, and Abner the captain of the host!
Since David twice spared the life of Saul when he came to murder him,
wept on the neck of Jonathan, threw himself upon the ground in anguish
when his child sickened, and bewailed, with a broken heart, the loss
of Absalom--it proves that he did not coolly plot and deliberately
consummate the murder of Uriah! As the Government of the United States
generously gave a township of land to General La Fayette, it proves
that they have never defrauded the Indians of theirs! So the fact,
that the slaveholders of the present Congress are, to a man, favorable
to recognizing the independence of Texas, with her fifty or sixty
thousand inhabitants, _before she has achieved it_, and before it is
recognized by any other government, proves that these same
slaveholders do _not oppose_ the recognition of Hayti, with her
million of inhabitants, whose independence was achieved nearly half a
century ago, and which is recognized by the most powerful governments
on earth!

But, seriously, no man is so slightly versed in human nature as not to
know that men habitually exercise the most opposite feelings, and
indulge in the most opposite practices toward different persons or
different classes of persons around them. No man has ever lived who
was more celebrated for his scrupulous observance of the most exact
justice, and for the illustration furnished in his life of the noblest
natural virtues, than the Roman Cato. His strict adherence to the
nicest rules of equity--his integrity, honor, and incorruptible
faith--his jealous watchfulness over the rights of his fellow
citizens, and his generous devotion to their interest, procured for
him the sublime appellation of "The Just." Towards _freemen_ his life
was a model of every thing just and noble: but to his slaves he was a
monster. At his meals, when the dishes were not done to his liking, or
when his slaves were careless or inattentive in serving, he would
seize a thong and violently beat them, in presence of his
guests.--When they grew old or diseased, and were no longer
serviceable, however long and faithfully they might have served him,
he either turned them adrift and left them to perish, or starved them
to death in his own family. No facts in his history are better
authenticated than these.

No people were ever more hospitable and munificent than the Romans,
and none more touched with the sufferings of others. Their public
theatres often rung with loud weeping, thousands sobbing convulsively
at once over fictitious woes and imaginary sufferers: and yet these
same multitudes would shout amidst the groans of a thousand dying
gladiators, forced by their conquerors to kill each other in the
amphitheatre for the _amusement_ of the public.[22]

[Footnote 22: Dr. Leland, in his "Necessity of a Divine Revelation,"
thus describes the prevalence of these shows among the Romans:--"They
were exhibited at the funerals of great and rich men, and on many
other occasions, by the Roman consuls, praetors, aediles, senators,
knights, priests, and almost all that bore great offices in the state,
as well as by the emperors; and in general, by all that had a mind to
make an interest with the people, who were extravagantly fond of those
kinds of shows. Not only the men, but the women, ran eagerly after
them; who were, by the prevalence of custom, so far divested of that
compassion and softness which is natural to the sex, that they took a
pleasure in seeing them kill one another, and only desired that they
should fall genteelly, and in an agreeable attitude. Such was the
frequency of those shows, and so great the number of men that were
killed on those occasions, that Lipsius says, no war caused such
slaughter of mankind, as did these sports of pleasure, throughout the
several provinces of the vast Roman empire."--_Leland's Neces. of Div.
Rev._ vol. ii. p. 51.]


Alexander, the tyrant of Phaeres, sobbed like a child over the
misfortunes of the Trojan queens, when the tragedy of Andromache and
Hecuba was played before him; yet he used to murder his subjects every
day for no crime, and without even setting up the pretence of any, but
merely _to make himself sport_.


The fact that slaveholders may be full of benevolence and kindness
toward their equals and toward whites generally, even so much so as to
attract the esteem and admiration of all, while they treat with the
most inhuman neglect their own slaves, is well illustrated by a
circumstance mentioned by the Rev. Dr. CHANNING, of Boston, (who once
lived in Virginia,) is his work on slavery, p. 162, 1st edition:--

"I cannot," says the doctor, "forget my feelings on visiting a
hospital belonging to the plantation of a gentleman _highly esteemed
for his virtues_, and whose manners and conversation expressed much
_benevolence_ and _conscientiousness_. When I entered with him the
hospital, the first object on which my eye fell was a young woman very
ill, probably approaching death. She was stretched on the floor. Her
head rested on something like a pillow, but her body and limbs were
extended on the hard boards. The owner, I doubt not, had, at least, as
much kindness as myself; but he was so used to see the slaves living
without common comforts, that the idea of unkindness in the present
instance did not enter his mind."


Mr. GEORGE A. AVERY, an elder of a Presbyterian church in Rochester,
N.Y. who resided some years in Virginia, says:--

"On one occasion I was crossing the plantation and approaching the
house of a friend, when I met him, _rifle in hand_, in pursuit of one
of his negroes, declaring he would shoot him in a moment if he got his
eye upon him. It appeared that the slave had refused to be flogged,
and ran off to avoid the consequences; _and yet the generous
hospitality of this man to myself, and white friends generally,
scarcely knew any bounds._

"There were amongst my slaveholding friends and acquaintances, persons
who were as _humane_ and _conscientious_ as men can be, and persist in
the impious claim of _property_ in a fellow being. Still I can
recollect but _one instance_ of corporal punishment, whether the
subject were male or female, in which the infliction was not on the
_bare back_ with the _raw hide_, or a similar instrument, the subject
being _tied_ during the operation to a post or tree. The _exception_
was under the following circumstances. I had taken a walk with a
friend on his plantation, and approaching his gang of slaves, I sat
down whilst he proceeded to the spot where they were at work; and
addressing himself somewhat earnestly to a female who was wielding the
hoe, in a moment caught up what I supposed a _tobacco stick_, (a stick
some three feet in length on which the tobacco, when out, is suspended
to dry.) about the size of a _man's wrist_, and laid on a number of
blows furiously over her head. The woman crouched, and seemed stunned
with the blows, but presently recommenced the motion of her hoe."


Dr. DAVID NELSON, a native of Tennessee, and late president of Marion
College, Missouri, in a lecture at Northampton, Mass. in January,
1839, made the following statement:--

"I remember a young lady who played well on the piano, and was very
ready to weep over any fictitious tale of suffering. I was present
when one of her slaves lay on the floor in a high fever, and we feared
she might not recover. I saw that young lady _stamp upon her with her
feet;_ and the only remark her mother made was, 'I am afraid Evelina
is too _much_ prejudiced against poor Mary.'"


General WILLIAM EATON, for some years U.S. Consul at Tunis, and
commander of the expedition against Tripoli, in 1895, thus gives vent
to his feelings at the sight of many hundreds of Sardinians who had
been enslaved by the Tunisians:

"Many have died of grief, and the others linger out a life less
tolerable than death. Alas! remorse seizes my whole soul when I
reflect, that this is indeed but a copy of the very barbarity which
_my eyes have seen_ in my own native country. _How frequently_, in the
southern states of my own country, have I seen _weeping mothers_
leading the guiltless infant to the sales with as _deep anguish_ as if
they led them to the slaughter; and _yet felt my bosom tranquil_ in
the view of these aggressions on defenceless humanity. But when I see
the same enormities practised upon beings whose complexions and blood
claim kindred with my own, _I curse the perpetrators, and weep over
the wretched victims of their rapacity._ Indeed, truth and justice
demand from me the confession, that the Christian slaves among the
barbarians of Africa are treated with more humanity than the African
slaves among professing Christians of civilized America; and yet
_here_ [in Tunis] sensibility _bleeds at every pore_ for the wretches
whom fate has doomed to slavery."


Rev. H. LYMAN, late pastor of the free Presbyterian Church, Buffalo,
N.Y. who spent the winter of 1832-3 at the south, says:--

"In the interior of Mississippi I was invited to the house of a
planter, where I was received with great cordiality, and entertained
with marked hospitality.

"There I saw a master in the midst of his household slaves. The
evening passed most pleasantly, as indeed it must, where assiduous
hospitalities are exercised towards the guest.

"Late in the morning, when I had gained the tardy consent of my host
to go on my way, as a final act of kindness, he called a slave to show
me across the fields by a nearer route to the main road. 'David,' said
he, 'go and show this gentleman as far as the post-office. Do you know
the big bay tree?' 'Yes, sir.' 'Do you know where the cotton mill is?'
'Yes, sir.' 'Where Squire Malcolm's old field is?' 'Y--e--s, sir,'
said David, (beginning to be bewildered). 'Do you know where Squire
Malcolm's cotton field is?' 'No, sir.' 'No, sir,' said the enraged
master, _levelling his gun at him_. 'What do you stand here, saying,
Yes, yes, yes, for, when you don't know?' All this was accompanied
with _threats_ and _imprecations_, and a manner that contrasted
strangely with the _religious conversation and gentle manners_ of the
previous evening."


The Rev. JAMES H. DICKEY, formerly a slaveholder in South Carolina,
now pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Hennepin, Ill. in his "Review
of Nevins' Biblical Antiquities," after asserting that slaveholding
tends to beget "a spirit of cruelty and tyranny, and to destroy every
generous and noble feeling," (page 33,) he adds the following as a
note:--

"It may be that this will be considered censorious, and the proverbial
generosity and hospitality of the south will be appealed to as a full
confutation of it. The writer thinks he can appreciate southern
kindness and hospitality. Having been born in Virginia, raised and
educated in South Carolina and Kentucky, he is altogether southern in
his feelings, and habits, and modes of familiar conversation. He can
say of the south as Cowper said of England, 'With all thy faults I
love thee still, my country.' And nothing but the abominations of
slavery could have induced him willingly to forsake a land endeared to
him by all the associations of childhood and youth.

"Yet it is candid to admit that it is not all gold that glitters.
There is a fictitious kindness and hospitality. The famous Robin Hood
was kind and generous--no man more hospitable--he robbed the rich to
supply the necessities of the poor. Others rob the poor to bestow
gifts and lavish kindness and hospitality on their rich friends and
neighbors. It is an easy matter for a man to appear kind and generous,
when he bestows that which others have earned.

"I said, there is a fictitious kindness and hospitality. I once knew a
man who left his wife and children three days, without fire-wood,
without bread-stuff and without shoes, while the ground was covered
with snow--that he might indulge in his cups. And when I attempted to
expostulate with him, he took the subject out of my hands, and
expatiating on the evils of intemperance more eloquently than I could,
concluded by warning me, _with tears_, to avoid the snares of the
latter. He had tender feelings, yet a hard heart. I once knew a young
lady of polished manners and accomplished education, who would weep
with sympathy over the fictitious woes exhibited in a novel. And
waking from her reverie of grief, while her eye was yet wet with
tears, would call her little waiter, and if she did not appear at the
first call, would rap her head with her thimble till my head ached.

"I knew a man who was famed for kindly sympathies. He once took off
his shirt and gave it to a poor white man. The same man hired a black
man, and gave him for his _daily task_, through the winter, to feed
the beasts, keep fires, and make one hundred rails: and in case of
failure the lash was applied so freely, that, in the spring, his back
was _one continued sore, from his shoulders to his waist_. Yet this
man was a professor of religion, and famous for his tender sympathies
to white men!"




OBJECTION IV.--'NORTHERN VISITORS AT THE SOUTH TESTIFY THAT THE SLAVES
ARE NOT CRUELLY TREATED.'


ANSWER:--Their knowledge on this point must have been derived, either
from the slaveholders and overseers themselves, or from the slaves, or
from their own observation. If from the slaveholders, _their_
testimony has already been weighed and found wanting; if they derived
it from the slaves, they can hardly be so simple as to suppose that
the _guest, associate and friend of the master_, would be likely to
draw from his _slaves_ any other testimony respecting his treatment of
them, than such as would please _him_. The great shrewdness and tact
exhibited by slaves in _keeping themselves out of difficulty_, when
close questioned by strangers as to their treatment, cannot fail to
strike every accurate observer. The following remarks of CHIEF JUSTICE
HENDERSON, a North Carolina slaveholder, in his decision (in 1830,) in
the case of the State _versus_ Charity, 2 Devereaux's North Carolina
Reports, 513, illustrate the folly of arguing the good treatment of
slaves from their own declarations, _while in the power of their
masters_. In the case above cited, the Chief Justice, in refusing to
permit a master to give in evidence, declarations made to him by his
slave, says of masters and slaves generally--

"The master has an almost _absolute control_ over the body and _mind_
of his slave. The master's _will_ is the slave's _will_. All his acts,
_all his sayings_, are made with a view to propitiate his master. His
confessions are made, not from a love of truth, not from a sense of
duty, not to speak a falsehood, but to _please his master_--and it is
in vain that his master tells him to speak the truth and conceals from
him how he wishes the question answered. The slave _will_ ascertain,
or, which is the same thing, think that he has ascertained _the wishes
of his master,_ and MOULD HIS ANSWER ACCORDINGLY. We therefore more
often get the wishes of the master, or the slave's belief of his
wishes, than the truth."


The following extract of a letter from the Hon. SETH M. GATES, member
elect of the next Congress, furnishes a clue by which to interpret the
looks, actions, and protestations of slaves, when in the presence of
their masters' guests, and the pains sometimes taken by slaveholders,
in teaching their slaves the art of _pretending_ that they are treated
well, love their masters, are happy, &c. The letter is dated Leroy,
Jan. 4, 1839.

"I have sent your letter to Rev. Joseph M. Sadd, Castile, Genesee
county, who resided five years in a slave state, and left, disgusted
with slavery. I trust he will give you some facts. I remember one
fact, which his wife witnessed. A relative, where she boarded,
returning to his plantation after a temporary absence, was not met by
his servants with such demonstrations of joy as was their wont. He
ordered his horse put out, took down his whip, ordered his servants to
the barn, and gave them a most cruel beating, because they did not run
out to meet him, and pretend great attachment to him. Mrs. Sadd had
overheard the servants agreeing not to go out, before his return, as
they said _they did not love him_--and this led her to watch his
conduct to them. This man was a professor of religion!"

If these northern visitors derived their information that the slaves
are _not_ cruelly treated from _their own observation_, it amounts to
this, _they did not see_ cruelties inflicted on the slaves. To which
we reply, that the preceding pages contain testimony from hundreds of
witnesses, who testify that they _did see_ the cruelties whereof they
affirm. Besides this, they contain the solemn declarations of scores
of slaveholders themselves, in all parts of the slave states, that the
slaves are cruelly treated. These declarations are moreover fully
corroborated, by the laws of slave states, by a multitude of
advertisements in their newspapers, describing runaway slaves, by
their scars, brands, gashes, maimings, cropped ears, iron collars,
chains, &c. &c.

Truly, after the foregoing array of facts and testimony, and after the
objectors' forces have one after another filed off before them, now to
march up a phalanx of northern _visitors_, is to beat a retreat.
'Visitors!' What insight do casual visitors get into the tempers and
daily practices of those whom they visit, or of the treatment that
their slaves receive at their hands, especially if these visitors are
strangers, and from a region where there are no slaves, and which
claims to be opposed to slavery? What opportunity has a stranger, and
a temporary guest, to learn the every-day habits and caprices of his
host? Oh, these northern visitors tell us they have visited scores of
families at the south and never saw a master or mistress whip their
slaves. Indeed! They have, doubtless, visited hundreds of families at
the north--did they ever see, on such occasions, the father or mother
whip their children? If so, they must associate with very ill-bred
persons. Because well-bred parents do not whip their children in the
presence, or within the hearing of their guests are we to infer that
they never do it _out_ of their sight and hearing? But perhaps the
fact that these visitors do not _remember_ seeing slaveholders strike
their slaves, merely proves, that they had so little feeling for them,
that though they might be struck every day in their presence, yet as
they were only slaves and 'niggers,' it produced no effect upon them;
consequently they have no impressions to recall. These visitors have
also doubtless _rode_ with scores of slaveholders. Are they quite
certain they ever saw them whip their _horses_? and can they recall
the persons, times, places, and circumstances? But even if these
visitors regarded the slaves with some kind feelings, when they first
went to the south, yet being constantly with their oppressors, seeing
them used as articles of property, accustomed to hear them charged
with all kinds of misdemeanors, their ears filled with complaints of
their laziness, carelessness, insolence, obstinacy, stupidity, thefts,
elopements, &c. and at the same time, receiving themselves the most
gratifying attentions and caresses from the same persons, who, while
they make to them these representations of their slaves, are giving
them airings in their coaches, making parties for them, taking them on
excursions of pleasure, lavishing upon them their choicest
hospitalities, and urging them to protract indefinitely their
stay--what more natural than for the flattered guest to admire such
hospitable people, catch their spirit, and fully sympathize with their
feelings toward their slaves, regarding with increased disgust and
aversion those who can habitually tease and worry such loveliness and
generosity[23]. After the visitor had been in contact with the
slave-holding spirit long enough to have imbibed it, (no very tedious
process,) a cuff, or even a kick administered to a slave, would not be
likely to give him such a shock that his memory would long retain the
traces of it. But lest we do these visitors injustice, we will suppose
that they carried with them to the south humane feelings for the
slave, and that those feelings remained unblunted; still, what
opportunity could they have to witness the actual condition of the
slaves? They come in contact with the house-servants only, and as a
general thing, with none but the select ones of these, the
_parlor_-servants; who generally differ as widely in their appearance
and treatment from the cooks and scullions in the kitchen, as parlor
furniture does from the kitchen utensils. Certain servants are
assigned to the parlor, just as certain articles of furniture are
selected for it, _to be seen_--and it is no less ridiculous to infer
that the kitchen scullions are clothed and treated like those servants
who wait at the table, and are in the presence of guests, than to
infer that the kitchen is set out with sofas, ottomans, piano-fortes,
and full-length mirrors, because the parlor is. But the house-slaves
are only a fraction of the whole number. The _field-hands_ constitute
the great mass of the slaves, and these the visitors rarely get a
glimpse at. They are away at their work by day-break, and do not
return to their huts till dark. Their huts are commonly at some
distance from the master's mansion, and the fields in which they
labor, generally much farther, and out of sight. If the visitor
traverses the plantation, care is taken that he does not go alone; if
he expresses a wish to see it, the horses are saddled, and the master
or his son gallops the rounds with him; if he expresses a desire to
see the slaves at work, his conductor will know _where_ to take him,
and _when_, and _which_ of them to show; the overseer, too, knows
quite too well the part he has to act on such occasions, to shock the
uninitiated ears of the visitors with the shrieks of his victims. It
is manifest that visitors can see only the least repulsive parts of
slavery, inasmuch as it is wholly at the option of the master, what
parts to show them; as a matter of necessity, he can see only the
_outside_--and that, like the outside of doorknobs and andirons is
furbished up to be _looked at_. So long as it is human nature to wear
_the best side out_, so long the northern guests of southern
slaveholders will see next to nothing of the reality of slavery. Those
visitors may still keep up their autumnal migrations to the slave
states, and, after a hasty survey of the tinsel hung before the
curtain of slavery, without a single glance behind it, and at the
paint and varnish that _cover up_ dead men's bones, and while those
who have hoaxed them with their smooth stories and white-washed
specimens of slavery, are tittering at their gullibility, they return
in the spring on the same fool's-errand with their predecessors,
retailing their lesson, and mouthing the praises of the masters, and
the comforts of the slaves. They now become village umpires in all
disputes about the condition of the slaves, and each thence forward
ends all controversies with his oracular, "I've _seen_, and sure I
ought to know."

[Footnote 23: Well saith the Scripture, "A gift blindeth the eyes." The
slaves understand this, though the guest may not; they know very well
that they have no sympathy to expect from their master's guests; that
the good cheer of the "big house," and the attentions shown them, will
generally commit them in their master's favor, and against themselves.
Messrs. Thome and Kimball, in their late work, state the following
fact, in illustration of this feeling among the negro apprentices in
Jamaica.

"The governor of one of the islands, shortly after his arrival, dined
with one of the wealthiest proprietors. The next day one of the
negroes of the estate said to another, "De new gubner been
_poison'd_." "What dat you say?" inquired the other in astonishment,
"De gubner been _poison'd_! Dah, now!--How him poisoned?" "_Him eat
massa's turtle soup last night_," said the shrewd negro. The other
took his meaning at once; and his sympathy for the governor was
turned into concern for himself, when he perceived that the
poison was one from which he was likely to suffer more than his
excellency."--_Emancipation in the West Indies_, p. 334.]



But all northern visitors at the south are not thus easily gulled.
Many of them, as the preceding pages show, have too much sense to be
caught with chaff.

We may add here, that those classes of visitors whose representations
of the treatment of slaves are most influential in moulding the
opinions of the free states, are ministers of the gospel, agents of
benevolent societies, and teachers who have traveled and temporarily
resided in the slave states--classes of persons less likely than any
others to witness cruelties, because slaveholders generally take more
pains to keep such visitors in ignorance than others, because their
vocations would furnish them fewer opportunities for witnessing them,
and because they come in contact with a class of society in which
fewer atrocities are committed than in any other, and that too, under
circumstances which make it almost impossible for them to witness
those which are actually committed.

Of the numerous classes of persons from the north who temporarily
reside in the slave states, the mechanics who find employment on the
_plantations_, are the only persons who are in circumstances to look
"behind the scenes." Merchants, pedlars, venders of patents, drovers,
speculators, and almost all descriptions of persons who go from the
free states to the south to make money see little of slavery, except
_upon the road_, at public inns, and in villages and cities.

Let not the reader infer from what has been said, that the
_parlor_-slaves, chamber-maids, &c. in the slave states are not
treated with cruelty--far from it. They often experience terrible
inflictions; not generally so terrible or so frequent as the
field-hands, and very rarely in the presence of guests[24]
House-slaves are for the most part treated far better than
plantation-slaves, and those under the immediate direction of the
master and mistress, than those under overseers and drivers. It is
quite worthy of remark, that of the thousands of northern men who have
visited the south, and are always lauding the kindness of slaveholders
and the comfort of the slaves, protesting that they have never seen
cruelties inflicted on them, &c. each perhaps, without exception, has
some story to tell which reveals, better perhaps than the most
barbarous butchery could do, a public sentiment toward slaves, showing
that the most cruel inflictions must of necessity be the constant
portion of the slaves.

[Footnote 24: Rev. JOSEPH M. SADD, a Presbyterian clergyman, in
Castile, Genesee county, N.Y. recently from Missouri, where he has
preached five years, in the midst of slaveholders, says, in a letter
just received, speaking of the pains taken by slaveholders to conceal
from the eyes of strangers and visitors, the cruelties which they
inflict upon their slaves--

"It is difficult to be an eye-witness of these things; the master and
mistress, almost invariably punish their slaves only in the presence
of themselves and other slaves."]

Though facts of this kind lie thick in every corner, the reader will,
we are sure, tolerate even a needless illustration, if told that it is
from the pen of N.P. Rogers, Esq. of Concord, N.H. who, whatever he
writes, though it be, as in this case, a mere hasty letter, always
finds readers to the end.

"At a court session at Guilford, Stafford county, N.H. in August,
1837, the Hon. Daniel M. Durell, of Dover, formerly Chief Justice
of the Common Pleas for that state, and a member of Congress,
was charging the abolitionists, in presence of several gentlemen
of the bar, at their boarding house, with exaggerations and
misrepresentations of slave treatment at the south. 'One instance
in particular,' he witnessed, he said, where he 'knew they
misrepresented. It was in the Congregational meeting house at Dover.
He was passing by, and saw a crowd entering and about the door; and on
inquiry, found that _abolition was going on in there_. He stood in the
entry for a moment, and found the Englishman, Thompson, was holding
forth. The fellow was speaking of the treatment of slaves; and he said
it was no uncommon thing for masters, when exasperated with the slave,
to hang him up by the two thumbs, and flog him. I knew the fellow lied
there,' said the judge, 'for I had traveled through the south, from
Georgia north, and I never saw a single instance of the kind. The
fellow said it was a common thing.' 'Did you see any _exasperated
masters_, Judge,' said I, 'in your journey?' 'No sir,' said he, 'not
an individual instance.' 'You hardly are able to convict Mr. Thompson
of falsehood, then, Judge,' said I, 'if I understood you right. He
spoke, as I understood you, of _exasperated masters_--and you say you
did not see any. Mr. Thompson did not say it was common for masters in
good humor to hang up their slaves.' The Judge did not perceive the
materiality of the distinction. 'Oh, they misrepresent and lie about
this treatment of the niggers,' he continued. 'In going through all
the states I visited, I do not now remember a single instance of cruel
treatment. Indeed, I remember of seeing but one nigger struck, during
my whole journey. There was one instance. We were riding in the stage,
pretty early one morning, and we met a black fellow, driving a span of
horses, and a load (I think he said) of hay. The fellow turned out
before we got to him, clean down into the ditch, as far as he could
get. He knew, you see, what to depend on, if he did not give the road.
Our driver, as we passed the fellow, fetched him a smart crack with
his whip across the chops. He did not make any noise, though I guess
it hurt him some--he grinned.--Oh, no! these fellows exaggerate. The
niggers, as a general thing, are kindly treated. There may be
exceptions, but I saw nothing of it.' (By the way, the Judge did not
know there were any abolitionists present.) 'What did you _do_ to the
driver, Judge,' said I, 'for striking that man?' 'Do,' said he, 'I did
nothing to him, to be sure.' 'What did you _say_ to him, sir?' said I.
'Nothing,' he replied: 'I said nothing to him.' 'What did the other
passengers do?' said I. 'Nothing, sir,' said the Judge. 'The fellow
turned out the white of his eye, but he did not make any noise.' 'Did
the driver say any thing, Judge, when he struck the man?' 'Nothing,'
said the Judge, 'only he _damned him_, and told him he'd learn him to
keep out of the reach of his whip.' 'Sir,' said I, 'if George Thompson
had told this story, in the warmth of an anti-slavery speech, I should
scarcely have credited it. I have attended many anti-slavery meetings,
and I never heard an instance of such _cold-blooded, wanton,
insolent_, DIABOLICAL cruelty as this; and, sir, if I live to attend
another meeting, I shall relate this, and give Judge Durell's name as
the witness of it.' An infliction of the most insolent character,
entirely unprovoked, on a perfect stranger, who had showed the utmost
civility, in giving all the road, and only could not get beyond the
long reach of the driver's whip--and he a stage driver, a class
_generous_ next to the sailor, in the sober hour of morning--and
_borne in silence_--and _told to show that the colored man of the
south was kindly treated_--all evincing, to an unutterable extent,
that the temper of the south toward the slave is merciless, even to
_diabolism_--and that the north regards him with, if possible, a more
fiendish indifference still!"


It seems but an act of simple justice to say, in conclusion, that many
of the slaveholders from whom our northern visitors derive their
information of the "good treatment" of the slave, may not design to
deceive them. Such visitors are often, perhaps generally brought in
contact with the better class of slaveholders, whose slaves are really
better fed, clothed, lodged, and housed; more moderately worked; more
seldom whipped, and with less severity, than the slaves generally.
Those masters in speaking of the good condition of their slaves, and
asserting that they are treated _well_, use terms that are not
_absolute_ but _comparative_: and it may be, and doubtless often is
true that their stares are treated well _as slaves_, in comparison
with the treatment received by slaves generally. So the overseers of
such slaves, and the slaves themselves, may, without lying or
designing to mislead, honestly give the same testimony. As the great
body of slaves within their knowledge _fare worse_, it is not strange
that, when speaking of the treatment on their own plantation, they
should call it _good_.



OBJECTION V.--'IT IS FOR THE INTEREST OF THE MASTERS TO TREAT THEIR
SLAVES WELL.'

So it is for the interest of the drunkard to quit his cups; for the
glutton to curb his appetite; for the debauchee to bridle his lust;
for the sluggard to be up betimes; for the spendthrift to be
economical, and for all sinners to stop sinning. Even if it were for
the interest of masters to treat their slaves well, he must be a
novice who thinks _that_ a proof that the slaves _are_ well treated.
The whole history of man is a record of real interests sacrificed to
present gratification. If all men's actions were consistent with their
best interests, folly and sin would be words without meaning.

If the objector means that it is for the pecuniary interests of
masters to treat their slaves well, and thence infers their good
treatment, we reply, that though the love of money is strong, yet
appetite and lust, pride, anger and revenge, the love of power and
honor, are each an overmatch for it; and when either of them is roused
by a sudden stimulant, the love of money worsted in the grapple with
it. Look at the hourly lavish outlays of money to procure a momentary
gratification for those passions and appetites. As the desire for
money is, in the main, merely a desire for the means of gratifying
_other_ desires, or rather for one of the means, it must be the
_servant_ not the sovereign of those desires, to whose gratification
its only use is to minister. But even if the love of money were the
strongest human passion, who is simple enough to believe that it is
all the time so powerfully excited, that no other passion or appetite
can get the mastery over it?  Who does not know that gusts of rage,
revenge, jealousy and lust drive it before them as a tempest tosses a
feather?

The objector has forgotten his first lessons; they taught him that it
is human nature to gratify the _uppermost_ passion: and is _prudence_
the uppermost passion with slaveholders, and self-restraint their
great characteristic? The strongest feeling of any moment is the
sovereign of that moment, and rules. Is a propensity to practice
_economy_ the predominant feeling with slaveholders? Ridiculous!
Every northerner knows that slaveholders are proverbial for lavish
expenditures, never higgling about the _price_ of a gratification.
Human passions have not, like the tides, regular ebbs and flows, with
their stationary, high and low water marks. They are a dominion
convulsed with revolutions; coronations and dethronements in ceasless
succession--each ruler a usurper and a despot. Love of money gets a
snatch at the sceptre as well as the rest, not by hereditary right,
but because, in the fluctuations of human feelings, a chance wave
washes him up to the throne, and the next perhaps washes him off
without time to nominate his successor. Since, then, as a matter of
fact, a host of appetites and passions do hourly get the better of
love of money, what protection does the slave find in his master's
_interest_, against the sweep of his passions and appetites? Besides,
a master can inflict upon his slave horrible cruelties without
perceptibly injuring his health, or taking time from his labor, or
lessening his value as property. Blows with a small stick give more
acute pain, than with a large one. A club bruises, and benumbs the
nerves, while a switch, neither breaking nor bruising the flesh,
instead of blunting the sense of feeling, wakes up and stings to
torture all the susceptibilities of pain. By this kind of infliction,
more actual cruelty can be perpetrated in the giving of pain at the
instant, than by the most horrible bruisings and lacerations; and
that, too, with little comparative hazard to the slave's health, or to
his value as property, and without loss of time from labor. Even
giving to the objection all the force claimed for it, what protection
is it to the slave? It _professes_ to shield the slave from such
treatment alone, as would either lay him aside from labor, or injure
his health, and thus lessen his value as a working animal, making him
a _damaged article_ in the market. Now, is nothing _bad treatment_ of
a human being except that which produces these effects? Does the fact
that a man's constitution is not actually shattered, and his life
shortened by his treatment, prove that he is treated well? Is no
treatment cruel except what sprains muscles, or cuts sinews, or bursts
blood vessels, or breaks bones, and thus lessens a man's value as a
working animal?

A slave may get blows and kicks every hour in the day, without having
his constitution broken, or without suffering sensibly in his health,
or flesh, or appetite, or power to labor. Therefore, beaten and kicked
as he is, he must be treated _well_, according to the objector, since
the master's _interest_ does not suffer thereby.

Finally, the objector virtually maintains that all possible privations
and inflictions suffered by slaves, that do not actually cripple their
power to labor, and make them 'damaged merchandize,' are to be set
down as 'good treatment,' and that nothing is _bad_ treatment except
what produces these effects.

Thus we see that even if the slave were effectually shielded from all
those inflictions, which, by lessening his value as property, would
injure the interests of his master, he would still nave no protection
against numberless and terrible cruelties. But we go further, and
maintain that in respect to large classes of slaves, it is for the
_interest_ of their masters to treat them with barbarous inhumanity.

1. _Old slaves._ It would be for the interest of the masters to
shorten their days.

2. _Worn out slaves._ Multitudes of slaves by being overworked, have
their constitutions broken in middle life. It would be _economical_
for masters to starve or flog such to death.

3. _The incurably diseased and maimed._ In all such cases it would be
_cheaper_ for masters to buy poison than medicine.

4. _The blind, lunatics, and idiots_. As all such would be a tax on
him, it would be for his interest to shorten their days.

5. _The deaf and dumb, and persons greatly deformed._ Such might or
might not be serviceable to him; many of them at least would be a
burden, and few men carry burdens when they can throw them off.

6. _Feeble infants._ As such would require much nursing, the time,
trouble and expense necessary to raise them, would generally be more
than they would be worth as _working animals_. How many such infants
would be likely to be 'raised,' from _disinterested_ benevolence? To
this it may be added that in the far south and south west, it is
notoriously for the interest of the master not to 'raise' slaves at
all. To buy slaves when nearly grown, from the northern slave states,
would be _cheaper_ than to raise them. This is shown in the fact, that
mothers with infants sell for less in those states than those without
them. And when slave-traders purchase such in the upper country, it is
notorious that they not unfrequently either sell their infants, or
give them away. Therefore it would be for the _interest_ of the
masters, throughout that region, to have all the new-born children
left to perish. It would also be for their interest to make such
arrangements as effectually to separate the sexes, or if that were not
done, so to overwork the females as to prevent childbearing.

7. _Incorrigible slaves_. On most of the large plantations, there are,
more or less, incorrigible slaves,--that is, slaves who _will not_ be
profitable to their masters--and from whom torture can extort little
but defiance.[25] These are frequently slaves of uncommon minds, who
feel so keenly the wrongs of slavery that their proud spirits spurn
their chains and defy their tormentors.

[Footnote 25: Advertisements like the following are not unfrequent in
the southern papers.

_From the Elizabeth (N.C.) Phenix, Jan. 5, 1839._ "The subscriber
offers for sale his blacksmith NAT, 28 years of age, and _remarkably
large and likely_. The only cause of my selling him is I CANNOT
CONTROL HIM. _Hertford, Dec.5, 1838._ J. GORDON."]


They have commonly great sway over the other slaves, their example is
contagious, and their influence subversive of 'plantation discipline.'
Consequently they must be made a warning to others. It is for the
_interest_ of the masters (at least they believe it to be) to put upon
such slaves iron collars and chains, to brand and crop them; to
disfigure, lacerate, starve and torture them--in a word, to inflict
upon them such vengeance as shall strike terror into the other slaves.
To this class may be added the incorrigibly thievish and indolent; it
would be for the interest of the masters to treat them with such
severity as would deter others from following their example.

7. _Runaways._ When a slave has once runaway from his master and is
caught, he is thenceforward treated with severity. It is for the
interest of the master to make an example of him, by the greatest
privations and inflictions.

8. _Hired slaves._ It is for the interest of those who hire slaves to
get as much out of them as they can; the temptation to overwork them
is powerful. If it be said that the master could, in that case,
recover damages, the answer is, that damages would not be recoverable
in law unless actual injury--enough to impair the power of the slave
to labor, be _proved._ And this ordinarily would be impossible, unless
the slave has been worked so greatly beyond his strength as to produce
some fatal derangement of the vital functions. Indeed, as all who are
familiar with such cases in southern courts well know, the proof of
actual injury to the slave, so as to lessen his value, is exceedingly
difficult to make out, and every hirer of slaves can overwork them,
give them insufficient food, clothing, and shelter, and inflict upon
them nameless cruelties with entire impunity. We repeat then that it
is for the _interest_ of the hirer to push his slaves to their utmost
strength, provided he does not drive them to such an extreme, that
their constitutions actually give way under it, while in his hands.
The supreme court of Maryland has decided that, 'There must be _at
least a diminution of the faculty of the slave for bodily labor_ to
warrant an action by the master.'--_1 Harris and Johnson's Reports,
4._

9. _Slaves under overseers whose wages are proportioned to the crop
which they raise._ This is an arrangement common in the slave states,
and in its practical operation is equivalent to a bounty on _hard
driving_--a virtual premium offered to overseers to keep the slaves
whipped up to the top of their strength. Even where the overseer has a
fixed salary, irrespective of the value of the crop which he takes
off, he is strongly tempted to overwork the slaves, as those overseers
get the highest wages who can draw the largest income from a
plantation with a given number of slaves; so that we may include in
this last class of slaves, the majority of all those who are under
overseers, whatever the terms on which those overseers are employed.

Another class of slaves may be mentioned; we refer to the slaves of
masters who _bet_ upon their crops. In the cotton and sugar region
there is a fearful amount of this desperate gambling, in which, though
money is the ostensible stake and forfeit, human life is the real one.
The length to which this rivalry is carried at the south and south
west, the multitude of planters who engage in it, and the recklessness
of human life exhibited in driving the murderous game to its issue,
cannot well be imagined by one who has not lived in the midst of it.
Desire of gain is only one of the motives that stimulates them;--the
_eclat_ of having made the largest crop with a given number of hands,
is also a powerful stimulant; the southern newspapers, at the crop
season, chronicle carefully the "cotton brag," and the "crack cotton
picking," and "unparalleled driving," &c. Even the editors of
professedly religious papers, cheer on the méleé and sing the triumphs
of the victor. Among these we recollect the celebrated Rev. J.N.
Maffit, recently editor of a religious paper at Natchez, Miss. in
which he took care to assign a prominent place, and capitals to "THE
COTTON BRAG." The testimony of Mr. Bliss, page 38, details some of the
particulars of this _betting_ upon crops. All the preceding classes of
slaves are in circumstances which make it "for the _interest_ of their
masters," or those who have the management of them, to treat them
cruelly.

Besides the operation of the causes already specified, which make it
for the interest of masters and overseers to treat cruelly _certain
classes_ of their slaves, a variety of others exist, which make it for
their interest to treat cruelly _the great body_ of their slaves.
These causes are, the nature of certain kinds of products, the kind of
labor required in cultivating and preparing them for market, the best
times for such labor, the state of the market, fluctuations in prices,
facilities for transportation, the weather, seasons, &c. &c. Some of
the causes which operate to produce this are--

1. _The early market_. If the planter can get his crop into market
early, he may save thousands which might be lost if it arrived later.

2. _Changes in the market_. A sudden rise in the market with the
probability that it will be short, or a gradual fall with a
probability that it will be long, is a strong temptation to the master
to push his slaves to the utmost, that he may in the one case make all
he can, by taking the tide at the flood, and in the other lose as
little as may be, by taking it as early as possible in the ebb.

3. _High prices_. Whenever the slave-grown staples bring a high price,
as is now the case with cotton, every slaveholder is tempted to
overwork his slaves. By forcing them to do double work for a few weeks
or months, while the price is up, he can _afford_ to lose a number of
them and to lessen the value of all by over-driving. A cotton planter
with a hundred vigorous slaves, would have made a profitable
speculation, if, during the years '34, 5, and 6, when the average
price of cotton was 17 cents a pound, he had so overworked his slaves
that half of them died upon his hands in '37, when cotton had fallen
to six and eight cents. No wonder that the poor slaves pray that cotton
and sugar may be cheap. The writer has frequently heard it declared by
planters in the lower country, that, it is more profitable to drive
the slaves to such over exertion as to _use them up_, in seven or
eight years, than to give them only ordinary tasks and protract their
lives to the ordinary period.[26]

[Footnote 26: The reader is referred to a variety of facts and
testimony on this point on the 39th page of this work.]


4. _Untimely seasons_. When the winter encroaches on the spring, and
makes late seed time, the first favorable weather is a temptation to
overwork the slaves, too strong to be resisted by those who hold men
as mere working animals. So when frosts set in early, and a great
amount of work is to be done in a little time, or great loss suffered.
So also after a long storm either in seed or crop time, when the
weather becomes favorable, the same temptation presses, and in all
these cases the master would _save money_ by overdriving his slaves.

5. _Periodical pressure of certain kinds of labor._ The manufacture of
sugar is an illustration. In a work entitled "Travels in Louisiana in
1802," translated from the French, by John Davis, is the following
testimony under this head:--

"At the rolling of sugars, an interval of from two to three months,
they (the slaves in Louisiana,) work _both night and day_. Abridged of
their sleep, they scarcely retire to rest during the whole period" See
page 81.

In an article on the agriculture of Louisiana, published in the second
number of the "Western Review," is the following:--"The work is
admitted to be severe for the hands, (slaves) requiring, when the
process of making sugar is commenced, TO BE PRESSED NIGHT AND DAY."

It would be for the interest of the sugar planter greatly to overwork
his slaves, during the annual process of sugar-making.

The severity of this periodical pressure, in preparing for market
other staples of the slave states besides sugar, may be inferred from
the following. Mr. Hammond, of South Carolina, in his speech in
Congress, Feb. 1. 1836, (See National Intelligencer) said, "In the
heat of the crop, the loss of one or two days, would inevitably ruin
it."

6. _Times of scarcity_. Drought, long rain, frost, &c. are liable to
cut off the corn crop, upon which the slaves are fed. If this happens
when the staple which they raise is at a low price, it is for the
interest of the master to put the slave on short rations, thus forcing
him to suffer from hunger.

7. _The raising of crops for exportation_. In all those states where
cotton and sugar are raised for exportation, it is, for the most part,
more profitable to buy provisions for the slaves than to raise them.
Where this is the case the slaveholders believe it to be for their
interest to give their slaves less food, than their hunger craves, and
they do generally give them insufficient sustenance.[27]

[Footnote 27: Hear the testimony of a slaveholder, on this subject, a
member of Congress from Virginia, from 1817 to 1830, Hon. Alexander
Smyth.

In the debate on the Missouri question in the U.S. Congress, 1819-20,
the admission of Missouri to the Union, as a slave state, was urged,
among other grounds, as a measure of humanity to the slaves of the
south. Mr. Smyth, of Virginia said, "The plan of our opponents seems
to be to confine the slave population to the southern states, to the
countries where _sugar, cotton, and tobacco_ are cultivated. But, sir,
by confining the slaves to a part of the country where crops are
raised for exportation, and the bread and meat are _purchased, you
doom them to scarcity and hunger_. Is it not obvious that the way to
render their situation more comfortable, is to allow them to be taken
where there is not the same motive to force the slave to INCESSANT
TOIL, that there is in the country where cotton, sugar, and tobacco,
are raised for exportation. It is proposed to hem in the blacks _where
they are_ HARD WORKED and ILL FED, that they may be rendered
unproductive and the race be prevented from increasing. . . . The
proposed measure would be EXTREME CRUELTY to the blacks. . . . You
would . . . doom them to SCARCITY and HARD LABOR."--[Speech of Mr.
Smyth, Jan. 28, 1820]--See National Intelligencer.

Those states where the crops are raised for exportation, and a large
part of the provisions purchased, are, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, Arkansas, Western Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, and, to a
considerable extent, South Carolina. That this is the case in
Louisiana, is shown by the following. "Corn, flour, and bread stuffs,
generally are obtained from Kentucky, Ohio;" &c. See "Emigrants Guide
through the Valley of the Mississippi," Page 275. That it is the case
with Alabama, appears from the testimony of W. Jefferson Jones, Esq. a
lawyer of high standing in Mobile. In a series of articles published
by him in the Mobile Morning Chronicle, he says; (See that paper for
Aug. 26, 1837.)

"The people of Alabama _export_ what they raise, and _import_ nearly
all they consume." But it seems quite unnecessary to prove, what all
persons of much intelligence well know, that the states mentioned
export the larger part of what they raise, and import the larger part
of what they consume. Now more than _one million of slaves_ are held
in those states, and parts of states, where provisions are mainly
imported, and consequently they are "_doomed to scarcity and hunger_."]


Now let us make some estimate of the proportion which the slaves,
included in the foregoing _nine classes_, sustain to the whole number,
and then of the proportion affected by the operation of the _seven_
causes just enumerated.

It would be nearly impossible to form an estimate of the proportion of
the slaves included in a number of these classes, such as the old, the
worn out, the incurably diseased, maimed and deformed, idiots, feeble
infants, incorrigible slaves, &c. More or less of this description are
to be found on all the considerable plantations, and often, many on
the same plantation; though we have no accurate data for an estimate,
the proportion cannot be less than one in twenty-five of the whole
number of slaves, which would give a total of more than _one hundred
thousand_. Of some of the remaining classes we have data for a pretty
accurate estimate.

1st. _Lunatics_.--Various estimates have been made, founded upon the
data procured by actual investigation, prosecuted under the direction
of the Legislatures of different States; but the returns have been so
imperfect and erroneous, that little reliance can be placed upon them.
The Legislature of New Hampshire recently ordered investigations to be
made in every town in the state, and the number of insane persons to
be reported. A committee of the legislature, who had the subject in
charge say, in their report--"From many towns no returns have been
received, from others the accounts are erroneous, there being cases
_known to the committee_ which escaped the notice of the 'selectmen.'
The actual number of insane persons is therefore much larger than
appears by the documents submitted to the committee." The Medical
Society of Connecticut appointed a committee of their number, composed
of some of the most eminent physicians in the state, to ascertain and
report the whole number of insane persons in that state. The committee
say, in their report, "The number of towns from which returns have
been received is seventy, and the cases of insanity which have been
noticed in them are five hundred and ten." The committee add, "fifty
more towns remain to be heard from, and if insanity should be found
equally prevalent in them, the entire number will scarcely fall short
of _one thousand_ in the state." This investigation was made in 1821,
when the population of the state was less than two hundred and eighty
thousand. If the estimate of the Medical Society be correct, the
proportion of the insane to the whole population would be about one in
two hundred and eighty. This strikes us as a large estimate, and yet a
committee of the legislature of that state in 1837, reported seven
hundred and seven insane persons in the state, who were either wholly
or in part supported as _town paupers, or by charity_. It can hardly
be supposed that more than _two-thirds_ of the insane in Connecticut
belong to families _unable to support them_. On this supposition, the
whole number would be greater than the estimate of the Medical Society
sixteen years previous, when the population was perhaps thirty
thousand less. But to avoid the possibility of an over estimate, let
us suppose the present number of insane persons in Connecticut to be
only seven hundred.

The population of the state is now probably about three hundred and
twenty thousand; according to this estimate, the proportion of the
insane to the whole population, would be one to about four hundred and
sixty. Making this the basis of our calculation, and estimating the
slaves in the United States at two millions, seven hundred thousand,
their present probable number, and we come to this result, that there
are about six thousand insane persons among the slaves of the United
States. We have no adequate data by which to judge whether the
proportion of lunatics among slaves is greater or less than among the
whites; some considerations favor the supposition that it is less. But
the dreadful physical violence to which the slaves are subjected, and
the constant sunderings of their tenderest ties, might lead us to
suppose that it would be more. The only data in our possession is the
official census of Chatham county, Georgia, for 1838, containing the
number of lunatics among the whites and the slaves.--(See the Savannah
Georgian, July 24, 1838.) According to this census, the number of
lunatics among eight thousand three hundred and seventy three whites
in the country, is only _two,_ whereas, the number among ten thousand
eight hundred and ninety-one slaves, is _fourteen_.

2d. _The Deaf and Dumb._--The proportion of deaf and dumb persons to
the other classes of the community, is about one in two thousand. This
is the testimony of the directors of the 'American Asylum for the Deaf
and Dumb,' located at Hartford, Connecticut. Making this the basis of
our estimate, there would be one thousand six hundred deaf and dumb
persons among the slaves of the United States.

3d. _The Blind._--We have before us the last United States census,
from which it appears, that in 1830, the number of blind persons in
New Hampshire was one hundred and seventeen, out of a population of
two hundred and sixty-nine thousand five hundred and thirty-three.
Adopting this as our basis, the number of blind slaves in the United
States would be nearly one thousand three hundred.

4th. _Runaways._--Of the proportion of the slaves that run away, to
those that do not, and of the proportion of the runaways that are
_taken_ to those that escape entirely, it would be difficult to make a
probable estimate. Something, however, can be done towards such an
estimate. We have before us, in the Grand Gulf (Miss.) Advertiser, for
August 2, 1838, a list of runaways that were then in the jails of the
two counties of Adams and Warren, in that State; the names, ages, &c.
of each one given; and their owners are called upon to take them away.
The number of runaways thus taken up and committed in these _two_
counties is FORTY-SIX. The whole number of _counties_ in Mississippi
is _fifty-six._ Many of them, however, are thinly populated. Now,
without making this the basis of our estimate for the whole slave
population in all the state--which would doubtless make the number
much too large--we are sure no one who has any knowledge of facts as
they are in the south, will charge upon us an over-statement when we
say, that of the present generation of slaves, probably _one in
thirty_ is of that class--i.e., has at some time, perhaps often,
runaway and been retaken; on that supposition the whole number would
be not far from NINETY THOUSAND.

5th. _Hired Slaves._--It is impossible to estimate with accuracy the
proportion which the hired slaves bear to the whole number. That it is
very large all who have resided at the south, or traveled there, with
their eyes open, well know. Some of the largest slaveholders in the
country, instead of purchasing plantations and working their slaves
themselves, hire them out to others. This practice is very common.

Rev. Horace Moulton, a minister of the Methodist Episcopal church in
Marlborough, Mass., who lived some years in Georgia, says: "A _large
proportion_ of the slave are owned by masters who keep them on purpose
to hire out."

Large numbers of slaves, especially in Mississippi, Louisiana,
Arkansas, Alabama, and Florida, are owned by _non-residents_;
thousands of them by northern capitalists, who _hire them out_. These
capitalists in many cases own large plantations, which are often
leased for a term of years with a 'stock' of slaves sufficient to work
them.

Multitudes of slaves 'belonging' to _heirs_, are hired out by their
guardians till such heirs become of age, or by the executors or
trustees of persons deceased.

That the reader may form some idea of the large number of slaves that
are hired out, we insert below a few advertisements, as a specimen of
hundreds in the newspapers of the slave states.

From the "Pensacola Gazette," May 27.

"NOTICE TO SLAVEHOLDERS. Wanted upon my contract, on the Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia Rail Road, FOUR HUNDRED BLACK LABORERS, _for
which_ a liberal price will be paid.

R. LORING, _Contractor_."


The same paper has the following, signed by an officer of the United
States.

"WANTED AT THE NAVY YARD, PENSACOLA, SIXTY LABORERS. The OWNERS to
subsist and quarter them beyond the limits of the yard. Persons having
Laborers to hire, will apply to the Commanding Officer.

W.K. LATIMER."


From the "Richmond (Va.) Enquirer," April 10, 1838.

"LABORERS WANTED.--The James River, and Kenawha Company, are in
immediate want of SEVERAL HUNDRED good laborers. Gentlemen wishing to
send negroes from the country, are assured that the very best care
shall be taken of them.

RICHARD REINS, _Agent of the James River, and Kenawha Co_."


From the "Vicksburg (Mis.) Register," Dec. 27, 1838.

"60 NEGROES, males and females, _for hire for the year_ 1839. Apply to
H. HENDREN."


From the "Georgia Messenger," Dec. 27, 1838. "NEGROES To HIRE. On the
first Tuesday next, Including CARPENTERS, BLACKSMITHS, SHOEMAKERS,
SEAMSTRESSES, COOKS, &c. &c. For information; Apply to OSSIAN
GREGORY."


From the "Alexandria (D.C.) Gazette," Dec. 30, 1837.

"THE subscriber wishes to _employ_ by the month or year, ONE HUNDRED
ABLE BODIED MEN, AND THIRTY BOYS. Persons having servants, will do
well to give him a call. PHILIP ROACH, near Alexandria."


From the "Columbia (S.C.) Telescope," May 19, 1838.

"WANTED TO HIRE, twelve or fifteen NEGRO GIRLS, from ten to fourteen
years of age. They are wanted for the term of two or three years.

E.H. & J. FISHER."


"NEGROES WANTED. The Subscriber is desirous of hiring 50 of 60 _first
rate Negro Men_. WILSON NESBITT."


From the "Norfolk (Va.) Beacon," March 21, 1838.

"LABORERS WANTED. One hundred able bodied men are wanted. The hands
will be required to be delivered in Halifax by the _owners_. Apply to
SHIELD & WALKE."


From the "Lynchburg Virginian," Dec. 13, 1838.

"40 NEGRO MEN. The subscribers wish to hire for the next year 40 NEGRO
MEN. LANGHORNE, SCRUGGS & COOK."


"HIRING of NEGROES. On Saturday, the 29th day of December, 1838, at
Mrs. Tayloe's tavern, in Amherst county, there will be _hired_ thirty
or forty valuable Negroes.

In addition to the above, I have for _hire_, 20 men, women, boys, and
girls--several of them excellent house servants. MAURICE H. GARLAND."


From the "Savannah Georgian," Feb. 5, 1838.

"WANTED TO HIRE, ONE HUNDRED prime negroes, by the year. J.V.
REDDEN."


From the "North Carolina Standard," Feb. 31, 1838.

"NEGROES WANTED.--W. & A. STITH, will give twelve dollars per month
for FIFTY strong Negro fellows, to commence work immediately; and for
FIFTY more on the first day of February, and for FIFTY on the first
day of March."


From the "Lexington (Ky.) Reporter," Dec. 26, 1838.

"WILL BE HIRED, for one year; on the first day of January, 1839, on
the farm of the late Mrs. Meredith, a number of valuable NEGROES.
R.S. TODD, Sheriff of Fayette Co. And Curator for James and Elizabeth
Breckenridge."

"NEGROES TO HIRE. On Wednesday, the 26th inst. I will hire to the
highest bidder, the NEGROES belonging to Charles and Robert Innes.
GEO. W. WILLIAMS. _Guardian_."

The following _nine_ advertisements were published in one column of
the "Winchester Virginian," Dec. 20, 1838.


"NEGRO HIRINGS.

"WILL be offered for hire, at Captain Long's Hotel, a number of
SLAVES--men, women, boys and girls--belonging to the orphans of George
Ash, deceased. RICHARD W. BARTON." _Guardian_.

"WILL be offered for hire, at my Hotel, a number of SLAVES, consisting
of men, women, boys and girls. JOSEPH LONG. _Exr. of Edmund
Shackleford, dec'd_."

"WILL be offered for hire, for the ensuing year, at Capt. Long's
Hotel, a number of SLAVES. MOSES R. RICHARDS."

"WILL be offered for hire, the slaves belonging to the estate of James
Bowen, deceased, consisting of men, and women, boys and girls. GILES
COOK. _One of the Exrs. of James Bowen dec'd_."

"THE _hiring_ at Millwood will take place on Friday, the 28th day of
December, 1838. BURWELL."

"N.B. We are desired to say that other valuable NEGROES will also be
_hired_ at Millwood on the same day, besides those offered by Mr. B."

"The SLAVES of the late John Jolliffe, about twenty in number, and of
all ages and both sexes, will be offered for hire at Cain's Depot.
DAVID W. BARTON. _Administrator_."

"I WILL hire at public hiring before the tavern door of Dr. Lacy,
about 30 NEGROES, consisting of men, and women. JAMES R. RICHARDS."

"WILL be hired, at Carter's Tavern, on 31st of December, a number of
NEGROES. JOHN J.H. GUNNELL."

"NEGROES FOR HIRE, (PRIVATELY.) About twelve servants, consisting of
men, women, boys, and girls, for hire privately. Apply to the
subscriber at Col. Smith's in Battletown. JOHN W. OWEN."

A volume might easily be filled with advertisements like the
preceding, showing conclusively that _hired_ slaves must be a large
proportion of the whole number. The actual proportion has been
variously estimated, at 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/2, &c. if we adopt the last
as our basis, it will make the number of hired slaves, in the United
States, FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUSAND!

6th. _Slaves under overseers whose wages are a part of the
crop_.--That this is a common usage; appears from the following
testimony. The late Hon. John Taylor, of Caroline Co. Virginia, one of
the largest slaveholders in the state, President of the State
Agricultural Society, and three times elected to the Senate of the
United States, says, in his "Agricultural Essays," No. 15. P. 57,

"This necessary class of men, (overseers,) are bribed by
agriculturalists, not to improve, but to impoverish their land, _by a
share of the crop for one year_.... The _greatest_ annual crop, and
not the most judicious culture, advances his interest, and establishes
his character; and the fees of these land-doctors, are much higher for
killing than for curing.... The most which the land can yield, and
seldom or never improvement with a view to future profit, is a point
of common consent, and mutual need between the agriculturist and his
overseer.... Must the practice of hiring a man for one year, by a
share of the crop, to lay out all his skill and industry in killing
land, and as little as possible in improving it, be kept up to
commemorate the pious leaning of man to his primitive state of
ignorance and barbarity? _Unless this is abolished_, the attempt to
fertilize our lands is needless."


Philemon Bliss, Esq, of Elyria, Ohio, who lived in Florida, in 1834-5,
says,

"It is common for owners of plantations and slaves, to hire overseers
to take charge of them, while they themselves reside at a distance.
_Their wages depend principally upon the amount of labor which they
can exact from the slave_. The term "good overseer," signifies one who
can make the greatest amount of the staple, cotton for instance, from
a given number of hands, besides raising sufficient provisions for
their consumption. He has no interest in the life of the slave. Hence
the fact, so notorious at the south, that negroes are driven harder
and fare worse under overseers than under their owners."


William Ladd, Esq. of Minot, Maine, formerly a slaveholder in Florida,
speaking, in a recent letter of the system of labor adopted there,
says; "The compensation of the overseers _was a certain portion of the
crop_."


Rev. Phineas Smith, of Centreville, Allegany Co. N.Y. who has
recently returned from a four years' residence, in the Southern slave
states and Texas, says,

"The mode in which _many_ plantations are managed, is calculated and
_designed_, as an inducement to the slave driver, to lay upon the
slave the _greatest possible burden, the overseer being entitled by
contract, to a certain share of the crop_."

We leave the reader to form his own opinion, as to the proportion of
slaves under overseers, whose wages are in proportion to the crop,
raised by them. We have little doubt that we shall escape the charge
of wishing to make out a "strong case" when we put the proportion at
_one-eighth_ of the whole number of slaves, which would be _three
hundred and fifty thousand_.

Without drawing out upon the page a sum in addition for the reader to
"run up," it is easily seen that the slaves in the preceding classes
amount to more than ELEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND, exclusive of the deaf and
dumb, and the blind, some of whom, especially the former, might be
profitable to their "owners";

Now it is plainly for the interest of the "owners" of these slaves, or
of those who have the charge of them, to _treat than cruelly_, to
overwork, under-feed, half-clothe, half-shelter, poison, or kill
outright, the aged, the broken down, the incurably diseased, idiots,
feeble infants, most of the blind, some deaf and dumb, &c. It is
besides a part of the slave-holder's creed, that it is _for his
interest_ to treat with terrible severity, all runaways and the
incorrigibly stubborn, thievish, lazy, &c.; also for those who hire
slaves, to overwork them; also for overseers to overwork the slaves
under them, when their own wages are increased by it.

We have thus shown that it would be "_for the interest_," of masters
and overseers to treat with _habitual_ cruelty _more than one million_
of the slaves in the United States. But this is not all; as we have
said already, it is for the interest of overseers generally, whether
their wages are proportioned to the crop or not, to overwork the
slaves; we need not repeat the reasons.

Neither is it necessary to re-state the arguments, going to show that
it is for the interest of slaveholders, who cultivate the great
southern staples, especially cotton, and the sugarcane, to overwork
periodically _all_ their slaves, and _habitually_ the majority of
them, when the demand for those staples creates high prices, as has
been the case with cotton for many years, with little exception.
Instead of entering into a labored estimate to get at the proportion
of the slaves, affected by the operation of these and the other causes
enumerated, we may say, that they operate _directly_ on the "field
hands," employed in raising the southern staples, and indirectly upon
all classes of the slaves.

Finally, the conclude this head by turning the objector's negative
proposition into an affirmative one, and state formally what has been
already proved.

_It is for the interest of shareholders, upon their own principles,
and by their own showing, TO TREAT CRUELLY the great body of their
slaves._



Objection VI.--THE FACT THAT THE SLAVES MULTIPLY SO RAPIDLY PROVES
THAT THEY ARE NOT INHUMANELY TREATED, BUT ARE IN A COMFORTABLE
CONDITION

To this we reply in brief, 1st. It has been already shown under a
previous head, that, in considerable sections of the slave states,
especially in the South West, the births among slaves are fewer than
the deaths, which would exhibit a fearful decrease of the slave
population in those sections, if the deficiency were not made up by
the slave trade from the upper country.

2d. The fact that all children born of slave _mothers_, whether their
fathers are whites or free colored persons, are included in the census
with the slaves, and further that all children born of white mothers,
whose fathers are mulattos or blacks, are also included in the census
with colored persons and almost invariably with _slaves_, shows that
it is impossible to ascertain with any accuracy, _what is the actual
increase of the slaves alone._

3d. The fact that thousands of slaves, generally in the prime of life,
are annually smuggled into the United States from Africa, Cuba, and
elsewhere, makes it manifest that all inferences drawn from the
increase of the slave population, which do not make large deductions,
for constant importations, must be fallacious. Mr. Middleton of South
Carolina, in a speech in Congress in 1819, declared that "THIRTEEN
THOUSAND AFRICANS ARE ANNUALLY SMUGGLED INTO THE SOUTHERN STATES." Mr.
Mercer of Virginia, in a speech in Congress about the same time
declared that "_Cargoes_," of African slaves were smuggled into the
South to a deplorable extent.

Mr. Wright, of Maryland, in a speech in Congress, estimated the number
annually at FIFTEEN THOUSAND. Miss Martineau, in her recent work,
(Society in America,) informs us that a large slaveholder in
Louisiana, assured her in 1835, that the annual importation of native
Africans was from thirteen to fifteen thousand.

The President of the United States, in his message to Congress,
December, 1837, says, "The large force under Commodore Dallas, (on the
West India station,) has been most actively and efficiently employed
in protecting our commerce, IN PREVENTING THE IMPORTATION OF SLAVES,"
&c. &c.

The New Orleans Courier of 15th February, 1839, has these remarks:

"It is believed that African negroes have been _repeatedly_ introduced
into the United States. The number and the proximity of the Florida
ports to the island of Cuba, make it no difficult matter; nor is our
extended frontier on the Sabine and Red rivers, at all unfavorable to
the smuggler. Human laws have, in all countries and ages, been
violated whenever the inducements to do so afforded hopes of great
profit.

"The United States' law against the importation of Africans, _could it
be strictly enforced_, might in a few years give the sugar and cotton
planters of Texas advantage over those of this state; as it would, we
apprehend, enable the former, under a stable government, to furnish
cotton and sugar at a lower price than we can do. When giving
publicity to such reflections as the subject seems to suggest, we
protest against being considered advocates for any violation of the
laws of our country. Every good citizen must respect those laws,
notwithstanding we may deem them likely to be evaded by men less
scrupulous."

That both the south and north swarm with men 'less scrupulous,' every
one knows.

The Norfolk (Va.) Beacon, of June 8, 1837, has the following:

"_Slave Trade.--Eight African negroes_ have been taken into custody,
at Apalachicola, by the U.S. Deputy Marshal, alleged to have been
imported from Cuba, on board the schooner Emperor, Captain Cox.
Indictments for piracy, under the acts for the suppression of the
slave trade, have been found against Captain Cox, and other parties
implicated. The negroes were bought in Cuba by a Frenchman named
Malherbe, formerly a resident of Tallahassee, who was drowned soon
after the arrival of the schooner."

The following testimony of Rev. Horace Moulton, now a minister of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, in Marlborough, Mass., who resided some
years in Georgia, reveals some of the secrets of the slave-smugglers,
and the connivance of the Georgia authorities at their doings. It is
contained in a letter dated February 24, 1839.

"The foreign slave-trade was carried on to some considerable extent
when I was at the south, notwithstanding a law had been made some ten
years previous to this, making this traffic piracy on the high seas. I
was somewhat acquainted with the secrets of this traffic, and, I
suppose, I might have engaged in it, had I so desired. Were you to
visit all the plantations in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and
Mississippi, I think you would be convinced that the horrors of the
traffic in human flesh have not yet ceased. I was _surprised to find
so many that could not speak English among the slaves,_ until the
mystery was explained. This was done, when I learned that
slave-cargoes were landed on the coast of Florida, not a thousand
miles from St. Augustine. They could, and can still, in my opinion, be
landed as safely on this coast as in any port of this continent. You
can imagine for yourself how easy it was to carry on the traffic
between this place and the West Indies. When landed on the coast of
Florida, it is an easy matter to distribute them throughout the more
southern states. The law which makes it piracy to traffic in the
foreign slave trade is a dead letter; and I doubt not it has been so
in the more southern states ever since it was enacted. For you can
perceive at once, that interested men, who believe the colored man is so
much better off here than he possibly can be in Africa, will not
hesitate to kidnap the blacks whenever an opportunity presents itself.
I will notice one fact that came under my own observation, which will
convince you that the horrors of the foreign slave-trade have not yet
ceased among our southern gentry. It is as follows. A slave ship,
which I have reason to believe was employed by southern men, came near
the port of Savannah with about FIVE HUNDRED SLAVES, from Guinea and
Congo. It was said that the ship was driven there by contrary winds;
and the crew, pretending to be short of provisions, run the ship into
a by place, near the shore, between Tybee Light and Darien, to recruit
their stores. Well, as Providence would have it, the revenue cutter,
at that time taking a trip along the coast, fell in with this slave
ship, took her as a prize, and brought her up into the port of
Savannah. The cargo of human chattels was unloaded, and the captives
were placed in an old barracks, in the fort of Savannah, under the
protection of the city authorities, they pretending that they should
return them all to their native country again, as soon as a convenient
opportunity presented itself. The ship's crew of course were arrested,
and confined in jail. Now for the sequel of this history. About one
third part of the negroes died in a few weeks after they were landed,
in seasoning, so called, or in becoming acclimated--or, as I should
think, a distemper broke out among them, and they died like the
Israelites when smitten with the plague. Those who did not die in
seasoning, must be hired out a little while, to be sure, as the city
authorities could not afford to keep them on expense doing nothing. As
it happened, the man in whose employ I was when the cargo of human
beings arrived, hired some twenty or thirty of them, and put them
under my care. They continued with me until the sickly season drove me
off to the north. I soon returned, but could not hear a word about the
crew of pirates. They had something like a mock trial, as I should
think, for no one, as I ever learned, was condemned, fined, or
censured. But where were the poor captives, who were going to be
returned to Africa by the city authorities, as soon as they could make
it convenient? Oh, forsooth, those of whom I spoke, being under my
care, were tugging away for the same man; the remainder were scattered
about among different planters. When I returned to the north again,
the next year, the city authorities had not, down to that time; made
it convenient to return these poor victims. The fact is, they belonged
there; and, in my opinion, they were designed to be landed near by the
place where the revenue cutter seized them. Probably those very
planters for whom they were originally designed received them; and
still there was a pretence kept up that they would be returned to
Africa. This must have been done, that the consciences of those might
be quieted, who were looking for justice to be administered to these
poor captives. It is easy for a company of slaveholders, who desire to
traffic in human flesh, to fit out a vessel, under Spanish colors, and
then go prowling about the African coast for the victims of their
lusts. If all the facts with relation to the African slave-trade, now
secretly carried on at the south, could be disclosed, the people of
the free states would be filled with amazement."

It is plain, from the nature of this trade, and the circumstances
under which it is carried on, that the number of slaves imported would
be likely to be estimated far _below_ the truth. There can be little
doubt that the estimate of Mr. Wright, of Maryland, (fifteen thousand
annually,) is some thousands too small. But even according to his
estimate, the African slave-trade adds ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND
SLAVES TO EACH UNITED STATES' CENSUS. These are in the prime of life,
and their children would swell the slave population many thousands
annually--thus making a great addition to each census.

4. It is a notorious fact, that large numbers of free colored persons
are kidnapped every year in the free states, taken to the south, and
sold as slaves.

Hon. GEORGE M. STROUD, Judge of the Criminal Court of Philadelphia, in
his sketch of the slave laws, speaking of the kidnapping of free
colored persons in the northern states, says--

"Remote as is the city of Philadelphia from those slaveholding states
in which the introduction of slaves from places within the territory
of the United States is freely permitted, and where also the market is
tempting, _it has been ascertained,_ that MORE THAN THIRTY FREE
COLORED PERSONS, MOSTLY CHILDREN, HAVE BEEN KIDNAPPED HERE, AND
CARRIED AWAY, WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS. Five of these, through the
kind interposition of several humane gentlemen, have been restored to
their friends, though not without _great expense and difficulty_; the
others _are still retained in bondage_, and if rescued at all, it must
be by sending white witnesses a journey of more than a thousand miles.
The costs attendant upon lawsuits, under such circumstances, will
probably fall but little short of the estimated value, as slaves, of
the individuals kidnapped."

The following is an extract from Mrs. CHILD's Appeal, pp. 64-6.

"I know the names of four colored citizens of Massachusetts, who went
to Georgia on board a vessel, were seized under the laws of that
state, and sold as slaves. They have sent the most earnest
exhortations to their families and friends, to do something for their
relief; but the attendant expenses require more money than the friends
of negroes are apt to have, and the poor fellows, as yet, remain
unassisted.

"A New York paper, of November, 1829, contains the following caution.

_"Beware of Kidnappers!_--It is well understood, that there is at
present in this city, a gang of kidnappers, busily engaged in their
vocation, of stealing colored children for the southern market. It is
believed that three or four have been stolen within as many days.
There are suspicions of a foul nature connected with some who serve
the police in subordinate capacities. It is hinted that there may be
those in some authority, not altogether ignorant of these diabolical
practices. Let the public be on their guard! It is still fresh in the
memories of all, that a cargo, or rather drove of negroes, was made up
from this city and Philadelphia, about the time that the emancipation
of all the negroes in this state took place, under our present
constitution, and were taken through Virginia, the Carolinas, and
Tennessee, and disposed of in the state of Mississippi. Some of those
who were taken from Philadelphia were persons of intelligence; and
after they had been driven through the country in chains, and disposed
of by sale on the Mississippi, wrote back to their friends, and were
rescued from bondage. The persons who were guilty of this abominable
transaction are known, and now reside in North Carolina. They may very
probably be engaged in similar enterprizes at the present time--at
least there is reason to believe, that the system of kidnapping free
persons of color from the northern cities, has been carried on more
extensively than the public arc generally aware of."

GEORGE BRADBURN, Esq. of Nantucket, Mass. a member of the Legislature
of that state, at its last session, made a report to that body, March
6, 1839, 'On the deliverance of citizens liable to be sold as slaves.'
That report contains the following facts and testimony.

"The following facts are a few out of a VAST MULTITUDE, to which the
attention of the undersigned has been directed.

"On the 27th of February last, the undersigned had an interview with
the Rev. Samuel Snowden, a respectable and intelligent clergyman of
the city of Boston. This gentleman stated, and he is now ready to make
oath, that during the last six years, he has himself, by the aid of
various benevolent individuals, procured the deliverance from jail of
six citizens of Massachusetts, who had been, arrested and imprisoned
as runaway slaves, and who, but for his timely interposition, would
have been sold into perpetual bondage. The names and the places of
imprisonment of those persons, as stated by Mr. S. were as follows:

"James Hight, imprisoned at Mobile; William Adams, at Norfolk; William
Holmes, also at Norfolk; James Oxford, at Wilmington; James Smith, at
Baton Rouge; John Tidd, at New Orleans.

"In 1836, Mary Smith, a native of this state, returning from New
Orleans, whither she had been in the capacity of a servant, was cast
upon the shores of North Carolina. She was there seized and sold as a
slave. Information of the fact reached her friends at Boston. Those
friends made an effort to obtain her liberation. They invoked the
assistance of the Governor of this Commonwealth. A correspondence
ensued between His Excellency and the Governor of North Carolina:
copies of which were offered for the inspection of your committee.
Soon afterwards, by permission of the authorities of North Carolina,
'Mary Smith' returned to Boston. But it turned out, that this was not
_the_ Mary Smith, whom our worthy Governor, and other excellent
individuals of Boston, had taken so unwearied pains to redeem from
slavery. It was another woman, of the same name, who was also a native
of Massachusetts, and had been seized in North Carolina as a runaway
slave. The Mary Smith has not yet been heard of. If alive, she is now,
in all probability, wearing the chains of slavery.

"About a year and a half since, several citizens of different free
states were rescued from slavery, at New Orleans, by the direct
personal efforts of an acquaintance of the undersigned. The benevolent
individual alluded to is Jacob Barker, Esq. a name not unknown to the
commercial world. Mr. Barker is a resident of New Orleans. A statement
of the cases in reference is contained in a letter addressed by him to
the Hon. Samuel H. Jenks, of Nantucket."

The letter of Mr. Barker, referred to in this report to the
Legislature of Massachusetts, bears date August 19, 1837. The
following are extracts from it.

"A free man, belonging to Baltimore, by the name of Ephraim Larkin,
who came here cook of the William Tell, was arrested and thrown into
prison a few weeks since, and sent in chains to work on the road. I
heard of it, and with difficulty found him; and after the most
diligent and active exertions, got him released--in effecting which, I
traveled in the heat of the day, thermometer ranging in the shade from
94 to 100, more than twenty times to and from prison, the place of his
labor, and the different courts, a distance of near three miles from
my residence; and after I had established his freedom, had to pay for
his arrest, maintenance, and the advertising him as a runaway slave,
$29.89, as per copy of bill herewith--the allowance for work not
equalling the expenses, the amount augments with every day of
confinement.

"In pursuing the cook of the William Tell, I found three other free
men, confined in the same prison; one belonged also to Baltimore, by
the name of Leaven Dogerty: he was also released, on my paying $28
expenses; one was a descendant of the Indians who once inhabited
Nantucket--his name is Eral Lonnon. Lonnon had been six weeks in
prison; he was released without difficulty, on my paying $20.38
expenses--and no one seemed to know why he had been confined or
arrested, as the law does not presume persons of mixed blood to be
slaves. But for the others, I had great difficulty in procuring what
was considered competent witnesses to prove them free. No complaint of
improper conduct had been made against either of them. At one time,
the Recorder said the witness must be white; at another, that one
respectable witness was insufficient; at another, that a person who
had been (improperly) confined and released, was not a competent
witness, &c. &c. Lonnon has been employed in the South Sea fishery
from Nantucket and New Bedford, nearly all his life; has sailed on
those voyages in the ships Eagle, Maryland, Gideon, Triton, and
Samuel. He was born at Marshpee, Plymouth (Barnstable) county, Mass.
and prefers to encounter the leviathan of the deep, rather than the
turnkeys of New Orleans.

"The other was born in St. Johns, Nova Scotia, and bears the name of
William Smith, a seaman by profession.

"Immediately after these men were released, two others were arrested.
They attempted to escape, and being pursued, ran for the river, in the
vain hope of being able to swim across the Mississippi, a distance of
a mile, with a current of four knots. One soon gave out, and made for
a boat which had been despatched for their recovery, and was saved;
the other being a better swimmer, continued on until much exhausted,
then also made for the boat--it was too late; he sank before the boat
could reach him, and was drowned. They claimed to be freemen.

"On Sunday last I was called to the prison of the Municipality in
which I reside, to serve on an inquest on the body of a drowned man.
There I saw one other free man confined, by the name of Henry Tier, a
yellow man, born in New York, and formerly in my employ. He had been
confined as a supposed runaway, near six months, without a particle of
testimony; although from his color, the laws of Louisiana presume him
to be free. I applied immediately for his release, which was promptly
granted. At first, expenses similar to those exacted in the third
Municipality were required; but on my demonstrating to the recorder
that the law imposed no such burden on free men, he was released
without any charge whatever. How free men can obtain satisfaction for
having been thus wrongfully imprisoned, and made to work in chains on
the highway, is not for me to decide. I apprehend no satisfaction can
be had without more active friends, willing to espouse their cause,
than can be found in this quarter. Therefore I repeat, that no person
of color should come here without a certificate of freedom from the
governor of the state to which he belongs.

"Very respectfully, your assured friend, Jacob Barker."


"N.B.--Since writing the preceding, I have procured the release of
another free man from the prison of the third Municipality, on the
payment of $39.65, as per bill, copy herewith. His name is William
Lockman--he was born in New Jersey, of free parents, and resides at
Philadelphia. A greater sum was required which was reduced by the
allowance of his maintenance (written _labor_,) while at work on the
road, which the law requires the Municipality to pay; but it had not
before been so expounded in the third Municipality. I hope to get it
back in the case of the other three. The allowance for labor, in
addition to their maintenance, is twenty-five cents per day; but they
require those illiterate men to advance the whole before they can
leave the prison, and then to take a certificate for their labor, and
go for it to another department--to collect which, is ten times more
trouble than the money when received is worth. While these free men,
without having committed any fault, were compelled to work in chains,
on the roads, in the burning sun, for 25 cents per day, and pay in
advance 18 3-4 cents per day for maintenance, doctor's, and other
bills, and not able to work half their time, I paid others, working on
ship-board, in sight, two dollars per day. J.B."

The preceding letter of Mr. Barker, furnishes grounds for the belief,
that _hundreds_, if not _thousands_ of free colored persons, from the
different states of this Union, both slave and free from the West
Indies, South America, Mexico, and the British possessions in North
America, and from other parts of the world, are reduced to slavery
_every year_ in our slave states. If a single individual, in the
course of a few days, _accidentally_ discovered _six_ colored free
men, working in irons, and soon to be sold as slaves, in a _single_
southern city, is it not fair to infer, that in all the slave states,
there must be _multitudes_ of such persons, now in slavery, and that
this number is rapidly increasing, by ceaseless accessions?

The letter of Mr. Barker is valuable, also, as a graphic delineation
of the 'public opinion' of the south. The great difficulty with which
the release of these free men was procured, notwithstanding the
personal efforts of Mr. Jacob Barker, who is a gentleman of influence,
and has, we believe, been an alderman of New Orleans, reveals a
'public opinion,' insensible as adamant to the liberty of colored men.

It would be easy to fill scores of pages with details similar to the
preceding. We have furnished enough, however, to show, that, in all
probability, _each_ United States' census of the _slave_ population,
is increased by the addition to it of _thousands_ of free colored
persons, kidnapped and sold as slaves.

5th. To argue that the rapid multiplication of any class in the
community, is proof that such a class is well-clothed, well-housed,
abundantly fed, and very _comfortable_, is as absurd as to argue that
those who have _few children_, must of course, be ill-clothed,
ill-housed, badly lodged, overworked, ill-fed, &c. &c. True,
privations and inflictions may be carried to such an extent as to
occasion a fearful diminishment of population. That was the case
generally with the slave population in the West Indies, and, as has
been shown, is true of certain portions of the southern states. But
the fact that such an effect is _not_ produced, does not prove that
the slaves do not experience great privations and severe inflictions.
They may suffer much hardship, and great cruelties, without
experiencing so great a derangement of the vital functions as to
prevent child-bearing. The Israelites multiplied with astonishing
rapidity, under the task-masters and burdens of Egypt. Does this
falsify the declarations of Scripture, that 'they sighed by reason of
their bondage,' and that the Egyptians 'made them serve _with rigor_,'
and made 'their lives bitter with _hard bondage_.' 'I have seen,' said
God, 'their _afflictions_. I have beard their _groanings_,' &c. The
history of the human race shows, that great _privations and much
suffering_ may be experienced, without materially checking the rapid
increase of population.

Besides, if we should give to the objection all it claims, it would
merely prove, that the female slaves, or rather a portion of them, are
in a comfortable condition; and that, so far as the absolute
necessities of life are concerned, the females of _child-bearing_ age,
in Delaware, Maryland, northern, western, and middle Virginia, the
upper parts of Kentucky and Missouri, and among the mountains of east
Tennessee and western North Carolina, are in general tolerably well
supplied. The same remark, with some qualifications, may be made of
the slaves generally, in those parts of the country where the people
are slaveholders, mainly, that they may enjoy the privilege and profit
of being _slave-breeders_.



OBJECTION VIII.--'PUBLIC OPINION IS A PROTECTION TO THE SLAVE.'

ANSWER. It was public opinion that _made him a slave_. In a republican
government the people make the laws, and those laws are merely public
opinion _in legal forms_. We repeat it,--public opinion made them
slaves, and keeps them slaves; in other words, it sunk them from men
to chattels, and now, forsooth, this same public opinion will see to
it, that these _chattels_ are treated like _men!_

By looking a little into this matter, and finding out how this 'public
opinion' (law) protects the slaves in some particulars, we can judge
of the amount of its protection in others. 1. It protects the slaves
from _robbery_, by declaring that those who robbed their mothers may
rob them and their children. "All negroes, mulattoes, or mestizoes who
now are, or shall hereafter be in this province, and all their
offspring, are hereby declared to be, and shall remain, forever,
hereafter, absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of the
mother."--Law of South Carolina, 2 Brevard's Digest, 229. Others of
the slave states have similar laws.

2. It protects their _persons_, by giving their master a right to
flog, wound, and beat them when he pleases. See Devereaux's North
Carolina Reports, 263.--Case of the State vs. Mann, 1829; in which the
Supreme Court decided, that a master who _shot_ at a female slave and
wounded her, because she got loose from him when he was flogging her,
and started to run from him, had violated _no law_, AND COULD NOT BE
INDICTED. It has been decided by the highest courts of the slave
states generally, that assault and battery upon a slave is not
indictable as a criminal offence.

The following decision on this point was made by the Supreme Court of
South Carolina in the case of the State vs. Cheetwood, 2 Hill's
Reports, 459.

_Protection of slaves_.--"The criminal offence of assault and battery
_cannot, at common law, be committed on the person of a slave_. For,
notwithstanding for some purposes a slave is regarded in law as a
person, yet generally he is a mere chattel personal, and his right of
personal protection belongs to his master, who can maintain an action
of trespass for the battery of his slave.

"There can be therefore no offence against the state for a mere
beating of a slave, unaccompanied by any circumstances of cruelty, or
an attempt to kill and murder. The peace of the state is not thereby
broken; for a slave is not generally regarded as legally capable of
being within the peace of the state. He is not a citizen, and _is not
in that character entitled to her protection_."

This 'public opinion' protects the _persons_ of the slaves by
depriving them of Jury trial;[28] their _consciences_, by forbidding
them to assemble for worship, unless their oppressors are present;[29]
their _characters_, by branding them as liars, in denying them their
oath in law;[30] their _modesty_, by leaving their master to clothe,
or let them go naked, as he pleases;[31] and their _health_, by
leaving him to feed or starve them, to work them, wet or dry, with or
without sleep, to lodge them, with or without covering, as the whim
takes him;[32] and their _liberty_, marriage relations, parental
authority, and filial obligations, by _annihilating_ the whole.[33]
This is the protection which 'PUBLIC OPINION,' in the form of _law_,
affords to the slaves; this is the chivalrous knight, always in
stirrups, with lance in rest, to champion the cause of the slaves.

[Footnote 28: Law of South Carolina. James' Digest, 392-3. Law of
Louisiana. Martin's Digest, 42. Law of Virginia. Rev. Code, 429.]


[Footnote 29: Miss. Rev. Code, 390. Similar laws exist in the slave
states generally.]


[Footnote 30: "A slave cannot be a witness against a white person,
either in a civil or criminal cause." Stroud's Sketch of the Laws of
Slavery, 65.]


[Footnote 31: Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws, 132.]


[Footnote 32: Stroud's Sketch, 26-32.]


[Footnote 33: Stroud's Sketch, 22-24.]


Public opinion, protection to the slave! Brazen effrontery, hypocrisy,
and falsehood! We have, in the laws cited and referred to above, the
formal testimony of the Legislatures of the slave states, that,
'public opinion' does pertinaciously _refuse_ to protect the slaves;
not only so, but that it does itself persecute and plunder them all:
that it originally planned, and now presides over, sanctions, executes
and perpetuates the whole system of robbery, torture, and outrage
under which they groan.

In all the slave states, this 'public opinion' has taken away from the
slave his _liberty_; it has robbed him of his right to his own body,
of his right to improve his mind, of his right to read the Bible, of
his right to worship God according to his conscience, of his right to
receive and enjoy what he earns, of his right to live with his wife
and children, of his right to better his condition, of his right to
eat when he is hungry, to rest when he is tired, to sleep when be
needs it, and to cover his nakedness with clothing: this 'public
opinion' makes the slave a prisoner for life on the plantation, except
when his jailor pleases to let him out with a 'pass,' or sells him,
and transfers him in irons to another jail-yard: this 'public opinion'
traverses the country, buying up men, women, children--chaining them
in coffles, and driving them forever from their nearest friends; it
sets them on the auction table, to be handled, scrutinized, knocked
off to the highest bidder; it proclaims that they shall not have their
liberty; and, if their masters give it them, 'public opinion' seizes
and throws them back into slavery. This same 'public opinion' has
formally attached the following legal penalties to the following acts
of slaves.

If more than seven slaves are found together in any road, without a
white person, _twenty lashes a piece_; for visiting a plantation
without a written pass, ten lashes; for letting loose a boat from
where it is made fast, _thirty-nine lashes for the first offence_; and
for the second, '_shall have cut off from his head one ear_;' for
keeping or carrying a _club, thirty-nine lashes_; for having any
article for sale, without a ticket from his master, _ten lashes_; for
traveling in any other than 'the most usual and accustomed road,' when
going alone to any place, _forty lashes_; for traveling in the night,
without a pass, _forty lashes_; for being found in another person's
negro-quarters, _forty lashes_; for hunting with dogs in the woods,
_thirty lashes_; for being on _horseback_ without the written
permission of his master, _twenty-five lashes_; for riding or going
abroad in the night, or riding horses in the day time, without leave,
a slave may be whipped, _cropped_, or _branded in the cheek_ with the
letter R, or otherwise punished, _not extending to life_, or so as to
render him _unfit for labor_. The laws referred to may be found by
consulting 2 Brevard's Digest, 228, 213, 216; Haywood's Manual, 78,
chap. 13, pp. 518, 529; 1 Virginia Revised Code, 722-3; Prince's
Digest, 454; 2 Missouri Laws, 741; Mississippi Revised Code, 571. Laws
similar to these exist throughout the southern slave code. Extracts
enough to fill a volume might be made from these laws, showing that
the protection which 'public opinion' grants to the slaves, is hunger,
nakedness, terror, bereavements, robbery, imprisonment, the stocks,
iron collars, hunting and worrying them with dogs and guns, mutilating
their bodies, and murdering them.

A few specimens of the laws and the judicial decisions on them, will
show what is the state of 'public opinion' among slaveholders towards
their slaves. Let the following suffice.--'Any person may lawfully
kill a slave, who has been outlawed for running away and lurking in
swamps, &c.'--Law of North Carolina; Judge Stroud's Sketch of the
Slave Laws, 103; Haywood's Manual, 524. 'A slave _endeavoring_ to
entice another slave to runaway, if provisions, &c. be prepared for
the purpose of aiding in such running away, shall be punished with
DEATH. And a slave who shall aid the slave so endeavoring to entice
another slave to run away, shall also suffer DEATH.'--Law of South
Carolina; Stroud's Sketch of Slave Laws, 103-4; 2 Brevard's Digest,
233, 244. Another law of South Carolina provides that if a slave
shall, when absent from the plantation, refuse to be examined by '_any
white_ person,' (no matter how crazy or drunk,) 'such white person may
seize and chastise him; and if the slave shall _strike_ such white
person, such slave may be lawfully killed.'--2 Brevard's Digest, 231.

The following is a law of Georgia.--'If any slave shall presume to
strike any white person, such slave shall, upon trial and conviction
before the justice or justices, suffer such punishment for the first
offence as they shall think fit, not extending to life or limb; and
for the second offence, DEATH.'--Prince's Digest, 450. The same law
exists in South Carolina, with this difference, that death is made the
punishment for the _third_ offence. In both states, the law contains
this remarkable proviso: 'Provided always, that such striking be not
done by the command and in the defence of the person or property of
the owner, or other person having the government of such slave, in
which case the slave shall be wholly excused!' According to this law,
if a slave, by the direction of his OVERSEER, strike a white man who
is beating said overseer's _dog_, 'the slave shall be wholly excused;'
but if the white man has rushed upon the slave himself, instead of the
_dog_, and is furiously beating him, if the slave strike back but a
single blow, the legal penalty is 'ANY _punishment_ not extending to
life or limb;' and if the tortured slave has a second onset made upon
him, and, after suffering all but death, again strike back in
self-defence, the law KILLS him for it. So, if a female slave, in
obedience to her mistress, and in defence of 'her property,' strike a
white man who is kicking her mistress' pet kitten, she 'shall be
wholly excused,' saith the considerate law: but if the unprotected
girl, when beaten and kicked _herself_, raise her hand against her
brutal assailant, the law condemns her to 'any punishment, not
extending to life or limb; and if a wretch assail her again, and
attempt to violate her chastity, and the trembling girl, in her
anguish and terror, instinctively raise her hand against him in
self-defence, she shall, saith the law, 'suffer DEATH.'

Reader, this diabolical law is the 'public opinion' of Georgia and
South Carolina toward the slaves. This is the vaunted 'protection'
afforded them by their 'high-souled chivalry.' To show that the
'public opinion' of the slave states far more effectually protects the
_property_ of the master than the _person_ of the slave, the reader is
referred to two laws of Louisiana, passed in 1819. The one attaches a
penalty 'not exceeding one thousand dollars,' and 'imprisonment not
exceeding two years,' to the crime of 'cutting or breaking any iron
chain or collar,' which any master of slaves has used to prevent their
running away; the other, a penalty 'not exceeding five hundred
dollars,' to 'wilfully cutting out the tongue, putting out the eye,
_cruelly_ burning, or depriving any slave of _any limb_.' Look at
it--the most horrible dismemberment conceivable cannot be punished by
a fine of _more_ than five hundred dollars. The law expressly fixes
that, as the utmost limit, and it _may_ not be half that sum; not a
single moment's imprisonment stays the wretch in his career, and the
next hour he may cut out another slave's tongue, or burn his hand off.
But let the same man break a chain put upon a slave, to keep him from
running away, and, besides paying double the penalty that could be
exacted from him for cutting off a slave's leg, the law imprisons him
not exceeding two years!

This law reveals the _heart_ of slaveholders towards their slaves,
their diabolical indifference to the most excruciating and protracted
torments inflicted on them by '_any_ person;' it reveals, too, the
_relative_ protection afforded by 'public opinion' to the _person_ of
the slave, in appalling contrast with the vastly surer protection
which it affords to the master's _property_ in the slave. The wretch
who cuts out the tongue, tears out the eyes, shoots off the arms, or
burns off the feet of a slave, over a slow fire, _cannot_ legally be
fined more than five hundred dollars; but if he should in pity loose a
chain from his galled neck, placed there by the master to keep him
from escaping, and thus put his property in some jeopardy, he may be
fined _one thousand dollars_, and thrust into a dungeon for two years!
and this, be it remembered, not for _stealing_ the slave from the
master, nor for _enticing_, or even advising him to run away, or
giving him any information how he can effect his escape; but merely,
because, touched with sympathy for the bleeding victim, as he sees the
rough iron chafe the torn flesh at every turn, he removes it;--and, as
escape without this incumbrance would be easier than with it, the
master's property in the slave is put at some risk. For having caused
this slight risk, the law provides a punishment--fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding _two years_. We
say 'slight risk,' because the slave may not be disposed to encounter
the dangers, and hunger, and other sufferings of the woods, and the
certainty of terrible inflictions if caught; and if he should attempt
it, the risk of losing him is small. An advertisement of five lines
will set the whole community howling on his track; and the trembling
and famished fugitive is soon scented out in his retreat, and dragged
back and delivered over to his tormentors.

The preceding law is another illustration of the 'protection' afforded
to the limbs and members of slaves, by 'public opinion' among
slaveholders.

Here follow two other illustrations of the brutal indifference of
'public opinion' to the _torments_ of the slave, while it is full of
zeal to compensate the master, if any one disables his slave so as to
lessen his market value. The first is a law of South Carolina. It
provides, that if a slave, engaged in his owner's service, be attacked
by a person 'not having sufficient cause for so doing,' and if the
slave shall be '_maimed or disabled_' by him, so that the owner
suffers a loss from his inability to labor, the person maiming him
shall pay for his 'lost time,' and 'also the charges for the cure of
the slave!' This Vandal law does not deign to take the least notice of
the anguish of the '_maimed' slave_, made, perhaps, a groaning cripple
for life; the horrible wrong and injury done to _him_, is passed over
in utter silence. It is thus declared to be _not a criminal act_. But
the pecuniary interests of the master are not to be thus neglected by
'public opinion'. Oh no! its tender bowels run over with sympathy at
the master's injury in the 'lost _time_' of his slave, and it
carefully provides that he shall have pay for the whole of it.--See 2
_Brevard's Digest_, 231, 2.

A law similar to the above has been passed in Louisiana, which
contains an additional provision for the benefit of the
_master_--ordaining, that 'if the slave' (thus _maimed and disabled_,)
'be forever rendered unable to work,' the person maiming, shall pay
the master the appraised value of the slave before the injury, and
shall, in addition, _take_ the slave, and maintain him during life.'
Thus 'public opinion' transfers the helpless cripple from the hand of
his master, who, as he has always had the benefit of his services,
might possibly feel some tenderness for him, and puts him in the sole
power of the wretch who has disabled him for life--protecting the
victim from the fury of his tormentor, by putting him into his hands!
What but butchery by piecemeal can, under such circumstances, be
expected from a man brutal enough at first to 'maim' and 'disable'
him, and now exasperated by being obliged to pay his full value to the
master, and to have, in addition, the daily care and expense of his
maintenance. Since writing the above, we have seen the following
judicial decision, in the case of Jourdan, vs. Patton--5 Martin's
Louisiana Reports, 615. A slave of the plaintiff had been deprived of
his _only eye_, and thus rendered _useless_, on which account the
court adjudged that the defendant should pay the plaintiff his full
value. The case went up, by appeal, to the Supreme court. Judge
Mathews, in his decision said, that 'when the defendant had paid the
sum decreed, the slave ought to be placed in his possession,'--adding,
that 'the judgment making full compensation to the owner _operates a
change of property_. He adds, 'The principle of humanity which would
lead us to suppose, that the mistress whom he had long served, would
treat her miserable blind slave with more kindness than the defendant
to whom the judgment ought to transfer him, CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION!' The full compensation of the mistress for the loss of
the services of the slave, is worthy of all 'consideration,' even to
the uttermost farthing; 'public opinion' is omnipotent for _her_
protection; but when the food, clothing, shelter, fire and lodging,
medicine and nursing, comfort and entire condition and treatment of
her poor blind slave throughout his dreary pilgrimage, is the
question--ah! that, says the mouthpiece of the law, and the
representative of 'public opinion,' 'CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION.' Protection of slaves by 'public opinion' among
slaveholders!!

The foregoing illustrations of southern 'public opinion,' from the
laws made by it and embodying it, are sufficient to show, that, so far
from being an efficient protection to the slaves, it is their
deadliest foe, persecutor and tormentor.

But here we shall probably be met by the legal lore of some 'Justice
Shallow,' instructing us that the life of the slave is fully protected
by law, however unprotected he may be in other respects. This
assertion we meet with a point blank denial. The law does not, in
reality, protect the life of the slave. But even if the letter of the
law would fully protect the life of the slave, 'public opinion' in the
slave states would make it a dead letter. The letter of the law would
have been all-sufficient for the protection of the lives of the
miserable gamblers in Vicksburg, and other places in Mississippi, from
the rage of those whose money they had won; but 'gentlemen of property
and standing 'laughed the law to scorn, rushed to the gamblers' house,
put ropes round their necks, dragged them through the streets, hanged
them in the public square, and thus saved the sum they had not yet
paid. Thousands witnessed this wholesale murder, yet of the scores of
legal officers present, not a soul raised a finger to prevent it, the
whole city consented to it, and thus aided and abetted it. How many
hundreds of them helped to commit the murders, _with their own hands_,
does not appear, but not one of them has been indicted for it, and no
one made the least effort to bring them to trial. Thus, up to the
present hour, the blood of those murdered men rests on that whole
city, and it will continue to be a CITY OF MURDERERS, so long as its
citizens, agree together to shield those felons from punishment; and
they do thus agree together so long as they encourage each other in
refusing to bring them to justice. Now, the _laws_ of Mississippi were
not in fault that those men were murdered; nor are they now in fault,
that their murderers are not punished; the laws demand it, but the
people of Mississippi, the legal officers, the grand juries and
legislature of the state, with one consent agree, that the law _shall
be a dead letter_, and thus the whole state assumes the guilt of those
murders, and in bravado, flourishes her reeking hands in the face of
the world.[34]

[Footnote 34: We have just learned from Mississippi papers, that the
citizens of Vicksburg are erecting a public monument in honor of Dr.
H.S. Bodley, who was the ring-leader of the Lynchers in their attack
upon the miserable victims. To give the crime the cold encouragement
of impunity alone, or such slight tokens of favor as a home and a
sanctuary, is beneath the chivalry and hospitality of Mississippians;
so they tender it incense, an altar, and a crown of glory. Let the
marble rise till it be seen from afar, a beacon marking the spot where
law lies lifeless by the hand of felons; and murderers, with chaplets
on their heads, dance and shout upon its grave, while 'all the people
say, amen.']


The letter of the law on the statute book is one thing, the practice
of the community under that law often a totally different thing. Each
of the slave states has laws providing that the life of no _white_ man
shall be taken without his having first been indicted by a grand jury,
allowed an impartial trial by a petit jury, with the right of counsel,
cross-examination of witnesses, &c.; but who does not know that if
ARTHUR TAPPAN were pointed out in the streets of New Orleans, Mobile,
Savannah, Charleston, Natchez, or St. Louis, he would be torn in
pieces by the citizens with one accord, and that if any one should
attempt to bring his murderers to punishment, he would be torn in
pieces also. The editors of southern newspapers openly vaunt, that
every abolitionist who sets foot in their soil, shall, if he be
discovered, be hung at once, without judge or jury. What mockery to
quote the _letter of the law_ in those states, to show that
abolitionists would have secured to them the legal protection of an
impartial trial!

Before the objector can make out his case, that the life of the slave
is protected by the law, he must not only show that the _words of the
law_ grant him such protection, but that such a state of public
sentiment exists as will carry out the provisions of the law in their
true spirit. Any thing short of this will be set down as mere prating
by every man of common sense. It has been already abundantly shown in
the preceding pages, that the public sentiment of the slaveholding
states toward the slaves is diabolical. Now, if there were laws in
those states, the _words_ of which granted to the life of the slave
the same protection granted to that of the master, what would they
avail? ACTS constitute protection; and is that public sentiment which
makes the slave 'property,' and perpetrates hourly robbery and
batteries upon him, so penetrated with a sense of the sacredness of
his right to life, that it will protect it at all hazards, and drag to
the gallows his OWNER, if he take the life of his own _property_? If
it be asked, why the penalty for killing a slave is not a mere _fine_
then, if his life is not really regarded as sacred by public
sentiment--we answer, that formerly in most, if not in all the slave
states, the murder of a slave _was_ punished by a mere fine. This was
the case in South Carolina till a few years since. Yes, as late as
1821, in the state of South Carolina, which boasts of its chivalry and
honor, at least as loudly as any state in the Union, a slaveholder
might butcher his slave in the most deliberate manner--with the most
barbarous and protracted torments, and yet not be subjected to a
single hour's imprisonment--pay his fine, stride out of the court and
kill another--pay his fine again and butcher another, and so long as
he paid to the state, cash down, its own assessment of damages,
without putting it to the trouble of prosecuting for it, he might
strut 'a gentleman.'--See 2 _Brevard's Digest_, 241.

The reason assigned by the legislature for enacting a law which
punished the wilful murder of a human being by a _fine_, was that
'CRUELTY _is_ HIGHLY UNBECOMING,' and 'ODIOUS.' It was doubtless the
same reason that induced the legislature in 1821, to make a show of
giving _more_ protection to the life of the slave. Their fathers, when
they gave _some_ protection, did it because the time had come when,
not to do it would make them 'ODIOUS,' So the legislature of 1821 made
a show of giving still greater protection, because, not to do it would
make them '_odious_.' Fitly did they wear the mantles of their
ascending fathers! In giving to the life of a slave the miserable
protection of a fine, their fathers did not even pretend to do it out
of any regard to the sacredness of his life as a human being, but
merely because cruelty is 'unbecoming' and 'odious.' The legislature
of 1821 _nominally_ increased this protection; not that they cared
more for the slave's rights, or for the inviolabity of his life as a
human being, but the civilized world had advanced since the date of
the first law. The slave-trade which was then honorable merchandise,
and plied by lords, governors, judges, and doctors of divinity,
raising them to immense wealth, had grown 'unbecoming,' and only
raised its votaries by a rope to the yard arm; besides this, the
barbarity of the slave codes throughout the world was fast becoming
'odious' to civilized nations, and slaveholders found that the only
conditions on which they could prevent themselves from being thrust
out of the pale of civilization, was to meliorate the iron rigor of
their slave code, and thus _seem_ to secure to their slaves some
protection. Further, the northern states had passed laws for the
abolition of slavery--all the South American states were acting in the
matter; and Colombia and Chili passed acts of abolition that very
year. In addition to all this the Missouri question had been for two
years previous under discussion in Congress, in State legislatures,
and in every village and stage coach; and this law of South Carolina
had been held up to execration by northern members of Congress, and in
newspapers throughout the free states--in a word, the legislature of
South Carolina found that they were becoming 'odious;' and while in
their sense of justice and humanity they did not surpass their
fathers, they winced with equal sensitiveness under the sting of the
world's scorn, and with equal promptitude sued for a truce by
modifying the law.

The legislature of South Carolina modified another law at the same
session. Previously, the killing of a slave 'on a sudden heat or
passion, or by undue correction,' was punished by a fine of three
hundred and fifty pounds. In 1821 an act was passed diminishing the
fine to five hundred dollars, but authorizing an imprisonment 'not
exceeding six months.' Just before the American Revolution, the
Legislature of North Carolina passed a law making _imprisonment_ the
penalty for the wilful and malicious murder of a slave. About twenty
years after the revolution, the state found itself becoming 'odious,'
as the spirit of abolition was pervading the nations. The legislature,
perceiving that Christendom would before long rank them with
barbarians if they so cheapened human life, repealed the law, candidly
assigning in the preamble of the new one the reason for repealing the
old--that it was 'DISGRACEFUL' and 'DEGRADING! As this preamble
expressly recognizes the slave as 'a human creature,' and as it is
couched in a phraseology which indicates some sense of justice, we
would gladly give the legislature credit for sincerity, and believe
them really touched with humane movings towards the slave, were it not
for a proviso in the law clearly revealing that the show of humanity
and regard for their rights, indicated by the words, is nothing more
than a hollow pretence--hypocritical flourish to produce an impression
favorable to their justice and magnanimity. After declaring that he
who is 'guilty of wilfully and maliciously killing a slave, shall
suffer the same punishment as if he had killed a freeman;' the act
concludes thus: 'Provided, always, this act shall not extend to the
person killing a slave outlawed by virtue of any act of Assembly of
this state; or to any slave in the act of resistance to his lawful
overseer, or master, or to any slave dying under _moderate
correction_.' Reader, look at this proviso. 1. It gives free license
to all persons to kill _outlawed slaves_. Well, what is an outlawed
slave? A slave who runs away, lurks in swamps, &c., and kills a _hog_
or any other domestic animal to keep himself from starving, is subject
to a proclamation of _outlawry_; (Haywood's Manual, 521,) and then
whoever finds him may shoot him, tear him in pieces with dogs, burn
him to death over a slow fire, or kill him by any other tortures. 2.
The proviso grants full license to a master to kill his slave, if the
slave _resist_ him. The North Carolina Bench has decided that this law
contemplates not only actual resistance to punishment, &c., but also
_offering_ to resist. (Stroud's Sketch, 37.) If, for example, a slave
undergoing the process of branding should resist by pushing aside the
burning stamp; or if wrought up to frenzy by the torture of the lash,
he should catch and hold it fast; or if he break loose from his master
and run, refusing to stop at his command; or if he _refuse_ to be
flogged; or struggle to keep his clothes on while his master is trying
to strip him; if, in these, or any one of a hundred other ways he
_resist_, or offer, or _threaten_ to resist the infliction; or, if the
master attempt the violation of the slave's wife, and the husband
resist his attempts without the least effort to injure him, but merely
to shield his wife from his assaults, this law does not merely permit,
but it _authorizes_ the master to murder the slave on the spot.

The brutality of these two provisos brands its authors as barbarians.
But the third cause of exemption could not be outdone by the
legislation of fiends. 'DYING under MODERATE _correction_!' MODERATE
_correction_ and DEATH--cause and effect! 'Provided ALWAYS,' says the
law, 'this act shall not extend to any slave dying under _moderate
correction_!' Here is a formal proclamation of impunity to murder--an
express pledge of _acquittal_ to all slaveholders who wish to murder
their slaves, a legal absolution--an indulgence granted before the
commission of the crime! Look at the phraseology. Nothing is said of
maimings, dismemberments, skull fractures, of severe bruisings, or
lacerations, or even of floggings; but a word is used the
common-parlance import of which is, _slight chastisement_; it is not
even _whipping_, but '_correction_' And as if hypocrisy and malignity
were on the rack to outwit each other, even that weak word must be
still farther diluted; so '_moderate_' is added: and, to crown the
climax, compounded of absurdity, hypocrisy, and cold-blooded murder,
the _legal definition_ of 'moderate correction' is covertly given;
which is, _any punishment_ that KILLS the victim. All inflictions are
either _moderate_ or _immoderate_; and the design of this law was
manifestly to shield the murderer from conviction, _by carrying on its
face the rule for its own interpretation_; thus advertising,
beforehand, courts and juries, that the fact of any infliction
_producing death_, was no evidence that it was _immoderate_, and that
beating a man to death came within the legal meaning of 'moderate
correction!' The _design_ of the legislature of North Carolina in
framing this law is manifest; it was to produce the impression upon
the world, that they had so high a sense of justice as voluntarily to
grant adequate protection to the lives of their slaves. This is
ostentatiously set forth in the preamble, and in the body of the law.
That this was the most despicable hypocrisy, and that they had
predetermined to grant no such protection, notwithstanding the pains
taken to get the _credit_ of it, is fully revealed by the _proviso_,
which was framed in such a way as to nullify the law, for the express
accommodation of slaveholding gentlemen murdering their slaves. All
such find in this proviso a convenient accomplice before the fact, and
a packed jury, with a ready-made verdict of 'not guilty,' both
gratuitously furnished by the government! The preceding law and
proviso are to be found in Haywood's Manual, 530; also in Laws of
Tennessee, Act of October 23, 1791; and in Stroud's Sketch, 37.

Enough has been said already to show, that though the laws of the
slave states profess to grant adequate protection to the life of the
slave, such professions are mere empty pretence, no such protection
being in reality afforded by them. But there is still another fact,
showing that all laws which profess to protect the slaves from injury
by the whites are a mockery. It is this--that the testimony, neither
of a slave nor of a free colored person, is _legal_ testimony against
a white. To this rule there is _no exception_ in any of the slave
states: and this, were there no other evidence, would be sufficient to
stamp, as hypocritical, all the provisions of the codes which
_profess_ to protect the slaves. Professing to grant _protection_,
while, at the same time, it strips them of the only _means_ by which
they can make that protection available! Injuries must be legally
_proved_ before they can be legally _redressed_: to deprive men of the
power of _proving_ their injuries, is itself the greatest of all
injuries; for it not only exposes to all, but invites them, by a
virtual guarantee of impunity, and is thus the _author_ of all
injuries. It matters not what other laws exist, professing to throw
safeguards round the slave--_this_ makes them blank paper. How can a
slave prove outrages perpetrated upon him by his master or overseer,
when his own testimony and that of all his fellow-slaves, his kindred,
associates, and acquaintances, is ruled out of court? and when he is
entirely in the _power_ of those who injure him, and when the only
care necessary, on their part, is, to see that no _white_ witness is
looking on. Ordinarily, but _one_ white man, the overseer, is with the
slaves while they are at labor; indeed, on most plantations, to commit
an outrage in the _presence_ of a white witness would be more
difficult than in their absence. He who wished to commit an illegal
act upon a slave, instead of being obliged to _take pains_ and watch
for an opportunity to do it unobserved by a white, would find it
difficult to do it in the presence of a white if he wished to do so.
The supreme court of Louisiana, in their decision, in the case of
Crawford vs. Cherry,(15, _Martin's La. Rep._ 112; also "_Law of
Slavery,_" 249,) where the defendant was sued for the value of a slave
whom he had shot and killed, say, "The act charged here, is one
_rarely_ committed in the presence of _witnesses_," (whites). So in
the case of the State vs. Mann, (_Devereux, N.C. Rep._ 263; and _"Law
of Slavery," _247;) in which the defendant was charged with shooting a
slave girl 'belonging' to the plaintiff; the Supreme Court of North
Carolina, in their decision, speaking of the provocations of the
master by the slave, and 'the consequent wrath of the master'
prompting him to _bloody vengeance_, add, _'a vengeance generally
practised with impunity, by reason of its privacy.'_

Laws excluding the testimony of slaves and free colored persons, where
a white is concerned, do not exist in all the slave states. One or two
of them have no legal enactment on the subject; but, in those,
_'public opinion'_ acts with the force of law, and the courts
_invariably reject it_. This brings us back to the potency of that
oft-quoted 'public opinion,' so ready, according to our objector, to
do battle for the _protection_ of the slave!

Another proof that 'public opinion,' in the slave states, plunders,
tortures, and murders the slaves, instead of _protecting_ them, is
found in the fact, that the laws of slave states inflict _capital_
punishment on slaves for a variety of crimes, for which, if their
masters commit them, the legal penalty is merely _imprisonment_. Judge
Stroud in his Sketch of the Laws of Slavery, says, that by the laws of
Virginia, there are 'seventy-one crimes for which slaves are capitally
punished though in none of these are whites punished in manner more
severe than by imprisonment in the penitentiary.' (P. 107, where the
reader will find all the crimes enumerated.) It should be added,
however, that though the penalty for each of these seventy-one crimes
is 'death,' yet a majority of them are, in the words of the law,
'death within clergy;' and in Virginia, _clergyable_ offences, though
_technically_ capital, are not so in fact. In Mississippi, slaves are
punished capitally for more than _thirty_ crimes, for which whites are
punished only by fine or imprisonment, or both. Eight of these are not
_recognized as crimes_, either by common law or by statute, when
committed by whites. In South Carolina slaves are punished capitally
for _nine_ more crimes than the whites--in Georgia, for _six_--and in
Kentucky, for _seven_ more than whites, &c. We surely need not detain
the reader by comments on this monstrous inequality with which the
penal codes of slave states treat slaves and their masters. When we
consider that guilt is in proportion to intelligence, and that these
masters have by law doomed their slaves to ignorance, and then, as
they darkle and grope along their blind way, inflict penalties upon
them for a variety of acts regarded as praise worthy in whites;
killing them for crimes, when whites are only fined or imprisoned--to
call such a 'public opinion' inhuman, savage, murderous, diabolical,
would be to use tame words, if the English vocabulary could supply
others of more horrible import.

But slaveholding brutality does not stop here. While punishing the
slaves for crimes with vastly greater severity than it does their
masters for the same crimes, and making a variety of acts _crimes_ in
law, which are right, and often _duties_, it persists in refusing to
make known to the slaves that complicated and barbarous penal code
which loads them with such fearful liabilities. The slave is left to
get a knowledge of these laws as he can, and cases must be of constant
occurrence at the south, in which slaves get their first knowledge of
the existence of a law by suffering its penalty. Indeed, this is
probably the way in which they commonly learn what the laws are; for
how else can the slave get a knowledge of the laws? He cannot
_read_--he cannot _learn_ to read; if he try to master the alphabet,
so that he may spell out the words of the law, and thus avoid its
penalties, the law shakes its terrors at him; while, at the same time,
those who made the laws refuse to make them known to those for whom
they are designed. The memory of Caligula will blacken with execration
while time lasts, because be hung up his laws so high that people
could not read them, and then punished them because they did not keep
them. Our slaveholders aspire to blacker infamy. Caligula was content
with hanging up his laws where his subjects could _see_ them; and if
they could not read them, they knew where they were, and might get at
them, if, in their zeal to learn his will, they had used the same
means to get up to them that those did who hung them there. Even
Caligula, wretch as he was, would have shuddered at cutting their legs
off, to prevent their climbing to them; or, if they had got there, at
boring their eyes out, to prevent their reading them. Our slaveholders
virtually do both; for they prohibit their slaves acquiring that
knowledge of letters which would enable them to read the laws; and if,
by stealth, they get it in spite of them, they prohibit them books and
papers, and flog them if they are caught at them. Further--Caligula
merely hung his laws so high that they could not be _read_--our
slaveholders have hung theirs so high above the slave that they cannot
be _seen_--they are utterly out of sight, and he finds out that they
are there only by the falling of the penalties on his head.[35] Thus
the "public opinion" of slave states protects the defenceless slave by
arming a host of legal penalties and setting them in ambush at every
thicket along his path, to spring upon him unawares.

[Footnote 35: The following extract from the Alexandria (D.C.) Gazette
is all illustration. "CRIMINALS CONDEMNED.--On Monday last the Court
of the borough of Norfolk, Va. sat on the trial of four negro boys
arraigned for burglary. The first indictment charged them with
breaking into the hardware store of Mr. E.P. Tabb, upon which two of
them were found guilty by the Court, and condemned to suffer the
penalty of the law, which, in the case of a slave, is death. The
second Friday in April is appointed for the execution of their awful
sentence. _Their ages do not exceed sixteen_. The first, a fine active
boy, belongs to a widow lady in Alexandria; the latter, a house
servant, is owned by a gentleman in the borough. The value of one was
fixed at $1000, and the other at $800; which sums are to be
re-imbursed to their respective owners out of the state treasury." In
all probability these poor boys, who are to be hung for stealing,
never dreamed that death was the legal penalty of the crime.

Here is another, from the "New Orleans Bee" of ---- 14, 1837--"The
slave who STRUCK some citizens in Canal street, some weeks since, has
been tried and found guilty, and is sentenced to be HUNG on the 24th."]


Stroud, in his Sketch of the Laws of Slavery, page 100, thus comments
on this monstrous barbarity.

"The hardened convict moves their sympathy, and is to be taught the
laws before he is expected to obey them;[36] yet the guiltless slave
is subjected to an extensive system of cruel enactments, of no part of
which, probably, has he ever heard."

[Footnote 36: "It shall be the duty of the keeper [of the penitentiary]
on the receipt of each prisoner, to _read_ to him or her such parts of
the penal laws of this state as impose penalties for escape, and to
make all the prisoners in the penitentiary acquainted with the same.
It shall also be his duty, on the discharge of such prisoner, to read
to him or her such parts of the laws as impose additional punishments
for the repetition of offences."--_Rule 12th_, for the internal
government of the Penitentiary of Georgia. Sec. 26 of the Penitentiary
Act of 1816.--Prince's Digest, 386.]


Having already drawn so largely on the reader's patience, in
illustrating southern 'public opinion' by the slave laws, instead of
additional illustrations of the same point from another class of those
laws, as was our design, we will group together a few particulars,
which the reader can take in at a glance, showing that the "public
opinion" of slaveholders towards their slaves, which exists at the
south, in the form of law, tramples on all those fundamental
principles of right, justice, and equity, which are recognized as
sacred by all civilized nations, and receive the homage even of
barbarians.

1. One of these principles is, that the _benefits_ of law to the
subject should overbalance its burdens--its protection more than
compensate for its restraints and exactions--and its blessings
altogether outweigh its inconveniences and evils--the former being
numerous, positive, and permanent, the latter few, negative, and
incidental. Totally the reverse of all this is true in the case of the
slave. Law is to him all exaction and no protection: instead of
lightening his _natural_ burdens, it crushes him under a multitude of
artificial ones; instead of a friend to succor him, it is his
deadliest foe, transfixing him at every step from the cradle to the
grave. Law has been beautifully defined to be "benevolence acting by
rule;" to the American slave it is malevolence torturing by system. It
is an old truth, that _responsibility_ increases with _capacity_; but
those same laws which make the slave a "_chattel_," require of him
_more_ than of _men_. The same law which makes him a _thing_ incapable
of obligation, loads him with obligations superhuman--while sinking
him below the level of a brute in dispensing its _benefits_, he lays
upon him burdens which would break down an angel.

2. _Innocence is entitled to the protection of law._ Slaveholders make
innocence free plunder; this is their daily employment; their laws
assail it, make it their victim, inflict upon it all, and, in some
respects, more than all the penalties of the greatest guilt. To other
innocent persons, law is a blessing, to the slave it is a curse, only
a curse and that continually.

3. _Deprivation of liberty is one of the highest punishments of
crime_; and in proportion to its justice when inflicted on the guilty,
is its injustice when inflicted on the innocent; this terrible penalty
is inflicted on two million seven hundred thousand, innocent persons
in the Southern states.

4. _Self-preservation and self-defence_, are universally regarded as
the most sacred of human rights, yet the laws of slave states punish
the slave with _death_ for exercising these rights in that way, which
in others is pronounced worthy of the highest praise.

5. _The safeguards of law are most needed where natural safe-guards
are weakest._ Every principle of justice and equity requires, that,
those who are totally unprotected by birth, station, wealth, friends,
influence, and popular favor, and especially those who are the
innocent objects of public contempt and prejudice, should be more
vigilantly protected by law, than those who are so fortified by
defence, that they have far less need of _legal_ protection; yet the
poor slave who is fortified by _none_ of these _personal_ bulwarks, is
denied the protection of law, while the master, surrounded by them
all, is panoplied in the mail of legal protection, even to the hair of
his head; yea, his very shoe-tie and coat-button are legal protegees.

6. The grand object of law is to _protect men's natural rights_, but
instead of protecting the natural rights of the slaves, it gives
slaveholders license to wrest them from the weak by violence, protects
them in holding their plunder, and _kills_ the rightful owner if he
attempt to recover it.

This is the _protection_ thrown around the rights of American slaves
by the 'public opinion,' of slaveholders; these the restraints that
hold back their masters, overseers, and drivers, from inflicting
injuries upon them!

In a Republican government, _law_ is the pulse of its _heart_--as the
heart beats the pulse beats, except that it often beats _weaker_ than
the heart, never stronger--or to drop the figure, laws are never
_worse_ than those who make them, very often better. If human history
proves anything, cruelty of practice will always go beyond cruelty of
law.

Law-making is a formal, deliberate act, performed by persons of mature
age, embodying the intelligence, wisdom, justice and humanity, of the
community; performed, too, at leisure, after full opportunity had for
a comprehensive survey of all the relations to be affected, after
careful investigation and protracted discussion. Consequently laws
must, in the main, be a true index of the permanent feelings, the
settled _frame of mind_, cherished by the community upon those
subjects, and towards those persons and classes whose condition the
laws are designed to establish. If the laws are in a high degree cruel
and inhuman, towards any class of persons, it proves that the feelings
habitually exercised towards that class of persons, by those who make
and perpetuate those laws, are at least _equally_ cruel and inhuman.
We say _at least equally_ so; for if the _habitual_ state of feeling
towards that class be unmerciful, it must be unspeakably cruel,
relentless and malignant when _provoked_; if its _ordinary_ action is
inhuman, its contortions and spasms must be tragedies; if the waves
run high when there has been no wind, where will they not break when
the tempest heaves them!

Further, when cruelty is the _spirit_ of the law towards a proscribed
class, when it _legalizes great outrages_ upon them, it connives at,
and abets _greater_ outrages, and is virtually an accomplice of all
who perpetrate them. Hence, in such cases, though the _degree_ of the
outrage is illegal, the perpetrator will rarely be convicted, and,
even if convicted, will be almost sure to escape punishment. This is
not _theory_ but _history_. Every judge and lawyer in the slave states
_knows_, that the legal conviction and _punishment_ of masters and
mistresses, for illegal outrages upon their slaves, is an event which
has rarely, if ever, occurred in the slave states; they know, also,
that although _hundreds_ of slaves have been _murdered_ by their
masters and mistresses in the slave states, within the last
twenty-five years, and though the fact of their having committed those
murders has been established beyond a _doubt_ in the minds of the
surrounding community, yet that the murderers have not, in a single
instance, suffered the penalty of the law.

Finally, since slaveholders have deliberately legalized the
perpetration of the most cold-blooded atrocities upon their slaves,
and do pertinaciously refuse to make these atrocities _illegal_, and
to punish those who perpetrate them, they stand convicted before the
world, upon their own testimony, of the most barbarous, brutal, and
habitual inhumanity. If this be slander and falsehood, their own lips
have uttered it, their own fingers have written it, their own acts
have proclaimed it; and however it may be with their _morality_, they
have too much human nature to perjure themselves for the sake of
publishing their own infamy.

Having dwelt at such length on the legal code of the slave states,
that unerring index of the public opinion of slaveholders towards
their slaves; and having shown that it does not protect the slaves
from cruelty, and that even in the few instances in which the letter
of the law, if _executed_, would afford some protection, it is
virtually nullified by the connivance of courts and juries, or by
popular clamor; we might safely rest the case here, assured that every
honest reader would spurn the absurd falsehood, that the 'public
opinion' of the slave states protects the slaves and restrains the
master. But, as the assertion is made so often by slaveholders, and
with so much confidence, notwithstanding its absurdity is fully
revealed by their own legal code, we propose to show its falsehood by
applying other tests.

We lay it down as a truth that can be made no plainer by reasoning,
that the same 'public opinion,' which restrains men from _committing_
outrages, will restrain them from _publishing_ such outrages, if they
do commit them;--in other words, if a man is restrained from certain
acts through fear of losing his character, should they become known,
he will not voluntarily destroy his character by _making them known_,
should he be guilty of them. Let us look at this. It is assumed by
slaveholders, that 'public opinion' at the south so frowns on cruelty
to the slaves, that _fear of disgrace_ would restrain from the
infliction of it, were there no other consideration.

Now, that this is sheer fiction is shown by the fact, that the
newspapers in the slaveholding states, teem with advertisements for
runaway slaves, in which the masters and _mistresses_ describe their
men and women, as having been 'branded with a hot iron,' on their
'cheeks,' 'jaws,' 'breasts,' 'arms,' 'legs,' and 'thighs;' also as
'scarred,' 'very much scarred,' 'cut up,' 'marked,' &c. 'with the
whip,' also with 'iron collars on,' 'chains,' 'bars of iron,'
'fetters,' 'bells,' 'horns,' 'shackles,' &c. They, also, describe them
as having been wounded by 'buck-shot,' 'rifle-balls,' &c. fired at
them by their 'owners,' and others when in pursuit; also, as having
'notches,' cut in their ears, the tops or bottoms of their ears 'cut
off,' or 'slit,' or 'one ear cut off' or 'both ears cut off' &c. &c.
The masters and mistresses who thus advertise their runaway slaves,
coolly sign their names to their advertisements, giving the street and
number of their residences, if in cities, their post office address,
&c. if in the country; thus making public proclamation as widely as
possible that _they_ 'brand,' 'scar,' 'gash,' 'cut up,' &c. the flesh
of their slaves; load them with irons, cut off their ears, &c.; they
speak of these things with the utmost _sang froid_, not seeming to
think it possible, that any one will esteem them at all the less
because of these outrages upon their slaves; further, these
advertisements swarm in many of the largest and most widely circulated
political and commercial papers that are published in the slave
states. The editors of those papers constitute the main body of the
literati of the slave states; they move in the highest circle of
society, are among the 'popular' men in the community, and _as a
class_, are more influential than any other; yet these editors publish
these advertisements with iron indifference. So far from proclaiming
to such felons, homicides, and murderers, that they will not be their
blood-hounds, to hunt down the innocent and mutilated victims who have
escaped from their torture, they freely furnish them with every
facility, become their accomplices and share their spoils; and instead
of outraging 'public opinion,' by doing it, they are the men after its
own heart, its organs, its representatives, its _self_.

To show that the 'public opinion' of the slave states, towards the
slaves, is absolutely _diabolical_, we will insert a few, out of a
multitude, of similar advertisements from a variety of southern papers
now before us.

The North Carolina Standard, of July 18, 1838, contains the
following:--

"TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD. Ranaway from the subscriber, a negro woman and
two children; the woman is tall and black, and _a few days before she
went off_, I BURNT HER WITH A HOT IRON ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HER FACE; I
TRIED TO MAKE THE LETTER M, _and she kept a cloth over her head and
face, and a fly bonnet on her head so as to cover the burn;_ her
children are both boys, the oldest is in his seventh year; he is a
_mulatto_ and has blue eyes; the youngest is black and is in his fifth
year. The woman's name is Betty, commonly called Bet."

MICAJAH RICKS.

_Nash County, July 7_, 1838.

Hear the wretch tell his story, with as much indifference as if he
were describing the cutting of his initials in the bark of a tree.

_"I burnt her with a hot iron on the left side of her face,"--"I tried
to make the letter M_," and this he says in a newspaper, and puts his
name to it, and the editor of the paper who is, also, its proprietor,
publishes it for him and pockets his fee. Perhaps the reader will say,
'Oh, it must have been published in an insignificant sheet printed in
some obscure corner of the state; perhaps by a gang of 'squatters,' in
the Dismal Swamp, universally regarded as a pest, and edited by some
scape-gallows, who is detested by the whole community.' To this I reply
that the "North Carolina Standard," the paper which contains it, is a
large six columned weekly paper, handsomely printed and ably edited;
it is the leading Democratic paper in that state, and is published at
Raleigh, the Capital of the state, Thomas Loring, Esq. Editor and
Proprietor. The motto in capitals under the head of the paper is, "THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION OF THE STATES--THEY MUST BE PRESERVED." The
same Editor and Proprietor, who exhibits such brutality of feeling
towards the slaves, by giving the preceding advertisement a
conspicuous place in his columns, and taking his pay for it, has
apparently a keen sense of the proprieties of life, where _whites_ are
concerned, and a high regard for the rights, character and feelings of
those whose skin is colored like his own. As proof of this, we copy
from the number of the paper containing the foregoing advertisement,
the following _Editorial_ on the pending political canvass.

"We cannot refrain from expressing the hope that the Gubernatorial
canvass will be conducted with a _due regard to the character_, and
_feelings_ of the distinguished individuals who are candidates for
that office; and that the press of North Carolina will _set an
example_ in this respect, worthy of _imitation and of praise_."

What is this but chivalrous and honorable feeling? The good name of
North Carolina is dear to him--on the comfort, 'character and
feelings,' of her _white_ citizens he sets a high value; he feels too,
most deeply for the _character of the Press_ of North Carolina, sees
that it is a city set on a hill, and implores his brethren of the
editorial corps to 'set an example' of courtesy and magnanimity worthy
of imitation and praise. Now, reader, put all these things together
and con them over, and then read again the preceding advertisement
contained in the same number of the paper, and you have the true
"North Carolina STANDARD," by which to measure the protection extended
to slaves by the 'public opinion' of that state.

J.P. Ashford advertises as follows in the "Natchez Courier," August
24, 1838.

"Ranaway, a negro girl called Mary, has a small scar over her eye, a
_good many teeth missing_, the letter A. _is branded on her cheek and
forehead_."

A.B. Metcalf thus advertises a woman in the same paper, June 15,
1838.

"Ranaway, Mary, a black woman, has a _scar_ on her back and right arm
near the shoulder, _caused by a rifle ball_."

John Henderson, in the "Grand Gulf Advertiser," August 29, 1838,
advertises Betsey.

"Ranaway, a black woman Betsey, has an _iron bar on her right leg_."

Robert Nicoll, whose residence is in Mobile, in Dauphin street,
between Emmanuel and Conception streets, thus advertises a woman in
the "Mobile Commercial Advertiser."

"TEN DOLLARS REWARD will be given for my negro woman Liby. The said
Liby is about 30 years old and VERY MUCH SCARRED ABOUT THE NECK AND
EARS, occasioned by whipping, had on a handkerchief tied round her
ears, as she COMMONLY wears it to HIDE THE SCARS."

To show that slaveholding brutality now is the same that it was the
eighth of a century ago, we publish the following advertisement from
the "Charleston (S.C.) Courier," of 1825.

"TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD.--Ranaway from the subscriber, on the 14th
instant, a negro girl named Molly.

"The said girl was sold by Messrs. Wm. Payne & Sons, as the property
of an estate of a Mr. Gearrall, and purchased by a Mr. Moses, and sold
by him to a Thomas Prisley, of Edgefield District, of whom I bought
her on the 17th of April, 1819. She is 16 or 17 years of age, slim
made, LATELY BRANDED ON THE LEFT CHEEK, THUS, R, AND A PIECE TAKEN OFF
OF HER EAR ON THE SAME SIDE; THE SAME LETTER ON THE INSIDE OF BOTH HER
LEGS.

"ABNER ROSS, Fairfield District."

But instead of filling pages with similar advertisements, illustrating
the horrible brutality of slaveholders towards their slaves, the
reader is referred to the preceding pages of this work, to the scores
of advertisements written by slaveholders, printed by slaveholders,
published by slaveholders, in newspapers edited by slaveholders and
patronized by slaveholders; advertisement describing not only men and
boys, but women aged and middle-aged, matrons and girls of tender
years, their necks chafed with iron collars with prongs, their limbs
galled with iron rings and chains, and bars of iron, iron hobbles and
shackles, all parts of their persons scarred with the lash, and
branded with hot irons, and torn with rifle bullets, pistol balls and
buck shot, and gashed with knives, their eyes out, their ears cut off,
their teeth drawn out, and their bones broken. He is referred also to
the cool and shocking indifference with which these slaveholders,
'gentlemen' and 'ladies,' Reverends, and Honorables, and Excellencies,
write and print, and publish and pay, and take money for, and read and
circulate, and sanction, such infernal barbarity. Let the reader
ponder all this, and then lay it to heart, that this is that 'public
opinion' of the slaveholders which protects their slaves from all
injury, and is an effectual guarantee of personal security.

However far gone a community may be in brutality, something of
protection may yet be hoped for from its 'public opinion,' if _respect
for woman_ survive the general wreck; that gone, protection perishes;
public opinion becomes universal rapine; outrages, once occasional,
become habitual; the torture, which was before inflicted only by
passion, becomes the constant product of a _system_, and, instead of
being the index of sudden and fierce impulses, is coolly plied as the
permanent means to an end. When _women_ are branded with hot irons on
their faces; when iron collars, with prongs, are riveted about their
necks; when iron rings are fastened upon their limbs, and they are
forced to drag after them chains and fetters; when their flesh is torn
with whips, and mangled with bullets and shot, and lacerated with
knives; and when those who do such things, are regarded in the
community, and associated with as 'gentlemen' and 'ladies;' to say
that the 'public opinion' of _such_ a community is a protection to its
victims, is to blaspheme God, whose creatures they are, cast in his
own sacred image, and dear to him as the apple of his eye.

But we are not yet quite ready to dismiss this protector, 'Public
Opinion.' To illustrate the hardened brutality with which slaveholders
regard their slaves, the shameless and apparently unconscious
indecency with which they speak of their female slaves, examine their
persons, and describe them, under their own signatures, in newspapers,
hand-bills, &c. just as they would describe the marks of cattle and
swine, on all parts of their bodies; we will make a few extracts from
southern papers. Reader, as we proceed to these extracts, remember our
motto--'True humanity consists _not_ in a squeamish ear.'

Mr. P. ABDIE, of New Orleans, advertises in the New Orleans Bee, of
January 29, 1838, for one of his female slaves, as follows;

"Ranaway, the negro wench named Betsey, aged about 22 years,
handsome-faced, and good countenance; having the marks of the whip
behind her neck, and SEVERAL OTHERS ON HER RUMP. The above reward,
($10,) will be given to whoever will bring that wench to P. ABDIE."

The New Orleans Bee, in which the advertisement of this Vandal
appears, is the 'Official Gazette of the State--of the General
Council--and of the first and third Municipalities of New Orleans.' It
is the largest, and the most influential paper in the south-western
states, and perhaps the most ably edited--and has undoubtedly a larger
circulation than any other. It is a daily paper, of $12 a year, and
its circulation being mainly among the larger merchants, planters, and
professional men, it is a fair index of the 'public opinion' of
Louisiana, so far as represented by those classes of persons.
Advertisements equally gross, indecent, and abominable, or nearly so,
can be found in almost every number of that paper.

Mr. WILLIAM ROBINSON, Georgetown, District of Columbia, advertised for
his slave in the National Intelligencer, of Washington City, Oct. 2,
1837, as follows:

"Eloped from my residence a young negress, 22 years old, of a
chestnut, or brown color. She has a very singular mark--this mark, to
the best of my RECOLLECTION, covers a part of her _breasts_, _body_,
and _limbs_; and when her neck and arms are uncovered, is very
perceptible; she has been frequently seen east and south of the
Capitol Square, and is harbored by ill-disposed persons, of every
complexion, for her services."

Mr. JOHN C. BEASLEY, near Huntsville, Alabama, thus advertises a young
girl of eighteen, in the Huntsville Democrat, of August 1st, 1837.
"Ranaway Maria, about 18 years old, _very far advanced with child._"
He then offers a reward to any one who will commit this young girl, in
this condition, _to jail_.

Mr. JAMES T. DE JARNETT, Vernon, Autauga co. Alabama, thus advertises
a woman in the Pensacola Gazette, July 14, 1838. "Celia is a _bright_
copper-colored negress, _fine figure_ and _very smart_. On EXAMINING
HER BACK, you will find marks caused by the whip." He closes the
advertisement, by offering a reward of _five hundred dollars_ to any
person who will lodge her in _jail_, so that he can get her.

A person who lives at 124 Chartres street, New Orleans, advertises in
the 'Bee,' of May 31, for "the negress Patience, about 28 years old,
has _large hips_, and is _bow-legged_." A Mr. T. CUGGY, in the same
paper, thus describes "the negress Caroline." "_She has awkward feet,
clumsy ankles, turns out her toes greatly in walking, and has a sore
on her left shin_."

In another, of June 22, Mr. P. BAHI advertises "Maria, with a clear
white complexion, and _double nipple on her right breast_."

Mr. CHARLES CRAIGE, of Federal Point, New Hanover co. North Carolina,
in the Wilmington Advertiser, August 11, 1837, offers a reward for his
slave Jane, and says "_she is far advanced in pregnancy_."

The New Orleans Bulletin, August 18, 1838, advertises "the negress
Mary, aged nineteen, has a scar on her face, walks parrot-toed, and is
_pregnant_."

Mr. J.G. MUIR, of Grand Gulf, Mississippi, thus advertises a woman in
the Vicksburg Register, December 5, 1838. "Ranaway a negro girl--has a
number of _black lumps on her breasts, and is in a state of
pregnancy_."

Mr. JACOB BESSON, Donaldsonville, Louisiana, advertises in the New
Orleans Bee, August 7, 1838, "the negro woman Victorine--she is
_advanced in pregnancy_."

Mr. J.H. LEVERICH & Co. No. 10, Old Levee, New Orleans, advertises in
the 'Bulletin,' January 22, 1839, as follows.

"$50 REWARD.--Ranaway a negro girl named Caroline about 18 years of
age, is _far advanced in child-bearing_. The above reward will be paid
for her delivery at either of the _jails_ of the city."

Mr. JOHN DUGGAN, thus advertises a woman in the New Orleans Bee, of
Sept. 7.

"Ranaway from the subscriber a mulatto woman, named Esther, about
thirty years of age, _large stomach_, wants her upper front teeth, and
walks pigeon-toed--supposed to be about the lower fauxbourg."

Mr. FRANCIS FOSTER, of Troop co. Georgia, advertises in the Columbus
(Ga.) Enquirer of June 22, 1837--"My negro woman Patsey, has a stoop
in her walking, occasioned by a _severe burn on her abdomen_."

The above are a few specimens of the gross details, in describing the
persons of females, of all ages, and the marks upon all parts of their
bodies; proving incontestably, that slaveholders are in the habit not
only of stripping their female slaves of their clothing, and
inflicting punishment upon their 'shrinking flesh,' but of subjecting
their naked persons to the most minute and revolting inspection, and
then of publishing to the world the results of their examination, as
well as the scars left by their own inflictions upon them, their
length, size, and exact position on the body; and all this without
impairing in the least, the standing in the community of the shameless
wretches who thus proclaim their own abominations. That such things
should not at all affect the standing of such persons in society, is
certainly no marvel: how could they affect it, when the same
communities enact laws _requiring_ their own legal officers to inspect
minutely the persons and bodily marks of all slaves taken up as
runaways, and to publish in the newspapers a particular description of
all such marks and peculiarities of their persons, their size,
appearance position on the body, &c. Yea, verily, when the 'public
opinion' of the community, in the solemn form of law, commands
jailors, sheriffs, captains of police, &c. to divest of their clothing
aged matrons and young girls, minutely examine their naked persons,
and publish the results of their examination--who can marvel, that the
same 'public opinion' should tolerate the slaveholders themselves, in
doing the same things to their own property, which they have appointed
legal officers to do as their proxies.[37]

[Footnote 37: 'As a sample of these laws, we give the following extract
from one of the laws of Maryland, where slaveholding 'public opinion'
exists in its mildest form.'

"It shall be the duty of the sheriffs of the several counties of this
state, upon any runaway servant or slave being committed to his
custody, to cause the same to be advertised, &c. and to make
particular and minute descriptions of _the person and bodily marks_,
of such runaway."--_Laws of Maryland of 1802_, Chap. 96, Sec. 1 and 2.

That the sheriffs, jailors, &c. do not neglect this part of their
official 'duty,' is plain from the minute description which they give
in the advertisements of marks upon all parts of the persons of
females, as well as males; and also from the occasional declaration,
'no scars discoverable on any part,' or 'no marks discoverable _about_
her;' which last is taken from an advertisement in the Milledgeville
(Geo.) Journal, June 26, 1838, signed 'T.S. Denster, Jailor.']


The zeal with which slaveholding '_public opinion_' protects the lives
of the slaves, may be illustrated by the following advertisements,
taken from a multitude of similar ones in southern papers. To show
that slaveholding 'public opinion' is the same _now_, that it was half
a century ago, we will insert, in the first place, an advertisement
published in a North Carolina newspaper, Oct. 29, 1785, by W. SKINNER,
the Clerk of the County of Perquimons, North Carolina.

"Ten silver dollars reward will be paid for apprehending and
delivering to me my man Moses, who ran away this morning; or I will
give five times the sum to any person who will make due proof of his
_being killed_, and never ask a question to know by whom it was done."

W. SKINNER.

_Perquimons County, N.C. Oct. 29, 1785._


The late JOHN PARRISH, of Philadelphia, an eminent minister of the
religious society of Friends, who traveled through the slave states
about _thirty-five years_ since, on a religious mission, published on
his return a pamphlet of forty pages, entitled 'Remarks on the Slavery
of the Black People.' From this work we extract the following
illustrations of 'public opinion' in North and South Carolina and
Virginia at that period.

"When I was traveling through North Carolina, a black man, who was
outlawed, being shot by one of his pursuers, and left wounded in the
woods, they came to an ordinary where I had stopped to feed my horse,
in order to procure a cart to bring the poor wretched object in.
Another, I was credibly informed, was shot, his head cut off, and
carried in a bag by the perpetrators of the murder, who received the
reward, which was said to be $200, continental currency, and that his
head was stuck on a coal house at an iron works in Virginia--and this
for going to visit his wife at a distance. Crawford gives an account
of a man being gibbetted alive in South Carolina, and the buzzards
came and picked out his eyes. Another was burnt to death at a stake in
Charleston, surrounded by a multitude of spectators, some of whom were
people of the _first rank_; ... the poor object was heard to cry, as
long as he could breathe, 'not guilty--not guilty.'"

The following is an illustration of the 'public opinion' of South
Carolina about fifty years ago. It is taken from Judge Stroud's Sketch
of the Slave Laws, page 39.

"I find in the case of 'the State vs. M'Gee,' I Bay's Reports, 164, it
is said incidentally by Messrs. Pinckney and Ford, counsel for the
state (of S.C.), 'that the _frequency_ of the offence (_wilful_ murder
of a slave) was owing to the _nature of the punishment_', &c.... This
remark was made in 1791, when the above trial took place. It was made
in a public place--a courthouse--and by men of great personal
respectability. There can be, therefore, no question as to its
_truth_, and as little of its _notoriety_."

In 1791 the Grand Jury for the district of Cheraw, S.C. made a
_presentment_, from which the following is an extract.

"We, the Grand Jurors of and for the district of Cheraw, do present
the INEFFICACY of the present punishment for killing negroes, as a
great defect in the legal system of this state: and we do earnestly
recommend to the attention of the legislature, that clause of the
negro act, which confines the penalty for killing slaves to fine and
imprisonment only: in full confidence, that they will provide some
other _more effectual_ measures to prevent the FREQUENCY of crimes of
this nature."--_Matthew Carey's American Museum, for Feb.
1791_.--Appendix, p. 10.

The following is a specimen of the 'public opinion' of Georgia twelve
years since. We give it in the strong words of COLONEL STONE, Editor
of the New York Commercial Advertiser. We take it from that paper of
June 8, 1827.

"HUNTING MEN WITH DOGS.-A negro who had absconded from his master, and
for whom a reward of $100 was offered, has been apprehended and
committed to prison in Savannah. The editor, who states the fact,
adds, with as much coolness as though there were no barbarity in the
matter, that he did not surrender till _he was considerably_ MAIMED BY
THE DOGS that had been set on him--desperately fighting them--one of
which he badly cut with a sword."

Twelve days after the publication of the preceding fact, the following
horrible transaction took place in Perry county, Alabama. We extract
it from the African Observer, a monthly periodical, published in
Philadelphia, by the society of Friends. See No. for August, 1827.

"Tuscaloosa, Ala. June 20, 1827.

"Some time during the last week a Mr. M'Neilly having lost some
clothing, or other property of no great value, the slave of a
neighboring planter was charged with the theft. M'Neilly, in company
with his brother, found the negro driving his master's wagon; they
seized him, and either did, or were about to chastise him, when the
negro stabbed M'Neilly, so that he died in an hour afterwards. The
negro was taken before a justice of the peace, who _waved his
authority_, perhaps through fear, as a crowd of persons had collected
to the number of seventy or eighty, near Mr. People's (the justice)
house. _He acted as president of the mob,_ and put the vote, when it
was decided he should be immediately executed by _being burnt to
death_. The sable culprit was led to a tree, and tied to it, and a
large quantity of pine knots collected and placed around him, and the
fatal torch applied to the pile, even against the remonstrances of
several gentlemen who were present; and the miserable being was in a
short time burned to ashes.

"This is the SECOND negro who has been THUS put to death, without
judge or jury, in this county."


The following advertisements, testimony, &c. will show that the
slaveholders of _to-day_ are the _children_ of those who shot, and
hunted with bloodhounds, and burned over slow fires, the slaves of
half a century ago; the worthy inheritors of their civilization,
chivalry, and tender mercies.

The "Wilmington (North Carolina) Advertiser" of July 13, 1838,
contains the following advertisement.

"$100 will be paid to any person who may apprehend and safely confine
in any jail in this state, a certain negro man, named ALFRED. And the
same reward will be paid, if satisfactory evidence is given of _having
been_ KILLED. He has one or more scars on one of his hands, caused by
his having been shot.

"THE CITIZENS OF ONSLOW.

"Richlands, Onslow co. May 16th, 1838."


In the same column with the above and directly under it is the
following:--

"RANAWAY my negro man RICHARD. A reward of $25 will be paid for his
apprehension DEAD or ALIVE. Satisfactory proof will only be required
of his being KILLED. He has with him, in all probability, his wife
ELIZA, who ran away from Col. Thompson, now a resident of Alabama,
about the time he commenced his journey to that state. DURANT H.
RHODES."


In the "Mason (Georgia) Telegraph," May 28, is the following:

"About the 1st of March last the negro man RANSOM left me without the
least provocation whatever; I will give a reward of twenty dollars for
said negro, if taken DEAD OR ALIVE,--and if killed in any attempt, an
advance of five dollars will be paid. BRYANT JOHNSON.

"_Crawford co. Georgia_"


See the "Newbern (N.C.) Spectator," Jan. 5, 1838, for the
following:--

"RANAWAY, from the subscriber, a negro man named SAMPSON. Fifty
dollars reward will be given for the delivery of him to me, or his
confinement in any jail so that I get him, and should he resist in
being taken, so that violence is necessary to arrest him, I will not
hold any person liable for damages should the slave be KILLED. ENOCH
FOY.

"Jones County, N.C."


From the "Macon (Ga.) Messenger," June 14, 1838.

"TO THE OWNERS OF RUNAWAY NEGROES. A large mulatto Negro man, between
thirty-five and forty years old, about six feet in height, having a
high forehead, and hair slightly grey, was KILLED, near my plantation,
on the 9th inst. _He would not surrender_ but assaulted Mr. Bowen, who
killed him in self-defence. If the owner desires further information
relative to the death of his negro, he can obtain it by letter, or by
calling on the subscriber ten miles south of Perry, Houston county.
EDM'D. JAS. McGEHEE."

From the 'Charleston (S.C.) Courier,' Feb. 20, 1836.

"$300 REWARD. Ranaway from the subscriber, in November last, his two
negro men, named Billy and Pompey.

"Billy is 25 years old, and is known as the patroon of my boat for
many years; in all probability he may resist; in that event 50 dollars
will be paid for his HEAD."

From the 'Newbern (N.C.) Spectator,' Dec 2. 1836.

"$200 REWARD. Ranaway from the subscriber, about three years ago, a
certain negro man named Ben, commonly known by the name of Ben Fox. He
had but one eye. Also, one other negro, by the name of Rigdon, who
ranaway on the 8th of this month.

"I will give the reward of one hundred dollars for each of the above
negroes, to be delivered to me or confined in the jail of Lenoir or
Jones county, or FOR THE KILLING OF THEM, SO THAT I CAN SEE THEM. W.D.
COBB."

In the same number of the Spectator two Justices of the Peace
advertise the same runaways, and give notice that if they do not
immediately return to W.D. Cobb, their master, they will be considered
as outlaws, and any body may kill them. The following is an extract
from the proclamation of the JUSTICES.

"And we do hereby, by virtue of an act of the assembly of this state,
concerning servants and slaves, intimate and declare, if the said
slaves do not surrender themselves and return home to their master
immediately after the publication of these presents, _that any person
may kill and destroy said slaves by such means as he or they think
fit, without accusation or impeachment of any crime or offence for so
doing, or without incurring any penalty or forfeiture thereby._

"Given under our hands and seals, this 12th November, 1836.

"B. COLEMAN, J.P. [Seal.]

"JAS. JONES, J.P. [Seal.]"

On the 28th, of April 1836, in the city of St Louis, Missouri, a black
man, named McIntosh who had stabbed an officer, that had arrested him,
was seized by the multitude, fastened to a tree _in the midst of the
city_, wood piled around him, and in open day and in the presence of
an immense throng of citizens, he was burned to death. The Alton
(Ill.) Telegraph, in its account of the scene says;

"All was silent as death while the executioners were piling wood
around their victim. He said not a word, until feeling that the flames
had seized upon him. He then uttered an awful howl, attempting to sing
and pray, then hung his head, and suffered in silence, except in the
following instance:--After the flames had surrounded their prey, his
eyes burnt out of his head, and his mouth seemingly parched to a
cinder, some one in the crowd, more compassionate than the rest,
proposed to put an end to his misery by shooting him, when it was
replied, 'that would be of no use, since he was already out of pain.'
'No, no,' said the wretch, 'I am not, I am suffering as much as ever;
shoot me, shoot me.' 'No, no,' said one of the fiends who was standing
about the sacrifice they were roasting, 'he shall not be shot. _I
would sooner slacken the fire, if that would increase his misery_;'
and the man who said this was, as we understand, an OFFICER OF
JUSTICE!"


The St. Louis correspondent of a New York paper adds,

"The shrieks and groans of the victim were loud and piercing, and to
observe one limb after another drop into the fire was awful indeed. He
was about fifteen minutes in dying. I visited the place this morning,
and saw his body, or the remains of it, at the place of execution. He
was burnt to a crump. His legs and arms were gone, and only a part of
his head and body were left."

Lest this demonstration of 'public opinion' should be regarded as a
sudden impulse merely, not an index of the settled tone of feeling in
that community, it is important to add, that the Hon. Luke E. Lawless,
Judge of the Circuit Court of Missouri, at a session of that Court in
the city of St. Louis, some months after the burning of this man,
decided officially that since the burning of McIntosh was the act,
either directly or by countenance of a _majority_ of the citizens, it
is 'a case which transcends the jurisdiction,' of the Grand Jury! Thus
the state of Missouri has proclaimed to the world, that the wretches
who perpetrated that unspeakably diabolical murder, and the thousands
that stood by consenting to it, were _her representatives_, and the
Bench sanctifies it with the solemnity of a judicial decision.

The 'New Orleans Post,' of June 7, 1836, publishes the following;

"We understand, that a negro man was lately condemned, by the mob, to
be BURNED OVER A SLOW FIRE, which was put into execution at Grand
Gulf, Mississippi, for murdering a black woman, and her master."

Mr. HENRY BRADLEY, of Pennyan, N.Y., has furnished us with an extract
of a letter written by a gentleman in Mississippi to his brother in
that village, detailing the particulars of the preceding transaction.
The letter is dated Grand Gulf, Miss. August 15, 1836. The extract is
as follows:

"I left Vicksburg and came to Grand Gulf. This is a fine place
immediately on the banks of the Mississippi, of something like fifteen
hundred inhabitants in the winter, and at this time, I suppose, there
are not over two hundred white inhabitants, but in the town and its
vicinity there are negroes by thousands. The day I arrived at this
place there was a man by the name of G---- murdered by a negro man
that belonged to him. G---- was born and brought up in A----, state of
New York. His father and mother now live south of A----. He has left a
property here, it is supposed, of forty thousand dollars, and no
family.

"They took the negro, mounted him on a horse, led the horse under a
tree, put a rope around his neck, raised him up by throwing the rope
over a limb; they then got into a quarrel among themselves; some swore
that he should be burnt alive; the rope was cut and the negro dropped
to the ground. He immediately jumped to his feet; they then made him
walk a short distance to a tree; he was then tied fast and a fire
kindled, when another quarrel took place; the fire was pulled away
from him when about half dead, and a committee of twelve appointed to
say in what manner he should be disposed of. They brought in that he
should then be cut down, his head cut off, his body burned, and his
head stuck on a pole at the corner of the road in the edge of the
town. That was done and all parties satisfied!

"G---- _owned the negro's wife, and was in the habit of sleeping with
her!_ The negro said he had killed him, and he believed he should be
rewarded in heaven for it.

"This is but one instance among many of a similar nature.

S.S."

We have received a more detailed account of this transaction from Mr.
William Armstrong, of Putnam, Ohio, through Maj. Horace Nye, of that
place. Mr. A. who has been for some years employed as captain and
supercargo of boats descending the river, was at Grand Gulf at the
time of the tragedy, and _witnessed_ it. It was on the Sabbath.
From Mr. Armstrong's statement, it appears that the slave was
a man of uncommon intelligence; had the over-sight of a large
business--superintended the purchase of supplies for his master,
&c.--that exasperated by the intercourse of his master with his wife,
he was upbraiding her one evening, when his master overhearing him,
went out to quell him, was attacked by the infuriated man and killed
on the spot. The name of the master was Green; he was a native of
Auburn, New York, and had been at the south but a few years.

Mr. EZEKIEL BIRDSEYE, of Cornwall, Conn., a gentleman well known and
highly respected in Litchfield county, who resided a number of years
in South Carolina, gives the following testimony:--

"A man by the name of Waters was killed by his slaves, in Newberry
District. Three of them were tried before the court, and ordered to be
burnt. I was but a few miles distant at the time, and conversed with
those who saw the execution. The slaves were tied to a stake, and
pitch pine wood piled around them, to which the fire was communicated.
Thousands were collected to witness this barbarous transaction. _Other
executions of this kind took place in various parts of the state,
during my residence in it, from 1818 to 1824_. About three or four
years ago, a young negro was burnt in Abbeville District, for an
attempt at rape."

In the fall of 1837, there was a rumor of a projected insurrection on
the Red River, in Louisiana. The citizens forthwith seized and hanged
NINE SLAVES, AND THREE FREE COLORED MEN, WITHOUT TRIAL. A few months
previous to that transaction, a slave was seized in a similar manner
and publicly burned to death, in Arkansas. In July, 1835, the citizens
of Madison county, Mississippi, were alarmed by rumors of an
insurrection arrested five slaves and publicly executed them without
trial.

The Missouri Republican, April 30, 1838, gives the particulars of the
deliberate murder of a negro man named Tom, a cook on board the
steamboat Pawnee, on her passage up from New Orleans to St. Louis.
Some of the facts stated by the Republican are the following:

"On Friday night, about 10 o'clock, a deaf and dumb German girl was
found in the storeroom with Tom. The door was locked, and at first Tom
denied she was there. The girl's father came. Tom unlocked the door,
and the girl was found secreted in the room behind a barrel. The next
morning some four or five of the deck passengers spoke to the captain
about it. This was about breakfast time. Immediately after he left the
deck, a number of the deck passengers rushed upon the negro, bound his
arms behind his back and carried him forward to the bow of the boat. A
voice cried out 'throw him overboard,' and was responded to from every
quarter of the deck--and in an instant he was plunged into the river.
The whole scene of tying him and throwing him overboard scarcely
occupied _ten minutes_, and was so precipitate that the officers were
unable to interfere in time to save him.

"There were between two hundred and fifty and three hundred passengers
on board."

The whole process of seizing Tom, dragging him upon deck, binding his
arms behind his back, forcing him to the bow of the boat, and throwing
him overboard, occupied, the editor informs us, about TEN MINUTES, and
of the two hundred and fifty or three hundred deck passengers, with
perhaps as many cabin passengers, it does not appear that _a single
individual raised a finger to prevent this deliberate murder_; and the
cry "throw him overboard," was it seems, "responded to from every
quarter of the deck!"

Rev. JAMES A. THOME, of Augusta, Ky., son of Arthur Thome, Esq., till
recently a slaveholder, published five years since the following
description of a scene witnessed by him in New Orleans:

"In December of 1833, I landed at New Orleans, in the steamer W----.
It was after night, dark and rainy. The passengers were called out of
the cabin, from the enjoyment of a fire, which the cold, damp
atmosphere rendered very comfortable, by a sudden shout of, 'catch
him--catch him--catch the negro.' The cry was answered by a hundred
voices--'Catch him--_kill_ him,' and a rush from every direction
toward our boat, indicated that the object of pursuit was near. The
next moment we heard a man plunge into the river, a few paces above
us. A crowd gathered upon the shore, with lamps and stones, and clubs,
still crying, 'catch him--kill him--catch him--shoot him.'

"I soon discovered the poor man. He had taken refuge under the prow of
another boat, and was standing in the water up to his waist. The
angry vociferation of his pursuers, did not intimidate him. He defied
them all. 'Don't you _dare_ to come near me, or I will sink you in the
river.' He was armed with despair. For a moment the mob was palsied by
the energy of his threatenings. They were afraid to go to him with a
skiff, but a number of them went on to the boat and tried to seize
him. They threw a noose rope down repeatedly, _that they might pull
him up by the neck_! but he planted his hand firmly against the boat
and dashed the rope away with his arms. One of them took a long bar of
wood, and leaning over the prow, endeavored to strike him on the head,
The blow must have shattered the skull, but it did not reach low
enough. The monster raised up the heavy club again and said, 'Come out
now, you old rascal, or die.' 'Strike,' said the negro;
'strike--shiver my brains _now_; I want to die;' and down went the
club again, without striking. This was repeated several times. The
mob, seeing their efforts fruitless, became more enraged and
threatened to stone him, if he did not surrender himself into their
hands. He again defied them, and declared that he would drown himself
in the river, before they should have him. They then resorted to
persuasion, and promised they would not hurt him. 'I'll die first;'
was his only reply. Even the furious mob was awed, and for a while
stood dumb.

"After standing in the cold water for an hour, the miserable being
began to fail. We observed him gradually sinking--his voice grew weak
and tremulous--yet he continued to _curse_! In the midst of his oaths
he uttered broken sentences--'I did'nt steal the meat--I did'nt
steal--my master lives--master--master lives up the river--(his voice
began to gurgle in his throat, and he was so chilled that his teeth
chattered audibly)--I did'nt--steal--I did'nt steal--my--my
master--my--I want to see my master--I didn't--no--my mas--you
want--you want to kill me--I didn't steal the'--His last words could
just be heard as be sunk under the water.

"During this indescribable scene, _not one of the hundred that stood
around made any effort to save the man until he was apparently
drowned_. He was then dragged out and stretched on the bow of the
boat, and soon sufficient means were used for his recovery. The brutal
captain ordered him to be taken off his boat--declaring, with an oath,
that he would throw him into the river again, if he was not
immediately removed. I withdrew, sick and horrified with this
appalling exhibition of wickedness.

"Upon inquiry, I learned that the colored man lived some fifty miles
up the Mississippi; that he had been charged with stealing some
article from the wharf; was fired upon with a pistol, and pursued by
the mob.

"In reflecting upon this unmingled cruelty--this insensibility to
suffering and disregard of life--I exclaimed,


'Is there no flesh in man's obdurate heart?'


"One poor man, chased like a wolf by a hundred blood hounds, yelling,
howling, and gnashing their teeth upon him--plunges into the cold
river to seek protection! A crowd of spectators witness the scene,
with all the composure with which a Roman populace would look upon a
gladiatorial show. Not a voice heard in the sufferer's behalf. At
length the powers of nature give way; the blood flows back to the
heart--the teeth chatter--the voice trembles and dies, while the
victim drops down into his grave.

"What an atrocious system is that which leaves two millions of souls,
friendless and powerless--hunted and chased--afflicted and tortured
and driven to death, without the means of redress.--Yet such is the
system of slavery."

The 'public opinion' of slaveholders is illustrated by scores of
announcements in southern papers, like the following, from the
Raleigh, (N.C.) Register, August 20, 1838. Joseph Gale and Son,
editors and proprietors--the father and brother of the editor of the
National Intelligence, Washington city, D.C.

"On Saturday night, Mr. George Holmes, of this county, and some of his
friends, were in pursuit of a runaway slave (the property of Mr.
Holmes) and fell in with him in attempting to make his escape. Mr. H.
discharged a gun at his legs, for the purpose of disabling him; but
unfortunately, the slave stumbled, and the shot struck him near the
small of the back, of which wound he died in a short time. The slave
continued to run some distance after he was shot, until overtaken by
one of the party. We are satisfied, from all that we can learn, that
Mr. H. had no intention of inflicting a mortal wound."

Oh! the _gentleman_, it seems, only shot at his legs, merely to
'disable'--and it must be expected that every _gentleman_ will amuse
himself in shooting at his own property whenever the notion takes him,
and if he should happen to hit a little higher and go through the
small of the back instead of the legs, why every body says it is
'unfortunate,' and the whole of the editorial corps, instead of
branding him as a barbarous wretch for shooting at his slave, whatever
part be aimed at, join with the oldest editor in North Carolina, in
complacently exonerating Mr. Holmes by saying, "We are satisfied that
Mr. H. had no intention of inflicting a mortal wound." And so 'public
opinion' wraps it up!

The Franklin (La.) Republican, August 19, 1837, has the following:

"NEGROES TAKEN.--Four gentlemen of this vicinity, went out yesterday
for the purpose of finding the camp of some noted runaways, supposed
to be near this place; the camp was discovered about 11 o'clock, the
negroes four in number, three men and one woman, finding they were
discovered, tried to make their escape through the cane; two of them
were fired on, one of which made his escape; the other one fell after
running a short distance, his wounds are not supposed to be dangerous;
the other man was taken without any hurt; the woman also made her
escape."

Thus terminated the mornings amusement of the '_four gentlemen_,'
whose exploits are so complacently chronicled by the editor of the
Franklin Republican. The three men and one woman were all fired upon,
it seems, though only one of them was shot down. The half famished
runaways made not the least resistance, they merely rushed in panic
among the canes, at the sight of their pursuers, and the bullets
whistled after them and brought to the ground one poor fellow, who was
carried back by his captors as a trophy of the 'public opinion' among
slaveholders.

In the Macon (Ga.) Telegraph, Nov. 27, 1838, we find the following
account of a runaway's den, and of the good luck of a 'Mr. Adams,' in
running down one of them 'with his excellent dogs:'

"A runaway's den was discovered on Sunday near the Washington Spring,
in a little patch of woods, where it had been for several months, so
artfully concealed under ground, that it was detected only by
accident, though in sight of two or three houses, and near the road
and fields where there has been constant daily passing. The entrance
was concealed by a pile of pine straw, representing a hog bed--which
being removed, discovered a trap door and steps that led to a room
about six feet square, comfortably ceiled with plank, containing a
small fire-place the flue of which was ingeniously conducted above
ground and concealed by the straw. The inmates took the alarm and made
their escape; but Mr. Adams and his excellent dogs being put upon the
trail, soon run down and secured one of them, which proved to be a
negro fellow who had been out about a year. He stated that the other
occupant was a woman, who had been a runaway a still longer time. In
the den was found a quantity of meal, bacon, corn, potatoes, &c., and
various cooking utensils and wearing apparel."

Yes, Mr. Adams' 'EXCELLENT DOGS' did the work! They were well trained,
swift, fresh, keen-scented, 'excellent' men-hunters, and though the
poor fugitive in his frenzied rush for liberty, strained every muscle,
yet they gained upon him, and after dashing through fens, brier-beds,
and the tangled undergrowth till faint and torn, he sinks, and the
blood-hounds are upon him. What blood-vessels the poor struggler burst
in his desperate push for life--how much he was bruised and lacerated
in his plunge through the forest, or how much the dogs tore him, the
Macon editor has not chronicled--they are matters of no moment--but
his heart is touched with the merits of Mr. Adams' 'EXCELLENT DOGS,'
that 'soon _run down_ and _secured_' a guiltless and trembling human
creature!

The Georgia Constitutionalist, of Jan. 1837, contains the following
letter from the coroner of Barnwell District, South Carolina, dated
Aiken, S.C. Dec. 20, 1836.

"_To the Editor of the Constitutionalist:_

"I have just returned from an inquest I held over the body of a negro
man, a runaway, that was shot near the South Edisto, in this District,
(Barnwell,) on Saturday last. He came to his death by his own
recklessness. He refused to be taken alive--and said that other
attempts to take him had been made, and he was determined that he
would not be taken. He was at first, (when those in pursuit of him
found it absolutely necessary,) shot at with small shot, with the
intention of merely crippling him. He was shot at several times, and
at last he was so disabled as to be compelled to surrender. He kept in
the run of a creek in a very dense swamp all the time that the
neighbors were in pursuit of him. As soon as the negro was taken, the
best medical aid was procured, but he died on the same evening. One of
the witnesses at the Inquisition, stated that the negro boy said he
was from Mississippi, and belonged to so many persons, that he did not
know who his master was, but again he said his master's name was
Brown. He said his name was Sam, and when asked by another witness,
who his master was, he muttered something like Augusta or Augustine.
The boy was apparently above thirty-five or forty years of age, about
six feet high, slightly yellow in the face, very long beard or
whiskers, and very stout built, and a stern countenance; and appeared
to have been a runaway for a long time.

WILLIAM H. PRITCHARD,
_Coroner (Ex-officio,) Barnwell Dist. S.C._"


The Norfolk (Va.) Herald, of Feb. 1837, has the following:

"Three negroes in a ship's yawl, came on shore yesterday evening, near
New Point Comfort, and were soon after apprehended and lodged in jail.
Their story is, that they belonged to a brig from New York bound to
Havana, which was cast away to the southward of Cape Henry, some day
last week; that the brig was called the Maria, Captain Whittemore. I
have no doubt they are deserters from some vessel in the bay, as their
statements are very confused and inconsistent. One of these fellows is
a mulatto, and calls himself Isaac Turner; the other two are quite
black, the one passing by the name of James Jones and the other John
Murray. They have all their clothing with them, and are dressed in
sea-faring apparel. They attempted to make their escape, and _it was
not till a musket was fired at them, and one of them slightly
wounded_, that they surrendered. They will be kept in jail till
something further is discovered respecting them."

The 'St. Francisville (La.) Chronicle,' of Feb. 1, 1839. Gives the
following account of a 'negro hunt,' in that Parish.

"Two or three days since a gentleman of this parish, in _hunting
runaway negroes_, came upon a camp of them in the swamp on Cat Island.
He succeeded in arresting two of them, but the third made fight; and
upon _being shot in the shoulder_, fled to a sluice, where the _dogs
succeeded_ in drowning him before assistance could arrive."

"'The dogs _succeeded_ in drowning him'! Poor fellow! He tried hard for
his life, plunged into the sluice, and, with a bullet in his shoulder,
and the blood hounds unfleshing his bones, he bore up for a moment
with feeble stroke as best he might, but 'public opinion,'
'_succeeded_ in drowning him,' and the same 'public opinion,' calls
the man who fired and crippled him, and cheered on the dogs, 'a
gentleman,' and the editor who celebrates the exploit is a 'gentleman'
also!"

A large number of extracts similar to the above, might here be
inserted from Southern newspapers in our possession, but the foregoing
are more than sufficient for our purpose, and we bring to a close the
testimony on this point, with the following. Extract of a letter, from
the Rev. Samuel J. May, of South Scituate, Mass. dated Dec. 20, 1838.

"You doubtless recollect the narrative given in the Oasis, of a slave
in Georgia, who having ranaway from his master, (accounted a very
hospitable and even humane gentleman,) was hunted by his master and
his retainers with horses, dogs, and rifles, and having been driven
into a tree by the hounds, was shot down by his more cruel pursuers.
All the facts there given, and some others equally shocking, connected
with the same case, were first communicated to me in 1833, by Mr. W.
Russell, a highly respectable teacher of youth in Boston. He is
doubtless ready to vouch for them. The same gentleman informed me that
he was keeping school on or near the plantation of the monster who
perpetrated the above outrage upon humanity, that he was even invited
by him to join in the hunt, and when he expressed abhorrence at the
thought, the planter holding up the rifle which he had in his hand
said with an oath, 'damn that rascal, this is the third time he has
runaway, and he shall never run again. I'd rather put a ball into his
side, than into the best buck in the land.'"

Mr. Russell, in the account given by him of this tragedy in the
'Oasis,' page 267, thus describes the slaveholder who made the above
expression, and was the leader of the 'hunt,' and in whose family he
resided at the time as an instructor he says of him--he was "an
opulent planter, in whose family the evils of slaveholding were
palliated by every expedient that a humane and generous disposition
could suggest. He was a man of noble and elevated character, and
distinguished for his generosity, and kindness of heart."

In a letter to Mr. May, dated Feb. 3, 1839, Mr. Russell, speaking of
the hunting of runaways with dogs and guns, says: "Occurrences of a
nature similar to the one related in the 'Oasis,' were not unfrequent
in the interior of Georgia and South Carolina twenty years ago.
_Several_ such fell under my notice within the space of fifteen
months. In two such 'hunts,' I was solicited to join."

The following was written by a sister-in-law of Gerrit Smith, Esq.,
Peterboro. She is married to the son of a North Carolinian.

"In North Carolina, some years ago, several slaves were arrested for
committing serious crimes and depredations, in the neighborhood of
Wilmington, among other things, burning houses, and, in one or more
instances, murder.

"It happened that the wife of one of these slaves resided in one of
the most respectable families in W. in the capacity of nurse. Mr. J.
_the first lawyer in the place_, came into the room, where the lady of
the house, was sitting, with the nurse, who held a child in her arms,
and, addressing the nurse, said, Hannah! would you know your husband
if you should see him?--Oh, yes, sir, she replied--When HE DREW FROM
BENEATH HIS CLOAK THE HEAD OF THE SLAVE, at the sight of which the
poor woman immediately fainted. The heads of the others were placed
upon poles, in some part of the town, afterwards known as 'Negro Head
Point.'"

We have just received the above testimony, enclosed in a letter from
Mr. Smith, in which he says, "that the fact stated by my
sister-in-law, actually occurred, there can be no doubt."

The following extract from the Diary of the Rev. ELIAS CORNELIUS, we
insert here, having neglected to do it under a preceding head, to
which it more appropriately belongs.

"New Orleans, Sabbath, February 15, 1818. Early this morning
accompanied A.H. Esq. to the _hospital_, with the view of making
arrangements to preach to such of the sick as could understand
English. The first room we entered presented a scene of human misery,
such as I had never before witnessed. A poor negro man was lying upon
a couch, apparently in great distress; a more miserable object can
hardly be conceived. His face was much _disfigured_, an IRON COLLAR,
TWO INCHES WIDE AND HALF AN INCH THICK, WAS CLASPED ABOUT HIS NECK,
while one of his feet and part of the leg were in a state of
putrefaction. We inquired the cause of his being in this distressing
condition, and he answered us in a faltering voice, that he was
willing to tell us all the truth.

"He belonged to Mr. ---- a Frenchman, ran-away, was caught, and
punished with one hundred lashes! This happened about Christmas; and
during the cold weather at that time, he was confined in the
_Cane-house, with a scanty portion of clothing, and without fire_. In
this situation his foot had frozen, and mortified, and having been
removed from place to place, he was yesterday brought here by order of
his new master, who was an American. I had no time to protract my
conversation with him then, but resolved to return in a few hours and
pray with him.

"Having returned home, I again visited the hospital at half past
eleven o'clock, and concluded first of all [he was to preach at 12,]
to pray with the poor lacerated negro. I entered the apartment in
which he lay, and observed an old man sitting upon a couch; but,
without saying anything went up to the bed-side of the negro, who
appeared to be asleep. I spoke to him, but he gave no answer. I spoke
again, and moved his head, still he said nothing. My apprehensions
were immediately excited, and I felt for his pulse, but it was gone.
Said I to the old man, 'surely this negro is dead.' 'No,' he answered,
'he has fallen asleep, for he had a very restless season last night.'
I again examined and called the old gentleman to the bed, and alas, it
was found true, that he was dead. Not an eye had witnessed his last
struggle, and I was the first, as it should happen, to discover the
fact. I called several men into the room, and without ceremony they
wrapped him in a sheet, and carried him to the _dead-house_ as it is
called."--Edwards' Life of Rev. Elias Cornelius, pp. 101, 2, 3.


THE PROTECTION EXTENDED BY 'PUBLIC OPINION,' TO THE HEALTH[38] OF THE
SLAVES.

This may be judged of from the fact that it is perfectly notorious
among slaveholders, both North and South, that of the tens of
thousands of slaves sold annually in the northern slave states to be
transported to the south, large numbers of them die under the severe,
process of acclimation, _all_ suffer more or less, and multitudes
_much_, in their health and strength, during their first years in the
far south and south west. That such is the case is sufficiently proved
by the care taken by all who advertise for sale or hire in Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, &c. to inform the reader, that their
slaves are 'Creoles,' 'southern born,' 'country born,' &c. or if they
are from the north, that they are 'acclimated,' and the importance
attached to their _acclimation_, is shown in the fact, that it is
generally distinguished from the rest of the advertisements either by
_italics_ or CAPITALS. Almost every newspaper published in the states
far south contains advertisements like the following.

[Footnote 38: See pp. 37-39.]


From the "Vicksburg (Mi.) Register," Dec. 27, 1838.

"I OFFER my plantation for sale. Also seventy-five _acclimated
Negroes_. O.B. COBB."

From the "Southerner," June 7, 1837.

"I WILL sell my Old-River plantation near Columbia in Arkansas;--also
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY ACCLIMATED SLAVES.

BENJ. HUGHES."
_Port Gibson, Jan. 14, 1837._


From the "Planters' (La.) Intelligencer," March 22.

"Probate sale--Will be offered for sale at Public Auction, to the
highest bidder, ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY _acclimated_ slaves."

G.W. KEETON.
Judge of the Parish of Concordia"


From the "Arkansas Advocate," May 22, 1837.

"By virtue of a Deed of Trust, executed to me, I will sell at public
auction at Fisher's Prairie, Arkansas, sixty LIKELY NEGROES,
consisting of Men, Women, Boys and Girls, the most of whom are WELL
ACCLIMATED.

GRANDISON D. ROYSTON, _Trustee_."


From the "New Orleans Bee," Feb. 9, 1838.

"VALUABLE ACCLIMATED NEGROES"

"Will be sold on Saturday, 10th inst. at 12 o'clock, at the city
exchange, St. Louis street."

Then follows a description of the slaves, closing with the same
assertion, which forms the caption of the advertisement "ALL
ACCLIMATED."

General Felix Houston, of Natchez, advertises in the "Natchez
Courier," April 6, 1838, "Thirty five very fine _acclimated_ Negroes."

Without inserting more advertisements, suffice it to say, that when
slaves are advertised for sale or hire, in the lower southern country,
if they are _natives_, or have lived in that region long enough to
become acclimated, it is _invariably_ stated.

But we are not left to _conjecture_ the amount of suffering
experienced by slaves from the north in undergoing the severe process
of 'seasoning' to the climate, or '_acclimation_' A writer in the New
Orleans Argus, September, 1830, in an article on the culture of the
sugar cane, says; 'The loss by _death_ in bringing slaves from a
northern climate, which our planters are under the necessity of doing,
is not less than TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT.'

Nothwithstanding the immense amount of suffering endured in the
process of acclimation, and the fearful waste of life, and the
_notoriety_ of this fact, still the 'public opinion' of Virginia,
Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, &c. annually DRIVES to the far
south, thousands of their slaves to undergo these sufferings, and the
'public opinion,' of the far south buys them, and forces the helpless
victims to endure them.


THE 'PROTECTION' VOUCHSAFED BY 'PUBLIC OPINION,' TO LIBERTY.

This is shown by hundreds of advertisements in southern papers, like
the following:

From the "Mobile Register," July 21. 1837. "WILL BE SOLD CHEAP FOR
CASH, in front of the Court House of Mobile County, on the 22d day of
July next, one mulatto man named HENRY HALL, WHO SAYS HE IS FREE; his
owner or owners, _if any_, having failed to demand him, he is to be
sold according to the statute in such cases made and provided, _to pay
Jail fees._

WM. MAGEE, Sh'ff M.C."


From the "Grand Gulf (Miss.) Advertiser," Dec. 7, 1838.

"COMMITTED to the jail of Chickasaw Co. Edmund, Martha, John and
Louisa; the man 50, the woman 35, John 3 years old, and Louisa 14
months. They say they are FREE and were decoyed to this state."


The "Southern Argus," of July 25, 1837, contains the following.

"RANAWAY from my plantation, a negro boy named William. Said boy was
taken up by Thomas Walton, and says _he was free_, and that his
parents live near Shawneetown, Illinois, and that he was _taken_ from
that place in July 1836; says his father's name is William, and his
mother's Sally Brown, and that they moved from Fredericksburg,
Virginia. I will give twenty dollars to any person who will deliver
said boy to me or Col. Byrn, Columbus. SAMUEL H. BYRN"


The first of the following advertisements was a standing one, in the
"Vicksburg Register," from Dec. 1835 till Aug. 1836. The second
advertises the same FREE man for sale.

"SHERIFF'S SALE" "COMMITTED, to the jail of Warren county, as a
Runaway, on the 23d inst. a Negro man, who calls himself John J.
Robinson; _says that he is free_, says that he kept a baker's shop in
Columbus, Miss. and that he peddled through the Chickasaw nation to
Pontotoc, and came to Memphis, where he sold his horse, took water,
and came to this place. The owner of said boy is requested to come
forward, prove property, pay charges, and take him away, or he will be
dealt with as the law directs.

WM. EVERETT, Jailer.
Dec. 24, 1835"

"NOTICE is hereby given, that the above described boy, who calls
himself John J. Robinson, having been confined in the Jail of Warren
county as a Runaway, for six months--and having been regularly
advertised during this period, I shall proceed to sell said Negro boy
at public auction, to the highest bidder for cash, at the door of the
Court House in Vicksburg, on Monday, 1st day of August, 1836, in
pursuance of the statute in such cases made and provided.

E. W. MORRIS, Sheriff.
_Vicksburg, July 2, 1836._"



See "Newborn (N.C.) Spectator," of Jan. 5, 1838, for the following
advertisement.

"RANAWAY, from the subscriber a negro man known as Frank Pilot. He is
five feet eight inches high, dark complexion, and about 50 years old,
_HAS BEEN FREE SINCE_ 1829--is now my property, as heir at law of his
last owner, _Samuel Ralston_, dec. I will give the above reward if he
is taken and confined in any jail so that I can get him.

SAMUEL RALSTON. Pactolus, Pitt County."

From the Tuscaloosa (Ala.) "Flag of the Union," June 7.

"COMMITTED to the jail of Tuscaloosa county, a negro man, who says his
name is Robert Winfield, and _says he is free_.

R.W. BARBER, _Jailer_."

That "public opinion," in the slave states affords no protection to
the liberty of colored persons, even after those persons become
legally free, by the operation of their own laws, is declared by
Governor Comegys, of Delaware, in his recent address to the
Legislature of that state, Jan. 1839. The Governor, commenting upon
the law of the state which provides that persons convicted of certain
crimes shall be sold as servants for a limited time, says,

"_The case is widely different with the negro(!)_ Although ordered to
be disposed of as a servant for a term of years, _perpetual slavery in
the south is his inevitable doom_; unless, peradventure, age or
disease may have rendered him worthless, or some resident of the
State, from motives of _benevolence_, will pay for him three or four
times his intrinsic _value_. It matters not for how short a time he is
ordered to be sold, so that he can be carried from the State. Once
beyond its limits, _all chance of restored freedom is gone_--for he is
removed far from the reach of any testimony to aid him in an effort to
be released from bondage, when his _legal_ term of servitude has
expired. _Of the many colored convicts sold out of the State, it is
believed none ever return_. Of course they are purchased _with the
express view to their transportation for life_, and bring such
enormous prices as to prevent all _competition_ on the part of those
of our citizens who _require_ their services, and _would keep them in
the State_."

From the "Memphis (Ten.) Enquirer," Dec. 28, 1838.

"$50 REWARD. Ranaway, from the subscriber, on Thursday last, a negro
man named Isaac, 22 years old, about 5 feet 10 or 11 inches high, dark
complexion, well made, full face, speaks quick, and very correctly for
a negro. _He was originally from New-York_, and no doubt will attempt
to pass himself as free. I will give the above reward for his
apprehension and delivery, or confinement, so that I obtain him, if
taken out of the state, or $30 if taken within the state.

JNO. SIMPSON. _Memphis, Dec. 28._"

Mark, with what shameless hardihood this JNO. SIMPSON, tells the
public that _he knew_ Isaac Wright was a free man! 'HE WAS ORIGINALLY
FROM NEW YORK,' he tells us. And yet he adds with brazen effrontery,
'_he will attempt to pass himself as free._' This Isaac Wright, was
shipped by a man named Lewis, of New Bedford, Massachusetts, and sold
as a slave in New Orleans. After passing through several hands, and
being flogged nearly to death, he made his escape, and five days ago,
(March 5,) returned to his friends in Philadelphia.

From the "Baltimore Sun," Dec. 23, 1838.

"FREE NEGROES--Merry Ewall, a FREE NEGRO, from Virginia, was committed
to jail, at Snow Hill, Md. last week, for remaining in the State
longer than is allowed by the law of 1831. The fine in his case
amounts to $225. Capril Purnell, a negro from Delaware, is now in jail
in the same place, for a violation of the same act. His fine amounts
to FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS, and he WILL BE SOLD IN A SHORT TIME."

The following is the decision of the Supreme Court, of Louisiana, in
the case of Gomez _vs_. Bonneval, Martin's La. Reports, 656, and
Wheeler's "Law of Slavery," p. 380-1.

_Marginal remark of the Compiler.--"A slave does not become free on
his being illegally imported into the state."_

"_Per Cur. Derbigny_, J. The petitioner is a negro in actual state of
slavery; he claims his freedom, and is bound to prove it. In his
attempt, however, to show that he was free before he was introduced
into this country, he has failed, so that his claim rests entirely on
the laws prohibiting the introduction of slaves in the United States.
That the plaintiff was imported since that prohibition does exist is a
fact sufficiently established by the evidence. What right he has
acquired under the laws forbidding such importation is the only
question which we have to examine. Formerly, while the act dividing
Louisiana into two territories was in force in this country, slaves
introduced here in contravention to it, were freed by operation of
law; but that act was merged in the legislative provisions which were
subsequently enacted on the subject of importation of slaves into the
United States generally. Under the now existing laws, the individuals
thus imported acquire _no personal right_, they are mere passive
beings, who are disposed of _according to the will_ of the different
state legislatures. In this country they are to _remain slaves_, and
TO BE SOLD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE. The plaintiff, therefore, has
nothing to claim as a freeman; and as to a mere change of master,
should such be his wish, _he cannot be listened to in a court of
justice_."

Extract from a speech of Mr. Thomson of Penn. in Congress, March 1,
1826, on the prisons in the District of Columbia.

"I visited the prisons twice that I might myself ascertain the truth.
* * In one of these cells (but eight feet square,) were confined at
that time, seven persons, three women and four children. The children
were confined under a strange system of law in this District, by which
a colored person who _alleges_ HE IS FREE, and appeals to the
tribunals of the country, to have the matter tried, is COMMITTED TO
PRISON, till the decision takes place. They were almost naked--one of
them was sick, lying on the damp brick floor, _without bed, pillow, or
covering_. In this abominable cell, seven human beings were confined
day by day, and night after night, without a bed, chair, or stool, or
any other of the most common necessaries of life."--_Gales'
Congressional Debates_, v.2, p. 1480.

The following facts serve to show, that the present generation of
slaveholders do but follow in the footsteps of their fathers, in their
zeal for LIBERTY.

Extract from a document submitted by the Committee of the yearly
meeting of Friends in Philadelphia, to the Committee of Congress, to
whom was referred the memorial of the people called Quakers, in 1797.

"In the latter part of the year 1776, several of the people called
Quakers, residing in the counties of Perquimans and Pasquotank, in the
state of North Carolina, liberated their negroes, as it was then clear
there was no existing law to prevent their so doing; for the law of
1741 could not at that time be carried into effect; and they were
suffered to remain free, until a law passed, in the spring of 1777,
under which they were taken up and sold, contrary to the Bill of
Rights, recognized in the constitution of that state, as a part
thereof, and to which it was annexed.

"In the spring of 1777, when the General Assembly met for the first
time, a law was enacted to prevent slaves from being emancipated,
except for meritorious services, &c. to be judged of by the county
courts or the general assembly; and ordering, that if any should be
manumitted in any other way, they be taken up, and the county courts
within whose jurisdictions they are apprehended should order them to
be sold. Under this law the county courts of Perquimans and
Pasquotank, in the year 1777, ordered A LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO BE
SOLD, WHO WERE FREE AT THE TIME THE LAW WAS MADE. In the year 1778
several of those cases were, by certiorari, brought before the
superior court for the district of Edentorn, where the decisions of
the county courts were reversed, the superior court declaring, that
said county courts, in such their proceedings, have exceeded their
jurisdiction, violated the rights of the subject, and acted in direct
opposition to the Bill of Rights of this state, considered justly as
part of the constitution thereof; by giving to a law, not intended to
affect this case, a retrospective operation, thereby to deprive free
men of this state of their liberty, contrary to the laws of the land.
In consequence of this decree several of the negroes were again set at
liberty; but the next General Assembly, early in 1779, passed a law,
wherein they mention, that doubts have arisen, whether the purchasers
of such slaves have a good and legal title thereto, and CONFIRM the
same; under which they were again taken up by the purchasers and
reduced to slavery."

[The number of persons thus re-enslaved was 134.]

The following are the decrees of the Courts, ordering the sale of
those freemen:--

"Perquimans County, July term, at Hartford, A.D. 1777.

"These may certify, that it was then and there ordered, that the
sheriff of the county, to-morrow morning, at ten o'clock, expose to
sale, to the highest bidder, for ready money, at the court-house door,
the several negroes taken up as free, and in his custody, agreeable to
law.

"Test. WM. SKINNER, Clerk. "A true copy, 25th August, 1791. "Test. J.
HARVEY, Clerk."

"Pasquotank County, September Court, &c. &c. 1777.

"Present, the Worshipful Thomas Boyd, Timothy Hickson, John Paelin,
Edmund Clancey, Joseph Reading, and Thomas Rees, Esqrs. Justices.

"It was then and there ordered, that Thomas Reading, Esq. take the
FREE negroes taken up under an act to prevent domestic insurrections
and other purposes, and expose the same to _the best bidder_, at
public vendue, for ready money, and be accountable for the same,
agreeable to the aforesaid act; and make return to this or the next
succeeding court of his proceedings.

"A copy. ENOCH REESE, C.C."


THE PROTECTION OF "PUBLIC OPINION" TO DOMESTICS TIES.

The barbarous indifference with which slaveholders regard the forcible
sundering of husbands and wives, parents and children, brothers and
sisters, and the unfeeling brutality indicated by the language in
which they describe the efforts made by the slaves, in their yearnings
after those from whom they have been torn away, reveals a 'public
opinion' towards them as dead to their agony as if they were cattle.
It is well nigh impossible to open a southern paper without finding
evidence of this. Though the truth of this assertion can hardly be
called in question, we subjoin a few illustrations, and could easily
give hundreds.


From the "Savannah Georgian," Jan. 17, 1839. "$100 reward will be
given for my two fellows, Abram and Frank. Abram has a _wife_ at
Colonel Stewart's, in Liberty county, and a _sister_ in Savannah, at
Capt. Grovenstine's. Frank has a _wife_ at Mr. Le Cont's, Liberty
county; a _mother_ at Thunderbolt, and a _sister_ in Savannah.

WM. ROBARTS. Wallhourville, 5th Jan. 1839"


From the "Lexington (Ky.) Intelligencer." July 7, 1838.

"$160 Reward.--Ranaway from the subscribers living in this city, on
Saturday 16th inst. a negro man, named Dick, about 37 years of age. It
is highly probable said boy will make for New Orleans as _he has a
wife_ living in that city, and he has been heard to say frequently
that _he was determined to go to New Orleans_.

"DRAKE C. THOMPSON. "Lexington, June 17, 1838"


From the "Southern Argus," Oct. 31, 1837.

"Runaway--my negro man, Frederick, about 20 years of age. He is no
doubt near the plantation of G.W. Corprew, Esq of Noxubbee County,
Mississippi, as _his wife belongs to that gentleman, and he followed
her from my residence_. The above reward will be paid to any one who
will confine him in jail and inform me of it at Athens, Ala. "Athens,
Alabama. KERKMAN LEWIS."


From the "Savannah Georgian," July 8, 1837.

"Ran away from the subscriber, his man Joe. He visits the city
occasionally, where he has been harbored by his _mother_ and _sister_.
I will give one hundred dollars for proof sufficient to _convict his
harborers_. R.P.T. MONGIN."


The "Macon (Georgia) Messenger," Nov. 23, 1837, has the following:--

"$25 Reward.--Ran away, a negro man, named Cain. He was brought from
Florida, and _has a wife near Mariana_, and probably will attempt to
make his way there. H.L. COOK."


From the "Richmond (Va.) Whig," July 25, 1837.

"Absconded from the subscriber, a negro man, by the name of Wilson. He
was born in the county of New Kent, and raised by a gentleman named
Ratliffe, and by him sold to a gentleman named Taylor, on whose farm
he had a _wife_ and _several children_. Mr. Taylor sold him to a Mr.
Slater, who, in consequence of removing to Alabama, Wilson left; and
when retaken was sold, and afterwards purchased, by his present owner,
from T. McCargo and Co. of Richmond."


From the "Savannah (Ga. ) Republican," Sept. 3, 1838.

"$20 Reward for my negro man Jim.--Jim is about 50 or 55 years of age.
It is probable he will aim for Savannah, as he said _he had children_
in that vicinity.

J.G. OWENS.
Barnwell District, S.C."


From the "Staunton (Va.) Spectator," Jan. 3, 1839.

"Runaway, Jesse.--He has a _wife_, who belongs to Mr. John Ruff, of
Lexington, Rockbridge county, and he may probably be lurking in that
neighborhood. MOSES McCUE."


From the "Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle," July 10, 1837.

"$120 Reward for my negro Charlotte. She is about 20 years old. She
was purchased some months past from Mr. Thomas. J. Walton, of Augusta,
by Thomas W. Oliver; and, as her _mother_ and acquaintances live in
that city, it is very likely she is _harbored_ by some of them. MARTHA
OLIVER."


From the "Raleigh (N.C.) Register," July 18, 1837.

Ranaway from the subscriber, a negro man named Jim, the property of
Mrs. Elizabeth Whitfield. He _has a wife_ at the late Hardy Jones',
and may probably be lurking in that neighborhood. JOHN O'RORKE."


From the "Richmond (Va.) Compiler," Sept. 8, 1837.

"Ranaway from the subscriber, Ben. He ran off without any known cause,
and _I suppose he is aiming to go to his wife, who was carried from
the neighborhood last winter_. JOHN HUNT."


From the "Charleston (S.C.) Mercury," Aug. 1, 1837.

"Absconded from Mr. E.D. Bailey, on Wadmalaw, his negro man, named
Saby. Said fellow was purchased in January, from Francis Dickinson, of
St. Paul's parish, and is probably now in that neighborhood, _where he
has a wife_. THOMAS N. GADSDEN."


From the "Portsmouth (Va.) Times," August 3, 1838.

"$50 dollars Reward will be given for the apprehension of my negro man
Isaac. He _has a wife_ at James M. Riddick's, of Gates county, N.C.
where he may probably be lurking. C. MILLER."


From the "Savannah (Georgia) Republican." May 24, 1838.

"$40 Reward.--Ran away from the subscriber in Savannah, his negro girl
Patsey. She was purchased among the gang of negroes, known as the
Hargreave's estate. She is no doubt lurking about Liberty county, at
which place _she has relatives_. EDWARD HOUSTOUN, of Florida"


From the "Charleston (S.C.) Courier," June 29, 1837.

"$20 Reward will be paid for the apprehension and delivery, at the
workhouse in Charleston, of a mulatto woman, named Ida. It is probable
she may have made her way into Georgia, where she has _connections_.
MATTHEW MUGGRIDGE."


From the "Norfolk (Va.) Beacon," March 31, 1838.

"The subscriber will give $20 for the apprehension of his negro woman,
Maria, who ran away about twelve months since. She is known to be
lurking in or about Chuckatuch, in the county of Nansemond, where _she
has a husband_, and _formerly belonged_. PETER ONEILL."


From the "Macon (Georgia) Messenger," Jan. 16, 1839.

"Ranaway from the subscriber, two negroes, Davis, a man about 45 years
old; also Peggy, his wife, near the same age. Said negroes will
probably make their way to Columbia county, as _they have children_
living in that county. I will liberally reward any person who may
deliver them to me. NEHEMIAH KING."


From the "Petersburg (Va.) Constellation," June 27, 1837.

"Ranaway, a negro man, named Peter. _He has a wife_ at the plantation
of Mr. C. Haws, near Suffolk, where it is supposed he is still
lurking. JOHN L. DUNN."


From the "Richmond (Va.) Whig," Dec. 7, 1739.

"Ranaway from the subscriber, a negro man, named John Lewis. It is
supposed that he is lurking about in New Kent county, where he
professes to have a _wife_. HILL JONES, Agent for R.F. & P. Railroad Co."


From the "Red River (La.) Whig," June 2d, 1838.

"Ran away from the subscriber, a mulatto woman, named Maria. It is
probable she may be found in the neighborhood of Mr. Jesse Bynum's
plantation, where _she has relations_, &c. THOMAS J. WELLS."


From the "Lexington (Ky.) Observer and Reporter," Sept. 28, 1838.

"$50 Reward.--Ran away from the subscriber, a negro girl, named Maria.
She is of a copper color, between 13 and 14 years of age--_bare
headed_ and _bare footed_. She is small of her age--very sprightly and
very likely. She stated she was _going to see her mother_ at
Maysville. SANFORD THOMSON."


From the "Jackson (Tenn.) Telegraph," Sept. 14, 1838.

"Committed to the jail of Madison county, a negro woman, who calls her
name Fanny, and says she belongs to William Miller, of Mobile. She
formerly belonged to John Givins, of this county, who now owns
_several of her children_. DAVID SHROPSHIRE, Jailor."


From the "Norfolk (Va.) Beacon," July 3d, 1838.

"Runaway from my plantation below Edenton, my negro man, Nelson. _He
has a mother living_ at Mr. James Goodwin's, in Ballahack, Perquimans
county; and _two brothers_, one belonging to Job Parker, and the other
to Josiah Coffield. WM. D. RASCOE."


From the "Charleston (S.C.) Courier," Jan. 12, 1838.

"$100 Reward.--Run away from the subscriber, his negro fellow, John.
He is well known about the city as one of my bread carriers: _has a
wife_ living at Mrs. Weston's, on Hempstead. John formerly belonged to
Mrs. Moor, near St. Paul's church, where his _mother_ still lives, and
_has been harbored by her_ before.

JOHN T. MARSHALL.
60, Tradd street."


From the "Newbern (N.C.) Sentinel," March 17, 1837.

"Ranaway, Moses, a black fellow, about 40 years of age--has a _wife_
in Washington.

THOMAS BRAGG, Sen.
Warrenton, N.C."


From the "Richmond (Va.) Whig," June 30, 1837.

"Ranaway, my man Peter.--He has a _sister_ and _mother_ in New Kent,
and a _wife_ about fifteen or eighteen miles above Richmond, at or
about Taylorsville. THEO. A. LACY."


From the "New Orleans Bulletin," Feb. 7, 1838.

"Ranaway, my negro Philip, aged about 40 years.--He may have gone to
St. Louis, as _he has a wife there_. W.G. CLARK, 70 New Levee."


From the "Georgian," Jan. 29, 1838.

"A Reward of $5 will be paid for the apprehension of his negro woman,
Diana. Diana is from 45 to 50 age. She formerly belonged to Mr. Nath.
Law, of Liberty county, _where her husband still lives_. She will
endeavor to go there perhaps. D. O'BYRNE."


From the "Richmond (Va.) Enquirer," Feb. 20, 1838.

"$10 Reward for a negro woman, named Sally, 40 years old. We have just
reason to believe the said negro to be now lurking on the James River
Canal, or in the Green Spring neighborhood, where, we are informed,
_her husband resides_. The above reward will be given to any person
_securing_ her.

POLLY C. SHIELDS.
Mount Elba, Feb. 19, 1838."


"$50 Reward.--Ran away from the subscriber, his negro man Pauladore,
commonly called Paul. I understand GEN. R.Y. HAYNE _has purchased his
wife and children_ from H.L. PINCKNEY, Esq. and has them now on his
plantation at Goosecreek, where, no doubt, the fellow is frequently
_lurking_. T. DAVIS."


"$25 Reward.--Ran away from the subscriber, a negro woman, named
Matilda. It is thought she may be somewhere up James River, as she was
claimed as _a wife_ by some boatman in Goochland. J. ALVIS."


"Stop the Runaway!!!--$25 Reward. Ranaway from the Eagle Tavern, a
negro fellow, named Nat. He is no doubt attempting to _follow his
wife, who was lately sold to a speculator_ named Redmond. The above
reward will be paid by Mrs. Lucy M. Downman, of Sussex county, Va."


Multitudes of advertisements like the above appear annually in the
southern papers. Reader, look at the preceding list--mark the
unfeeling barbarity with which their masters and _mistresses_ describe
the struggles and perils of sundered husbands and wives, parents and
children, in their weary midnight travels through forests and rivers,
with torn limbs and breaking hearts, seeking the embraces of each
other's love. In one instance, a mother torn from all her children and
taken to a remote part of another state, presses her way back through
the wilderness, hundreds of miles, to clasp once more her children to
her heart: but, when she has arrived within a few miles of them, in
the same county, is discovered, seized, dragged to jail, and her
purchaser told, through an advertisement, that she awaits his order.
But we need not trace out the harrowing details already before the
reader.

Rev. C.S. RENSHAW, of Quincy, Illinois, who resided some time in
Kentucky, says;--

"I was told the following fact by a young lady, daughter of a
slaveholder in Boone county, Kentucky, who lived within half a mile of
Mr. Hughes' farm. Hughes and Neil traded in slaves down the river:
they had bought up a part of their stock in the upper counties of
Kentucky, and brought them down to Louisville, where the remainder of
their drove was in jail, waiting their arrival. Just before the
steamboat put off for the lower country, two negro women were offered
for sale, each of them having a young child at the breast. The traders
bought them, took their babes from their arms, and offered them to the
highest bidder; and they were sold for one dollar apiece, whilst the
stricken parents were driven on board the boat; and in an hour were on
their way to the New Orleans market. You are aware that a young babe
_decreases_ the value of a field hand in the lower country, whilst it
increases her value in the 'breeding states.'"

The following is an extract from an address, published by the
Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky, to the churches under their care, in
1835:--

"Brothers and sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives, are
_torn asunder_, and permitted to see each other no more. These acts
are DAILY occurring in the midst of us. The _shrieks_ and the _agony,
often_ witnessed on such occasions, proclaim, with a trumpet tongue,
the iniquity of our system. _There is not a neighborhood_ where these
heart-rending scenes are not displayed. _There is not a village or
road_ that does not behold the sad procession of manacled outcasts,
whose mournful countenances tell that they are exiled by _force_ from
ALL THAT THEIR HEARTS HOLD DEAR."--_Address_, p. 12.

Professor ANDREWS, late of the University of North Carolina, in his
recent work on Slavery and the Slave Trade, page 147, in relating a
conversation with a slave-trader, whom he met near Washington City,
says, he inquired,

"'Do you _often_ buy the wife without the husband?' 'Yes, VERY OFTEN;
and FREQUENTLY, too, they _sell me the mother while they keep her
children. I have often known them take away the infant from its
mother's breast, and keep it, while they sold her_.'"

The following sale is advertised in the "Georgia Journal," Jan, 2,
1838.

"Will be sold, the following PROPERTY, to wit: One ---- CHILD, by the
name of James, _about eight months old_, levied on as the property of
Gabriel Gunn."

The following is a standing advertisement in the Charleston (S.C.)
papers:--

"120 Negroes for Sale--The subscriber has _just arrived from
Petersburg, Virginia_, with one hundred and twenty _likely young_
negroes of both sexes and every description, which he offers for sale
on the most reasonable terms.

"The lot now on hand consists of plough boys several likely and
well-qualified house servants of both sexes, several _women with
children, small girls_ suitable for nurses, and several SMALL BOYS
WITHOUT THEIR MOTHERS. Planters and traders are earnestly requested to
give the subscriber a call previously to making purchases elsewhere,
as he is enabled and will sell as cheap, or cheaper, than can be sold
by any other person in the trade. BENJAMIN DAVIS. Hamburg, S.C. Sept.
28, 1838."

Extract Of a letter to a member of Congress from a friend in
Mississippi, published in the "Washington Globe," June, 1837.

"The times are truly alarming here. Many plantations _are entirely
stripped of negroes_ (protection!) and horses, by the marshal or
sheriff.--Suits are multiplying--two thousand five hundred in the
United States Circuit Court, and three thousand in Hinds County
Court."

Testimony of MR. SILAS STONE, of Hudson, New York. Mr. Stone is a
member of the Episcopal Church, has several times been elected an
Assessor of the city of Hudson, and for three years has filled the
office of Treasurer of the County. In the fall of 1807, Mr. Stone
witnessed a sale of slaves, in Charleston, South Carolina, which he
thus describes in a communication recently received from him.

"I saw droves of the poor fellows driven to the slave markets kept in
different parts of the city, one of which I visited. The arrangements
of this place appeared something like our northern horse-markets,
having sheds, or barns, in the rear of a public house, where alcohol
was a handy ingredient to stimulate the spirit of jockeying. As the
traders appeared, lots of negroes were brought from the stables into
the bar room, and by a flourish of the whip were made to assume an
active appearance. 'What will you give for these fellows?' 'How old
are they? 'Are they healthy?' 'Are they quick?' &c. at the same time
the owner would give them a cut with a cowhide, and tell them to dance
and jump, cursing and swearing at them if they did not move quick. In
fact all the transactions in buying and selling slaves, partakes of
jockey-ship, as much as buying and selling horses. There was as little
regard paid to the feelings of the former as we witness in the latter.

"From these scenes I turn to another, which took place in front of the
noble 'Exchange Buildings,' in the heart of the city. On the left side
of the steps, as you leave the main hall, immediately under the
windows of that proud building, was a stage built, on which a mother
with eight children were placed, and sold at auction. I watched their
emotions closely, and saw their feelings were in accordance to human
nature. The sale began with the eldest child, who, being struck off to
the highest bidder, was taken from the stage or platform by the
purchaser, and led to his wagon and stowed away, to be carried into
the country; the second, and third were also sold, and so until seven
of the children were torn from their mother, while her discernment
told her they were to be separated probably forever, causing in that
mother the most agonizing sobs and cries, in which the children seemed
to share. The scene beggars description; suffice it to say, it was
sufficient to cause tears from one at least 'whose skin was not
colored like their own,' and I was not ashamed to give vent to them."


THE "PROTECTION" AFFORDED BY "PUBLIC OPINION"
TO CHILDHOOD AND OLD AGE.

In the "New Orleans Bee," May 31, 1837, MR. P. BAHI, gives notice that
he has _committed to_ JAIL as a runaway 'a _little_ negro AGED ABOUT
SEVEN YEARS.'

In the "Mobile Advertiser," Sept. 13, 1838, WILLIAM MAGEE, Sheriff,
gives notice that George Walton, Esq. Mayor of the city has
_committed_ to JAIL as a runaway slave, Jordan, ABOUT TWELVE YEARS
OLD, and the Sheriff proceeds to give notice that if no one claims him
the boy will be _sold as a slave_ to pay jail fees.

In the "Memphis (Tenn.) Gazette," May 2, 1837, W.H. MONTGOMERY
advertises that he will sell at auction a BOY AGED 14, ANOTHER AGED
12, AND A GIRL 10, to pay the debts of their deceased master.

B.F. CHAPMAN, Sheriff, Natchitoches (La.) advertises in the
'Herald,' of May 17, 1837, that he has "_committed to_ JAIL, as a
runaway a negro boy BETWEEN 11 AND 12 YEARS OF AGE."

In the "Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle," Feb. 13, 1838. R.H. JONES, jailor,
says, "Brought to _jail_ a negro _woman_ Sarah, she is about 60 or 65
_years old_."

In the "Winchester Virginian," August 8, 1837, Mr. R.H. MENIFEE,
offers ten dollars reward to any one who will catch and lodge in jail,
Abram and Nelly, _about_ 60 _years old_, so that he can get them
again.

J. SNOWDEN, Jailor, Columbia, S.C. gives notice in the "Telescope,"
Nov, 18, 1837, that he has committed to jail as a runaway slave,
"_Caroline fifty years of age_."

Y.S. PICKARD, Jailor, Savannah, Georgia, gives notice in the
"Georgian," June 22, 1837, that he has taken up for a runaway and
lodged in jail Charles, 60 _years of age_.

In the Savannah "Georgian," April 12, 1837, Mr. J. CUYLER, says he
will give five dollars, to anyone who will catch and bring back to him
"Saman, _an old negro man, and grey, and has only one eye_."

In the "Macon (Ga.) Telegraph," Jan. 15, 1839, MESSRS. T. AND L.
NAPIER, advertise for sale Nancy, a woman 65 _years of age_, and
Peggy, a woman 65 _years of age_.

The following is from the "Columbian (Ga.) Enquirer," March 8, 1838.

"$25 REWARD.--Ranaway, a Negro Woman named MATILDA, aged about 30 or
35 years. Also, on the same night, a Negro Fellow of small size, VERY
AGED, _stoop-shouldered_, who walks VERY DECREPIDLY, is supposed to
have gone off. His name is DAVE, and he has claimed Matilda for wife.
It may be they have gone off together.

"I will give twenty-five dollars for the woman, delivered to me in
Muscogee county, or confined in any jail so that I can get her. MOSES
BUTT."

J.B. RANDALL, Jailor, Cobb (Co.) Georgia, advertises an old negro man,
in the "Milledgeville Recorder," Nov. 6, 1838.

"A NEGRO MAN, has been lodged in the common jail of this county, who
says his name is JUPITER. He _has lost all his front teeth above and
below--speaks very indistinctly, is very lame, so that he can hardly
walk_."

Rev. CHARLES STEWART RENSHAW, of Quincy, Illinois, who spent some time
in slave states, speaking of his residence in Kentucky, says:--

"One Sabbath morning, whilst riding to meeting near Burlington, Boone
Co. Kentucky, in company with Mr. Willis, a teacher of sacred music
and a member of the Presbyterian Church, I was startled at mingled
shouts and screams, proceeding from an old log house, some distance
from the road side. As we passed it, some five or six boys from 12 to
15 years of age, came out, some of them cracking whips, followed by
two colored boys crying. I asked Mr. W. what the scene meant. 'Oh,' he
replied, 'those boys have been whipping the niggers; that is the way
we bring slaves into subjection in Kentucky--we let the children beat
them.' The boys returned again into the house, and again their
shouting and stamping was heard, but ever and anon a scream of agony
that would not be drowned, rose above the uproar; thus they continued
till the sounds were lost in the distance."

Well did Jefferson say, that the children of slaveholders are 'NURSED,
EDUCATED, AND DAILY EXERCISED IN TYRANNY.'

The 'protection' thrown around a mother's yearnings, and the
helplessness of childhood by the 'public opinion' of slaveholders, is
shown by _thousands_ of advertisements of which the following are
samples.


From the "New Orleans Bulletin," June 2.

"NEGROES FOR SALE.--A negro woman 21 years of age, and has two
children, one eight and the other three years. Said negroes will be
sold SEPARATELY or together _as desired_. The woman is a good
seamstress. She will be sold low for cash, or _exchanged_ for
GROCERIES. For terms apply to MAYHEW BLISS, & CO. 1 Front Levee."


From the "Georgia Journal," Nov. 7.

"TO BE SOLD--One negro girl about 18 _months old_, belonging to the
estate of William Chambers, dec'd. Sold for the purpose of
_distribution!!_ JETHRO DEAN, SAMUEL BEALL, Ex'ors."


From the "Natchez Courier," April 2, 1838.

"NOTICE--Is hereby given that the undersigned pursuant to a certain
Deed of Trust will on Thursday the 12th day of April next, expose to
sale at the Court House, to the highest bidder for cash, the following
Negro slaves, to wit; Fanny, aged about 28 years; Mary, aged about 7
years; Amanda, aged about 3 months; Wilson, aged about 9 months.

Said slaves, to be sold for the satisfaction of the debt secured in
said Deed of Trust. W.J. MINOR."


From the "Milledgeville Journal," Dec. 26, 1837.

"EXECUTOR'S SALE.

"Agreeable to an order of the court of Wilkinson county, will be sold
on the first Tuesday in April next, before the Court-house door in the
town of Irwington, ONE NEGRO GIRL _about two years old_, named Rachel,
belonging to the estate of William Chambers dec'd. Sold _for the
benefit_ of the heirs and creditors of said estate.

SAMUEL BELL, JESSE PEACOCK, Ex'ors."


From the "Alexandria (D.C.) Gazette" Dec. 19.

"I will give the highest cash price for likely negroes, _from 10 to 25
years of age_.

GEO. KEPHART."


From the "Southern Whig," March 2, 1838.--

"WILL be sold in La Grange, Troup county, one negro girl, by the name
of Charity, aged about 10 or 12 years; as the property of Littleton L.
Burk, to satisfy a mortgage fi. fa. from Troup Inferior Court, in
favor of Daniel S. Robertson vs. said Burk."


From the "Petersburgh (Va.) Constellation," March 18, 1837.

"50 _Negroes wanted immediately_.--The subscriber will give a good
market price for fifty likely negroes, _from 10 to 30 years of age_.

HENRY DAVIS."


The following is an extract of a letter from a gentleman, a native and
still a resident of one of the slave states, and _still a
slaveholder_. He is an elder in the Presbyterian Church, his letter is
now before us, and his name is with the Executive Committee of the Am.
Anti-slavery Society.

"Permit me to say, that around this very place where I reside, slaves
are brought almost constantly, and sold to Miss. and Orleans; that _it
is usual_ to part families forever by such sales--the parents from the
children and the children from the parents, of every size and age. A
mother was taken not long since, in this town, from a _sucking child_,
and sold to the lower country. Three young men I saw some time ago
taken from this place in chains--while the mother of one of them, old
and decrepid, _followed with tears and prayers her son, 18 or 20
miles, and bid him a final farewell_! O, thou Great Eternal, is this
justice! is this equity!!--Equal Rights!!"

We subjoin a few miscellaneous facts illustrating the INHUMANITY of
slaveholding 'public opinion.'

The shocking indifference manifested at the death of slaves as _human
beings_, contrasted with the grief at their loss _as property_, is a
true index to the public opinion of slaveholders.

Colonel Oliver of Louisville, lost a valuable race-horse by the
explosion of the steamer Oronoko, a few months since on the
Mississippi river. Eight human beings whom he held as slaves were also
killed by the explosion. They were the riders and grooms of his
race-horses. A Louisville paper thus speaks of the occurrence:

"Colonel Oliver suffered severely by the explosion of the Oronoko. He
lost _eight_ of his rubbers and riders, and his horse, Joe Kearney,
which he had sold the night before for $3,000."

Mr. King, of the New York American, makes the following just comment
on the barbarity of the above paragraph:

"Would any one, in reading this paragraph from an evening paper,
conjecture that these '_eight_ rubbers and riders,' that together with
a horse, are merely mentioned as a 'loss' to their owner, were human
beings--immortal as the writer who thus brutalizes them, and perhaps
cherishing life as much? In this view, perhaps, the 'eight' lost as
much as Colonel Oliver."


The following is from the "Charleston (S.C.) Patriot," Oct. 18.

"_Loss of Property_!--Since I have been here, (Rice Hope, N. Santee,)
I have seen much misery, and much of human suffering. The loss of
PROPERTY has been immense, not only on South Santee, but also on this
river. Mr. Shoolbred has lost, (according to the statement of the
physician,) forty-six negroes--the majority lost being the _primest
hands_ he had--bricklayers, carpenters, blacksmiths and Coopers. Mr.
Wm. Mazyck has lost 35 negroes. Col. Thomas Pinkney, in the
neighborhood of 40, and many other planters, 10 to 20 on each
plantation. Mrs. Elias Harry, adjoining the plantation of Mr. Lucas,
has lost up to date, 32 negroes--the _best part of her primest_
negroes on her plantation."


From the "Natchez (Miss.) Daily Free Trader," Feb. 12, 1838.

"_Found_.--A NEGRO'S HEAD WAS PICKED UP ON THE RAIL-ROAD YESTERDAY,
WHICH THE OWNER CAN HAVE BY CALLING AT THIS OFFICE AND PAYING FOR THE
ADVERTISEMENT."


The way in which slaveholding 'public opinion' protects a poor female
lunatic is illustrated in the following advertisement in the
"Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer," June 27, 1838:

"Taken and committed to jail, a negro girl named Nancy, who is
supposed to belong to Spencer P. Wright, of the State of Georgia. She
is about 30 years of age, and is a LUNATIC. The owner is requested to
come forward, prove property, pay charges, and take her away, or SHE
WILL BE SOLD TO PAY HER JAIL FEES.

FRED'K HOME, Jailor."

A late PROSPECTUS Of the South Carolina Medical College, located in
Charleston, contains the following passage:--

"Some advantages of a _peculiar_ character are connected with this
Institution, which it may be proper to point out. No place in the
United States offers as great opportunities for the acquisition of
anatomical knowledge, SUBJECTS BEING OBTAINED FROM AMONG THE COLORED
POPULATION IN SUFFICIENT NUMBER FOR EVERY PURPOSE, AND PROPER
DISSECTIONS CARRIED ON WITHOUT OFFENDING ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE
COMMUNITY!!"

_Without offending any individuals in the community_! More than half
the population of Charleston, we believe, is 'colored;' _their_ graves
may be ravaged, their dead may be dug up, dragged into the dissecting
room, exposed to the gaze, heartless gibes, and experimenting knives,
of a crowd of inexperienced operators, who are given to understand in
the prospectus, that, if they do not acquire manual dexterity in
dissection, it will be wholly their own fault, in neglecting to
improve the unrivalled advantages afforded by the institution--since
each can have as many human bodies as he pleases to experiment
upon--and as to the fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, brothers, and
sisters, of those whom they cut to pieces from day to day, why, they
are not 'individuals in the community,' but 'property,' and however
_their_ feelings may be tortured, the 'public opinion' of slaveholders
is entirely too 'chivalrous' to degrade itself by caring for them!

The following which has been for some time a standing advertisement of
the South Carolina Medical College, in the Charleston papers, is
another index of the same 'public opinion' toward slaves. We give an
extract:--

"_Surgery of the Medical College of South Carolina, Queen st_.--The
Faculty inform their professional brethren, and the public that they
have established a _Surgery_, at the Old College, Queen street, FOR
THE TREATMENT OF NEGROES, which will continue in operation, during the
session of the College, say from first November, to the fifteenth of
March ensuing.

"The _object_ of the Faculty, in opening this Surgery, is to collect
as _many interesting cases_, as possible, for the _benefit_ and
_instruction_ of their pupils--at the same time, they indulge the
hope, that it may not only prove an _accommodation_, but also a matter
of economy to the public. They would respectfully call the attention
of planters, living in the vicinity of the city, to this subject;
particularly such as may have servants laboring under Surgical
diseases. Such _persons of color_ as may not be able to pay for
Medical advice, will be attended to gratis, at stated hours, as often
as may be necessary.

"The Faculty take this opportunity of soliciting the co-operation of
such of their professional brethren, as are favorable to their
objects."

"The first thing that strikes the reader of the advertisement is, that
this _Surgery_ is established exclusively 'for the treatment of
_negroes_; and, if he knows little of the hearts of slaveholders
towards their slaves, he charitably supposes, that they 'feel the dint
of pity,' for the poor sufferers and have founded this institution as
a special charity for their relief. But the delusion vanishes as he
reads on; the professors take special care that no such derogatory
inference shall be drawn from their advertisement. They give us the
three reasons which have induced them to open this 'Surgery for the
treatment of negroes.' The first and main one is, 'to collect as many
_interesting cases_ as possible for the benefit and instruction of
their _pupils_--another is, 'the hope that it may prove an
_accommodation_,'--and the third, that it may be 'a matter of economy
to the _public_' Another reason, doubtless, and controlling one,
though the professors are silent about it, is that a large collection
of 'interesting surgical cases,' always on hand, would prove a
powerful attraction to students, and greatly increase the popularity
of the institution. In brief, then, the motives of its founders, the
professors, were these, the accommodation of their _students_--the
accommodation of the _public_ (which means, _the whites_)--and the
accommodation of slaveholders who have on their hands disabled slaves,
that would make 'interesting cases,' for surgical operation in the
presence of the pupils--to these reasons we may add the accommodation
of the Medical Institution and the accommodation of _themselves_! Not
a syllable about the _accommodation_ of the hopeless sufferers,
writhing with the agony of those gun shot wounds, fractured sculls,
broken limbs and ulcerated backs which constitute the 'interesting
cases' for the professors to 'show off' before their pupils, and, as
practice makes perfect, for the students themselves to try their hands
at by way of experiment.

Why, we ask, was this surgery established 'for the treatment of
_negroes'_ alone? Why were these 'interesting cases' selected from
that class exclusively? No man who knows the feeling of slave holders
towards slaves will be at a loss for the reason. 'Public opinion'
would tolerate surgical experiments, operations, processes, performed
upon them, which it would execrate if performed upon their master or
other whites. As the great object in collecting the disabled negroes
is to have 'interesting cases' for the students, the professors who
perform the operations will of course endeavor to make them as
'interesting' as possible. The _instruction of the student_ is the
immediate object, and if the professors can accomplish it best by
_protracting_ the operation, pausing to explain the different
processes, &c. the subject is only a negro, and what is his protracted
agony, that it should restrain the professor from making the case as
'interesting' as possible to the students by so using his knife as
will give them the best knowledge of the parts, and the process,
however it may protract or augment the pain of the subject. The _end_
to be accomplished is the _instruction_ of the student, operations
upon the negroes are the _means_ to the end; _that_ tells the whole
story--and he who knows the hearts of slaveholders and has common
sense, however short the allowance, can find the way to his
conclusions without a lantern.

By an advertisement of the same Medical Institution, dated November
12, 1838, and published in the Charleston papers, it appears that an
'infirmary has been opened in connection with the college.' The
professors manifest a great desire that the masters of servants should
send in their disabled slaves, and as an inducement to the furnishing
of such _interesting cases_ say, all medical and surgical aid will be
offered _without making them liable to any professional charges_.
Disinterested bounty, pity, sympathy, philanthropy. However difficult
or numerous the surgical cases of slaves thus put into their hands by
the masters, they charge not a cent for their _professional services_.
Their yearnings over human distress are so intense, that they beg the
privilege of performing all operations, and furnishing all the medical
attention needed, _gratis_, feeling that the relief of misery is its
own reward!!! But we have put down our exclamation points too
soon--upon reading the whole of the advertisement we find the
professors conclude it with the following paragraph:--

"The SOLE OBJECT Of the faculty in the establishment of such an
institution being to promote the interest of Medical Education within
their native State and City."

In the "Charleston (South Carolina) Mercury" of October 12, 1838, we
find an advertisement of half a column, by a Dr. T. Stillman, setting
forth the merits of another 'Medical Infirmary,' under his own special
supervision, at No. 110 Church street, Charleston. The doctor, after
inveighing loudly against 'men totally ignorant of medical science,'
who flood the country with quack nostrums backed up by 'fabricated
proofs of miraculous cures,' proceeds to enumerate the diseases to
which his 'Infirmary' is open, and to which his practice will be
mainly confined. Appreciating the importance of 'interesting cases,'
as a stock in trade, on which to commence his experiments, he copies
the example of the medical professors, and advertises for them. But,
either from a keener sense of justice, or more generosity, or greater
confidence in his skill, or for some other reason, he proposes to _buy
up_ an assortment of _damaged_ negroes, given over, as incurable, by
others, and to make such his 'interesting cases,' instead of
experimenting on those who are the 'property' of others.

Dr. Stillman closes his advertisement with the following notice:--

"To PLANTERS AND OTHERS.--Wanted _fifty negroes_. Any person having
sick negroes, considered incurable by their respective physicians, and
wishing to dispose of them, Dr. S. will pay cash for negroes affected
with scrofula or king's evil, confirmed hypocondriasm, apoplexy,
diseases of the liver, kidneys, spleen, stomach and intestines,
bladder and its appendages, diarrhea, dysentery, &c. The highest cash
price will be paid on application as above."

The absolute barbarism of a 'public opinion' which not only tolerates,
but _produces_ such advertisements as this, was outdone by nothing in
the dark ages. If the reader has a heart of flesh, he can feel it
without help, and if he has not, comment will not create it. The total
indifference of slaveholders to such a cold blooded proposition, their
utter unconsciousness of the paralysis of heart, and death of
sympathy, and every feeling of common humanity for the slave, which it
reveals, is enough, of itself to show that the tendency of the spirit
of slaveholding is, to kill in the soul whatever it touches. It has no
eyes to see, nor ears to hear, nor mind to understand, nor heart to
feel for its victims as _human beings_. To show that the above
indication of the savage state is not an index of individual feeling,
but of 'public opinion,' it is sufficient to say, that it appears to
be a standing advertisement in the Charleston Mercury, the leading
political paper of South Carolina, the organ of the Honorables John C.
Calhoun, Robert Barnwell Rhett, Hugh S. Legare, and others regarded as
the elite of her statesmen and literati. Besides, candidates for
popular favor, like the doctor who advertises for the fifty
'incurables,' take special care to conciliate, rather than outrage,
'public opinion.' Is the doctor so ignorant of 'public opinion' in his
own city, that he has unwittingly committed violence upon it in his
advertisement? We trow not. The same 'public opinion' which gave birth
to the advertisement of doctor Stillman, and to those of the
professors in both the medical institutions, founded the Charleston
'Work House'--a soft name for a Moloch temple dedicated to torture,
and reeking with blood, in the midst of the city; to which masters and
mistresses send their slaves of both sexes to be stripped, tied up,
and cut with the lash till the blood and mangled flesh flow to their
feet, or to be beaten and bruised with the terrible paddle, or forced
to climb the tread-mill till nature sinks, or to experience other
nameless torments.

The "Vicksburg (Miss.) Register," Dec. 27, 1838, contains the
following item of information: "ARDOR IN BETTING.--Two gentlemen, at a
tavern, having summoned the waiter, the poor fellow had scarcely
entered, when he fell down in a fit of apoplexy. 'He's dead!'
exclaimed one. 'He'll come to!' replied the other. 'Dead, for five
hundred!' 'Done!' retorted the second. The noise of the fall, and the
confusion which followed, brought up the landlord, who called out to
fetch a doctor. 'No! no! we must have no interference--there's a bet
depending!' 'But, sir, I shall lose a valuable servant!' 'Never mind!
you can put him down in the bill!'"

About the time the Vicksburg paper containing the above came to hand,
we received a letter from N.P. ROGERS, Esq. of Concord, N.H. the
editor of the 'Herald of Freedom,' from which the following is an
extract:

"Some thirty years ago, I think it was, Col. Thatcher, of Maine, a
lawyer, was in Virginia, on business, and was there invited to dine at
a public house, with a company of the gentry of the south. _The place_
I forget--the fact was told me by George Kimball, Esq. now of Alton,
Illinois who had the story from Col. Thatcher himself. Among the
servants waiting was a young negro man, whose beautiful person,
obliging and assiduous temper, and his activity and grace in serving,
made him a favorite with the company. The dinner lasted into the
evening, and the wine passed freely about the table. At length, one of
the gentlemen, who was pretty highly excited with wine, became
unfortunately incensed, either at some trip of the young slave, in
waiting, or at some other cause happening when the slave was within
his reach. He seized the long-necked wine bottle, and struck the young
man suddenly in the temple, and felled him dead upon the floor. The
fall arrested, for a moment, the festivities of the table. 'Devilish
unlucky,' exclaimed one. 'The gentleman is very unfortunate,' cried
another. 'Really a loss,' said a third, &c, &c. The body was dragged
from the dining hall, and the feast went on; and at the close, one of
the gentlemen, and the very one, I believe, whose hand had done the
homicide, shouted, in bacchanalian bravery, and _southern generosity_,
amid the broken glasses and fragments of chairs, 'LANDLORD! PUT THE
NIGGER INTO THE BILL!' This was that murdered young man's _requiem and
funeral service_."

Mr. GEORGE A. AVERY, a merchant in Rochester, New York, and an elder
in the Fourth Presbyterian Church in that city, who resided four years
in Virginia, gives the following testimony:

"I knew a young man who had been out hunting, and returning with some
of his friends, seeing a negro man in the road, at a little distance,
deliberately drew up his rifle, and shot him dead. This was done
without the slightest provocation, or a word passing. This young man
passed through the _form_ of a trial, and, although it was not even
_pretended_ by his counsel that he was not guilty of the act,
deliberately and wantonly perpetrated, _he was acquitted_. It was
urged by his counsel, that he was a _young_ man, (about 20 years of
age,) had no _malicious_ intention, his mother was a widow, &c, &c"

Mr. BENJAMIN CLENDENON, of Colerain, Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, a
member of the Society of Friends, gives the following testimony:

"Three years ago the coming month, I took a journey of about
seventy-five miles from home, through the eastern shore of Maryland,
and a small part of Delaware. Calling one day, near noon, at
Georgetown Cross-Roads, I found myself surrounded in the tavern by
slaveholders. Among other subjects of conversation, their human cattle
came in for a share. One of the company, a middle-aged man, then
living with a second wife, acknowledged, that after the death of his
first wife, he lived in a state of concubinage with a female slave;
but when the time drew near for the taking of a second wife, he found
it expedient to remove the slave from the premises. The same person
gave an account of a female slave he formerly held, who had a
propensity for some one pursuit, I think the attendance of religious
meetings. On a certain occasion, she presented her petition to him,
asking for this indulgence; he refused--she importuned--and he, with
sovereign indignation, seized a chair, and with a blow upon the head,
knocked her senseless upon the floor. The same person, for some act of
disobedience, on the part, I think, of the same slave, when employed
in stacking straw, felled her to the earth with the handle of a pitch
fork. All these transactions were related with the _utmost composure_,
in a bar-room within thirty miles of the Pennsylvania line."

The two following advertisements are illustrations of the regard paid
to the marriage relations by slaveholding judges, governors, senators
in Congress, and mayors of cities.

From the "Montgomery, (Ala.) Advertiser," Sept. 29, 1837.

"$20 REWARD.--Ranaway from the subscriber, a negro man named Moses. He
is of common size, about 28 years old. He formerly belonged to Judge
Benson, of Montgomery, and it is said, has a wife in that county. John
Gayle"

The John Gayle who signs this advertisement, is an Ex-Governor of
Alabama.

From the "Charleston Courier," Nov. 28.

"Ranaway from the subscriber, about twelve months since, his negro man
Paulladore. His complexion is dark--about 50 years old. I understand
Gen. R.Y. Hayne has purchased his wife and children from H.L.
Pinckney, Esq. and has them now on his plantation, at Goose Creek,
where, no doubt, the fellow is frequently lurking. Thomas Davis."

It is hardly necessary to say, that the GENERAL R.Y. HAYNE, and H.L.
PINCKNEY, Esq. named in the advertisement, are Ex-Governor Hayne,
formerly U.S. Senator from South Carolina, and Hon. Henry L.
Pinckney, late member of Congress from Charleston District, and now
Intendant (mayor) of that city.

It is no difficult matter to get at the 'public opinion' of a
community, when _ladies_ 'of property and standing' publish, under
their own names, such advertisements as the following.

Mrs. ELIZABETH L. CARTER, of Groveton, Prince William county,
Virginia, thus advertises her negro man Moses:

"Ranaway from the subscriber, a negro man named Moses, aged about 40
years, about six feet high, well made, and possessing a good address,
and HAS LOST A PART ON ONE OF HIS EARS."

Mrs. B. NEWMAN, of the same place, and in the same paper, advertises--

"Penny, the wife of Moses, aged about 30 years, brown complexion, tall
and likely, _no particular marks of person recollected._"

Both of the above advertisements appear in the National Intelligencer,
(Washington city,) June 10, 1837.

In the Mobile Mercantile Advertiser, of Feb. 13, 1838, is an
advertisement Signed SARAH WALSH, of which the following is an
extract:

"Twenty-five dollars reward will be paid to any one who may apprehend
and deliver to me, or confine in any jail, so that, I can get him, my
man Isaac, who ranaway sometime in September last. He is 26 years of
age, 5 feet 10 inches high, has a _scar on his forehead, caused by a
blow_, and one on his back, MADE BY A SHOT FROM A PISTOL."

In the "New Orleans Bee," Dec. 21, 1838, Mrs. BURVANT, whose residence
is at the corner of Chartres and Toulouse streets, advertises a woman
as follows:

"Ranaway, a negro woman named Rachel--_has lost all her toes except
the large one_."

From the "Huntsville (Ala.) Democrat," June 16, 1838:

"TEN DOLLARS REWARD.--Ranaway from the subscriber, a negro woman named
Sally, about 21 years of age, taking along her two children--one three
years, and the other seven months old. These negroes were PURCHASED BY
ME at the sale of George Mason's negroes, on the first Monday in May,
and left _a few days_ thereafter. Any person delivering them to the
jailor in Huntsville, or to me, at my plantation, five miles above
Triana, on the Tennessee river, shall receive the above reward.
CHARITY COOPER"

From the "Mississippian," May 13, 1838:

"TEN DOLLARS REWARD.--Ranaway from the subscriber, a man named Aaron,
yellow complexion, blue eyes, &c. I have no doubt he is lurking about
Jackson and its vicinity, probably harbored by some of the negroes
sold as the property of _my late husband_, Harry Long, deceased. Some
of them are about Richland, in Madison co. I will give the above
reward when brought to me, about six miles north-west of Jackson, or
put IN JAIL, _so that I can get him_. LUCY LONG."

If the reader, after perusing the preceding facts, testimony, and
arguments, still insists that the 'public opinion' of the slave states
protects the slave from outrages, and alleges, as proof of it, that
_cruel_ masters are frowned upon and shunned by the community
generally, and regarded as monsters, we reply by presenting the
following facts and testimony.

"Col. MEANS, of Manchester, Ohio, says, that when he resided in South
Carolina, _his neighbor_, a physician, became enraged with his slave,
and sentenced him to receive two hundred lashes. After having received
one hundred and forty, he fainted. After inflicting the full number of
lashes, the cords with which he was bound were loosed. When he
revived, he staggered to the house, and sat down in the sun. Being
faint and thirsty, he _begged_ for some water to drink. The master
went to the well, and procured some water but instead of giving him to
drink, he threw the whole bucket-full in his face. Nature could not
stand the shock--he sunk to rise no more. For this crime, the
physician was bound over to Court, and tried, and _acquitted_--and THE
NEXT YEAR HE WAS ELECTED TO THE LEGISLATURE!"

Testimony of Hon. JOHN RANDOLPH, of Virginia

"In one of his Congressional speeches, Mr. R. says: Avarice alone can
drive, as it does drive, this _infernal_ traffic, and the wretched
victims of it, like so many post horses, _whipped to death_ in a mail
coach. Ambition has its cover-sluts in the pride, pomp, and
circumstance of glorious war; but where are the trophies of avarice?
The hand cuff, the manacle, the blood-stained cowhide! WHAT MAN IS
WORSE RECEIVED IN SOCIETY FOR BEING A HARD MASTER? WHO DENIES THE HAND
OF A SISTER OR DAUGHTER TO SUCH MONSTERS?"

Mr. GEORGE A. AVERY, of Rochester, New York, who resided four years in
Virginia, testifies as follows:

"I know a local Methodist minister, a man of talents, and popular as a
preacher, who took his negro girl into his barn, in order to whip
her--and _she was brought out a corpse_! His friends seemed to think
this of _so little importance to his ministerial standing_, that
although I lived near him about three years, I do not recollect to
have heard them apologize for the deed, though I recollect having
heard ONE of his neighbors allege this fact as a reason why he did not
wish to hear him preach."

Notwithstanding the mass of testimony which has been presented
establishing the fact that in the 'public opinion' of the South the
slaves find no protection, some may still claim that the 'public
opinion' exhibited by the preceding facts is not that of the _highest
class of society at the South_, and in proof of this assertion, refer
to the fact, that 'Negro Brokers,' Negro Speculators, Negro
Auctioneers, and Negro Breeders, &c., are by that class universally
despised and avoided, as are all who treat their slaves with cruelty.

To this we reply, that, if all claimed by the objector were true, it
could avail him nothing for 'public opinion' is neither made nor
unmade by 'the first class of society.' That class produces in it, at
most, but slight modifications; those who belong to it have generally
a 'public opinion,' within their own circle which has rarely more,
either of morality or mercy than the public opinion of the mass, and
is, at least, equally heartless and more intolerant. As to the
estimation in which 'speculators,' 'soul drivers,' &c. are held, we
remark, that, they are not despised because they _trade in slaves_ but
because they are _working_ men, all such are despised by slaveholders.
White drovers who go with droves of swine and cattle from the free
states to the slave states, and Yankee pedlars, who traverse the
south, and white day-laborers are, in the main, equally despised, or,
if negro-traders excite more contempt than drovers, pedlars, and
day-laborers, it is because, they are, as a class more ignorant and
vulgar, men from low families and boors in their manners. Ridiculous
to suppose, that a people, who have, _by law_, made men articles of
trade equally with swine, should despise men-drovers and traders, more
than hog-drovers and traders. That they are not despised because it is
their business to trade in _human beings_ and bring them to market, is
plain from the fact that when some 'gentleman of property and
standing' and of a 'good family' embarks in a negro speculation, and
employs a dozen 'soul drivers' to traverse the upper country, and
drive to the south coffles of slaves, expending hundreds of thousands
in his wholesale purchases, he does not lose caste. It is known in
Alabama, that Mr. Erwin, son-in-law of the Hon. Henry Clay, and
brother of J.P. Erwin, formerly postmaster, and late mayor of the
city of Nashville, laid the foundation of a princely fortune in the
slave-trade, carried on from the Northern Slave States to the Planting
South; that the Hon. H. Hitchcock, brother-in-law of Mr. E., and since
one of the judges of the Supreme Court of Alabama, was interested with
him in the traffic; and that a late member of the Kentucky Senate
(Col. Wall) not only carried on the same business, a few years ago,
but accompanied his droves in person down the Mississippi. Not as the
_driver_, for that would be vulgar drudgery, beneath a gentleman, but
as a nabob in state, ordering his understrappers.

It is also well known that President Jackson was a 'soul driver,' and
that even so late as the year before the commencement of the last war,
he bought up a coffle of slaves and drove them down to Louisiana for
sale.

Thomas N. Gadsden, Esq. the principal slave auctioneer in Charleston,
S.C. is of one of the first families in the state, and moves in the
very highest class of society there. He is a descendant of the
distinguished General Gadsden of revolutionary memory, the most
prominent southern member in the Continental Congress of 1765, and
afterwards elected lieutenant governor and then governor of the state.
The Rev. Dr. Gadsden, rector of St. Phillip's Church, Charleston, and
the Rev. Phillip Gadsden, both prominent Episcopal clergymen in South
Carolina, and Colonel James Gadsden of the United States army, after
whom a county in Florida was recently named, are all brothers of this
Thomas N. Gadsden, Esq. the largest slave auctioneer in the state,
under whose hammer, men, women and children go off by thousands; its
stroke probably sunders _daily_, husbands and wives, parents and
children, brothers and sisters, perhaps to see each other's faces no
more. Now who supply the auction table of this Thomas N. Gadsden, Esq.
with its loads of human merchandize? These same detested 'soul
drivers' forsooth! They prowl through the country, buy, catch, and
fetter them, and drive their chained coffles up to his stand, where
Thomas N. Gadsden, Esq. knocks them off to the highest bidder, to
Ex-Governor Butler perhaps, or to Ex-Governor Hayne, or to Hon. Robert
Barnwell Rhett, or to his own reverend brother, Dr. Gadsden. Now this
high born, wholesale _soul-seller_ doubtless despises the retail
'soul-drivers' who give him their custom, and so does the wholesale
grocer, the drizzling tapster who sneaks up to his counter for a keg
of whiskey to dole out under a shanty in two cent glasses; and both
for the same reason.

The plea that the 'public opinion' among the highest classes of
society at the south is mild and considerate towards the slaves, that
_they_ do not overwork, underfeed, neglect when old and sick, scantily
clothe, badly lodge, and half shelter their slaves; that _they_ do not
barbarously flog, load with irons, imprison in the stocks, brand and
maim them; hunt them when runaway with dogs and guns, and sunder by
force and forever the nearest kindred--is shown, by almost every page
of this work, to be an assumption, not only utterly groundless, but
directly opposed to masses of irrefragable evidence. If the reader
will be at the pains to review the testimony recorded on the foregoing
pages he will find that a very large proportion of the atrocities
detailed were committed, not by the most ignorant and lowest classes
of society, but by persons 'of property and standing,' by masters and
mistresses belonging to the 'upper classes,' by persons in the learned
professions, by civil, judicial, and military officers, by the
_literati_, by the fashionable elite and persons of more than ordinary
'respectability' and external morality--large numbers of whom are
professors of religion.

It will be recollected that the testimony of Sarah M. Grimké, and
Angelina G. Weld, was confined exclusively to the details of slavery
as exhibited in the _highest classes of society_, mainly in
Charleston, S.C. See their testimony pp. 22-24 and 52-57. The former
has furnished us with the following testimony in addition to that
already given.

"Nathaniel Heyward of Combahee, S.C., one of the wealthiest planters
in the state, stated, in conversation with some other planters who
were complaining of the idle and lazy habits of their slaves, and the
difficulty of ascertaining whether their sickness was real or
pretended, and the loss they suffered from their frequent absence on
this account from their work, said, 'I never lose a day's work: it is
an _established_ rule on my plantations that the tasks of all the sick
negroes _shall be done by those who are well in addition to their
own_. By this means a vigilant supervision is kept up by the slaves
over each other, and they take care that nothing but real sickness
keeps any one out of the field.' I spent several winters in the
neighborhood of Nathaniel Heyward's plantations, and well remember his
character as a severe task master. _I was present when the above
statement was made_."

The cool barbarity of such a regulation is hardly surpassed by the
worst edicts of the Roman Caligula--especially when we consider that
the plantations of this man were in the neighborhood of the Combahee
river, one of the most unhealthy districts in the low country of South
Carolina; further, that large numbers of his slaves worked in the
_rice marshes_, or 'swamps' as they are called in that state--and that
during six months of the year, so fatal to health is the malaria of
the swamps in that region that the planters and their families
invariably abandon their plantations, regarding it as downright
presumption to spend a single day upon them 'between the frosts' of
the early spring and the last of November.

The reader may infer the high standing of Mr. Heyward in South
Carolina, from the fact that he was selected with four other
freeholders to constitute a Court for the trial of the conspirators in
the insurrection plot at Charleston, in 1822. Another of the
individuals chosen to constitute that court was Colonel Henry Deas,
now president of the Board of Trustees of Charleston College, and a
few years since a member of the Senate of South Carolina. From a late
correspondence in the "Greenvile (S.C.) Mountaineer," between Rev.
William M. Wightman, a professor in Randolph, Macon, College, and a
number of the citizens of Lodi, South Carolina, it appears that the
cruelty of this Colonel Deas to his slaves, is proverbial in South
Carolina, so much that Professor Wightman, in the sermon which
occasioned the correspondence, spoke of the Colonel's inhumanity to
his slaves as a matter of perfect notoriety.

Another South Carolina slaveholder, Hon. Whitmarsh B. Seabrook,
recently, we believe, Lieut. Governor of the state, gives the
following testimony to his own inhumanity, and his certificate of the
'public opinion' among South Carolina slaveholders 'of high degree.'

In an essay on the management of slaves, read before the Agricultural
Society of St. Johns, S.C. and published by the Society, Charleston,
1834, Mr. S. remarks:

"I consider _imprisonment in the stocks at night_, with or without
hard labor in the day, as a powerful auxiliary in the cause of _good_
government. To the correctness of this opinion _many_ can bear
testimony. EXPERIENCE has convinced ME that there is no punishment to
which the slave looks with more _horror_."

The advertisements of the Professors in the Medical Colleges of South
Carolina, published with comments--on pp. 169, 170, are additional
illustrations of the 'public opinion' of the _literati_.

That the 'public opinion' of _the highest class of society_ in South
Carolina, regards slaves a mere _cattle_, is shown by the following
advertisement, which we copy from the "Charleston (S.C.) Mercury" of
May 16:

"NEGROES FOR SALE.--A girl about twenty years of age, (raised in
Virginia,) and her two female children, one four and the other two
year old--is remarkably strong and healthy--never having had a day's
sickness, with the exception of the small pox, in her life. The
children are fine and healthy. She is VERY PROLIFIC IN HER GENERATING
QUALITIES, _and affords a rare opportunity to any person who wishes to
raise a family of strong and healthy servants for their own use._

"Any person wishing to purchase will please leave their address at the
Mercury office."

The Charleston Mercury, in which this advertisement appears, _is the
leading political paper in South Carolina_, and is well known to be
the political organ of Messrs. Calhoun, Rhett, Pickens, and others of
the most prominent politicians in the state. Its editor, John Stewart,
Esq., is a lawyer of Charleston, and of a highly respectable family.
He is a brother-in-law of Hon. Robert Barnwell Rhett, the late
Attorney-General, now a Member of Congress, and Hon. James Rhett, a
leading member of the Senate of South Carolina; his wife is a niece of
the late Governor Smith, of North Carolina, and of the late Hon. Peter
Smith, Intendant (Mayor) of the city of Charleston; and a cousin of
the late Hon. Thomas S. Grimké.

The circulation of the 'Mercury' among the wealthy, the literary, and
the fashionable, is probably much larger than that of any other paper
in the state.

These facts in connection with the preceding advertisement, are a
sufficient exposition of the 'public opinion' towards slaves,
prevalent in these classes of society.

The following scrap of 'public opinion' in Florida, is instructive. We
take it from the Florida Herald, June 23, 1838:

Ranaway from my plantation, on Monday night, the 13th instant, a negro
fellow named Ben; eighteen years of age, polite when spoken to, and
speaks very good English for a negro. As I have traced him out in
several places in town, I am certain he is harbored. This notice is
given that I am determined, that whenever he is taken, _to punish him
till he informs me_ who has given him food and protection, and _I
shall apply the law of Judge Lynch to my own satisfaction_, on those
concerned in his concealment.

A. WATSON.
June 16, 1838."


Now, who is this A. Watson, who proclaims through a newspaper, his
determination to _put to the torture_ this youth of eighteen, and to
Lynch to his 'satisfaction' whoever has given a cup of cold water to
the panting fugitive. Is he some low miscreant beneath public
contempt? Nay, verily, he is a 'gentleman of property and standing,'
one of the wealthiest planters and largest slaveholders in Florida. He
resides in the vicinity of St. Augustine, and married the daughter of
the late Thomas C. Morton, Esq. one of the first merchants in New
York.

We may mention in this connection the well known fact, that many
wealthy planters make it a _rule never to employ a physician among
their slaves_. Hon. William Smith, Senator in Congress, from South
Carolina, from 1816 to 1823, and afterwards from 1826 to 1831, is one
of this number. He owns a number of large plantations in the south
western states. One of these, borders upon the village of Huntsville,
Alabama. The people of that village can testify that it is a part of
Judge Smith's _system_ never to employ a physician _even in the most
extreme cases_. If the medical skill of the overseer, or of the slaves
themselves, can contend successfully with the disease, they live, if
not, _they die_. At all events, a physician is _not to be called_.
Judge Smith was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of the United
States three years since.

The reader will recall a similar fact in the testimony of Rev. W.T.
Allan, son of Rev. Dr. Allan, of Huntsville, (see p. 47,) who says
that Colonel Robert H. Watkins, a wealthy planter, in Alabama, and a
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR in 1836, who works on his plantations three
hundred slaves, 'After employing a physician for some time among his
negroes, he ceased to do so, alledging as the reason, that it was
_cheaper to lose a few negroes every year than to pay a physician_.'

It is a fact perfectly notorious, that the late General Wade Hampton,
of South Carolina, who was the largest slaveholder in the United
States, and probably the wealthiest man south of the Potomac, was
_excessively cruel_ in the treatment of his slaves. The anecdote of
him related by a clergyman, on page 29, is perfectly characteristic.

For instances of barbarous inhumanity of various kinds, and manifested
by persons BELONGING TO THE MOST RESPECTABLE CIRCLES OF SOCIETY, the
reader can consult the following references:--Testimony of Rev. John
Graham, p. 25, near the bottom; of Mr. Poe, p. 26, middle; of Rev. J.
O. Choules, p. 39, middle; of Rev. Dr. Channing, p. 41, top; of Mr.
George A. Avery, p. 44, bottom; of Rev. W.T. Allan, p. 47; of Mr. John
M. Nelson, p. 51, bottom; of Dr. J.C. Finley, p. 61, top; of Mr.
Dustin, p. 66, bottom; of Mr. John Clarke, p. 87; of Mr. Nathan Cole,
p. 89, middle; Rev. William Dickey, p. 93; Rev. Francis Hawley, p. 97;
of Mr. Powell, p. 100, middle; of Rev. P. Smith p. 102.

The preceding are but a few of a large number of similar cases
contained in the foregoing testimonies. The slaveholder mentioned by
Mr. Ladd, p. 86, who knocked down a slave and afterwards piled brush
upon his body, and consumed it, held the hand of a female slave in the
fire till it was burned so as to be useless for life, and confessed to
Mr. Ladd, that he had killed _four_ slaves, had been a _member of the
Senate of Georgia_ and a _clergyman_. The slaveholder who whipped a
female slave to death in St. Louis, in 1837, as stated by Mr. Cole,
p. 69, was a _Major in the United States Army_. One of the physicians
who was an abettor of the tragedy on the Brassos, in which a slave was
tortured to death, and another so that he barely lived, (see Rev. Mr.
Smith's testimony, p. 102.) was Dr. Anson Jones, a native of
Connecticut, who was soon after appointed minister plenipotentiary
from Texas to this government, and now resides at Washington city. The
slave mistress at Lexington, Ky., who, as her husband testifies, has
killed six of his slaves, (see testimony of Mr. Clarke, p. 87,) is the
wife of Hon. Fielding S. Turner, late judge of the criminal court of
New Orleans, and one of the wealthiest slaveholders in Kentucky.
Lilburn Lewis, who deliberately chopped in pieces his slave George,
with a broad-axe, (see testimony of Rev. Mr. Dickey, p. 93) was a
wealthy slaveholder, and a nephew of President Jefferson. Rev. Francis
Hawley, who was a general agent of the Baptist State Convention of
North Carolina, confesses (see p. 47,) that while residing in that
state he once went out with his hounds and rifle, to hunt fugitive
slaves. But instead of making further reference to testimony already
before the reader, we will furnish additional instances of the
barbarous cruelty which is tolerated and sanctioned by the 'upper
classes' of society at the south; we begin with clergymen, and other
officers and members of churches.

That the reader may judge of the degree of 'protection' which slaves
receive from 'public opinion,' and among the members and ministers of
professed christian churches, we insert the following illustrations.

Extract from an editorial article in the "Lowell (Mass.) Observer" a
religious paper edited at the time (1833) by the Rev. DANIEL S.
SOUTHMAYD, who recently died in Texas.

"We have been among the slaves at the south. We took pains to make
discoveries in respect to the evils of slavery. We formed our
sentiments on the subject of the cruelties exercised towards the
slaves from having witnessed them. We now affirm that we never saw a
man, who had never been at the south, who thought as much of the
cruelties practiced on the slaves, as we _know_ to be a fact.

"A slave whom I loved for his kindness and the amiableness of his
disposition, and who belonged to the family where I resided, happened
to stay out _fifteen minutes longer_ than he had permission to stay.
It was a mistake--it was _unintentional_. But what was the penalty? He
was sent to the house of correction with the order that he should have
_thirty lashes upon his naked body with a knotted rope!!!_ He was
brought home and laid down in the stoop, in the back of the house, in
_the sun, upon the floor_. And there he lay, with more the appearance
of a rotten carcass than a living man, for four days before he could
do more than move. And who was this inhuman being calling God's
property his own, and ruing it as he would not have dared to use a
beast? You may say he was a tiger--one of the more wicked sort, and
that we must not judge others by him. _He was a professor of that
religion which will pour upon the willing slaveholder the retribution
due to his sin_.

"We wish to mention another fact, which our own eyes saw and our own
ears heard. We were called to evening prayers. The family assembled
around the altar of their accustomed devotions. There was one female
_slave_ present, who belonged to another master, but who had been
hired for the day and tarried to attend family worship. The precious
Bible was opened, and nearly half a chapter had been read, when the
eye of the master, who was reading, observed that the new female
servant, instead of being seated like his own slaves, _flat upon the
floor_, was standing in a stooping posture upon her feet. He told her
to sit down on the floor. She said it was not her custom at home. He
ordered her again to do it. She replied that her master did not
require it. Irritated by this answer, he repeatedly _struck her upon
the head with the very Bible he held in his hand_. And not content
with this, he seized his cane and _caned her down stairs most
unmercifully_. He then returned to resume his profane work, but we
need not say that _all_ the family were not there. Do you ask again,
who was this wicked man? _He was a professor of religion!!_"


Rev. HUNTINGTON LYMAN, late pastor of the Free Church in Buffalo, New
York, says:--

"Walking one day in New Orleans with a professional gentleman, who was
educated in Connecticut, we were met by a black man; the gentleman was
greatly incensed with the black man for passing so _near_ him, and
turning upon him _he pushed him with violence off walk into the
street_. This man was a professor of religion."

(And _we_ add, a member, and if we mistake not an officer of the
Presbyterian Church which was established there by Rev. Joel Parker,
and which was then under his teachings-ED.)


Mr. EZEKIEL BIRDSEYE, a gentleman of known probity, in Cornwall,
Litchfield county, Conn. gives the testimony which follows:--

"A BAPTIST CLERGYMAN in Laurens District, S.C. WHIPPED HIS SLAVE TO
DEATH, whom he _suspected_ of having stolen about sixty dollars. The
slave was in the prime of life and was purchased a few weeks before
for $800 of a slave trader from Virginia or Maryland. The coroner, Wm.
Irby, at whose house I was then boarding, _told me_, that on reviewing
the dead body, he found it _beat to a jelly from head to foot_. The
master's wife discovered the money a day or two after the death of the
slave. She had herself removed it from where it was placed, not
knowing what it was, as it was tied up in a thick envelope. I happened
to be present when the trial of this man took place, at Laurens Court
House. His daughter testified that her father untied the slave, when
he appeared to be failing, and gave him cold water to drink, of which
he took freely. His counsel pleaded that his death _might_ have been
caused by drinking cold water in a state of excitement. The Judge
charged the jury, that it would be their duty to find the defendant
guilty, if they believed the death was caused by the whipping; but if
they were of opinion that drinking cold water caused the death, they
would find him not guilty! The jury found him--NOT GUILTY!"


Dr. JEREMIAH S. WAUGH, a physician in Somerville, Butler county, Ohio,
testifies as follows:--

"In the year 1825, I boarded with the Rev. John Mushat, a Seceder
minister, and principal of an academy in Iredel county, N.C. He had
slaves, and was in the habit of restricting them on the Sabbath. One
of his slaves, however, ventured to disobey his injunctions. The
offence was he went away on Sabbath evening, and did not return till
Monday morning. About the time we were called to breakfast, the Rev.
gentleman was engaged in chastising him for _breaking the Sabbath_. He
determined not to submit--attempted to escape by flight. The master
immediately took down his gun and pursued him--levelled his instrument
of death, and told him, if he did not stop instantly _he would blow
him through_. The poor slave returned to the house and submitted
himself to the lash; and the good master, while YET PALE WITH RAGE,
_sat down to the table, and with a trembling voice_ ASKED GOD'S
BLESSING!"


The following letter was sent by Capt. JACOB DUNHAM, of New York city,
to a slaveholder in Georgetown, D.C. more than twenty years since:

"Georgetown, June 13, 1815.

"Dear sir--Passing your house yesterday, I beheld a scene of cruelty
seldom witnessed--that was the brutal chastisement of your negro girl,
_lashed to a ladder and beaten in an inhuman manner, too bad to
describe_. My blood chills while I contemplate the subject. This has
led me to investigate your character from your neighbors; who inform
me that you have _caused the death_ of one negro man, whom you struck
with a sledge for some trivial fault--that you have beaten another
black girl with such severity that the _splinters_ remained in her
back for some weeks after you sold her--and many other acts of
barbarity, too lengthy to enumerate. And to my great surprise, I find
you are a _professor of the Christian religion!_

"You will naturally inquire, why I meddle with your family affairs. My
answer is, the cause of humanity and a sense of my duty requires
it.--these hasty remarks I leave you to reflect on the subject; but
wish you to remember, that there is an all-seeing eye who knows all
our faults and will reward us according to our deeds.

I remain, sir, yours, &c

JACOB DUNHAM.
Master of the brig Cyrus, of N.Y."


Rev. SYLVESTER COWLES, pastor of the Presbyterian church in Fredonia,
N.Y. says:--

"A young man, a member of the church in Conewango, went to Alabama
last year, to reside as a clerk in an uncle's store. When he had been
there about nine months, he wrote his father that he must return home.
To see members of the same church sit at the communion table of our
Lord one day, and the next to see one seize any weapon and knock the
other down, _as he had seen_, he _could not_ live there. His good
father forthwith gave him permission to return home."

The following is a specimen of the shameless hardihood with which a
professed minister of the Gospel, and editor of a religious paper,
assumes the right to hold God's image as a chattel. It is from the
Southern Christian Herald:--

"It is stated in the Georgetown Union, that a negro, supposed to have
died of cholera, when that disease prevailed in Charleston, was
carried to the public burying ground to be interred; but before
interment signs of life appeared, and, by the use of proper means, he
was restored to health. And now the man who first perceived the signs
of life in the slave, and that led to his preservation, claims the
property as his own, and is about bringing suit for its recovery. As
well might a man who rescued his neighbor's slave, or his _horse_,
from drowning, or who extinguished the flames that would otherwise
soon have burnt down his neighbor's house, claim the _property_ as his
own."

Rev. GEORGE BOURNE, of New York city, late Editor of the "Protestant
Vindicator," who was a preacher seven years in Virginia, gives the
following testimony.[39]

"Benjamin Lewis, who was an elder in the Presbyterian church, engaged
a carpenter to repair and enlarge his house. After some time had
elapsed, Kyle, the builder, was awakened very early in the morning by
a most piteous moaning and shrieking. He arose, and following the
sound, discovered a colored woman nearly naked, tied to a fence, while
Lewis was lacerating her. Kyle instantly commanded the slave driver to
desist. Lewis maintained his jurisdiction over his slaves, and
threatened Kyle that he would punish him for his interference.
Finally Kyle obtained the release of the victim.

"A second and a third scene of the same kind occurred, and on the
third occasion the altercation almost produced a battle between the
elder and the carpenter.

"Kyle immediately arranged his affairs, packed up his tools and
prepared to depart. 'Where are you going?' demanded Lewis. 'I am
going home;' said Kyle. 'Then I will pay you nothing for what you
have done,' retorted the slave driver, 'unless you complete your
contract.'  The carpenter went away with this edifying declaration, 'I
will not stay here a day longer; for I expect the fire of God will
come down and burn you up altogether, and I do not choose to go to
hell with you.'  Through hush-money and promises not to whip the women
any more, I believe Kyle returned and completed his engagement.

"James Kyle of Harrisonburg, Virginia, frequently narrated that
circumstance, and his son, the carpenter, confirmed it with all the
minute particulars combined with his temporary residence on the
Shenandoah river.

"John M'Cue of Augusta county, Virginia, a _Presbyterian preacher_,
frequently on the Lord's day morning, tied up his slaves and whipped
them; and left them bound, while he went to the meeting house and
preached--and after his return home repeated his scourging. That
fact, with others more heinous, was known to all persons in his
congregation and around the vicinity; and so far from being censured
for it, he and his brethren justified it as essential to preserve
their 'domestic institutions.'

"Mrs. Pence, of Rockingham county, Virginia, used to boast,--'I am the
best hand to whip a _wench_ in the whole county.'  She used to pinion
the girls to a post in the yard on the Lord's day morning, scourge
them, put on the '_negro plaster_,' salt, pepper, and vinegar, leave
them tied, and walk away to church as demure as a nun, and after
service repeat her flaying, if she felt the whim. I once expostulated
with her upon her cruelly. 'Mrs. Pence, how can you whip your girls
so publicly and disturb your neighbors so on the Lord's day morning.'
Her answer was memorable. 'If I were to whip them on any other day I
should lose a day's work; but by whipping them on Sunday, their backs
get well enough by Monday morning.'  That woman, if alive, is
doubtless a member of the church now, as then.

"Rev. Dr. Staughton, formerly of Philadelphia, often stated, that when
he lived at Georgetown, S.C. he could tell the doings of one of the
slaveholders of the Baptist church there by his prayers at the prayer
meeting. 'If,' said he, 'that man was upon good terms with his
slaves, his words were cold and heartless as frost; if he had been
whipping a man, he would pray with life; but if he had left a woman
whom he had been flogging, tied to a post in his cellar, with a
determination to go back and torture her again, O! how he would pray!'
 The Rev. Cyrus P. Grosvenor of Massachusetts can confirm the above
statement by Dr. Staughton.

"William Wilson, a Presbyterian preacher of Augusta county, Virginia,
had a young colored girl who was constitutionally unhealthy. As no
means to amend her were availing, he sold her to a member of his
congregation, and in the usual style of human flesh dealers, warranted
her 'sound,' &c. The fraud was instantly discovered; but he would not
refund the amount. A suit was commenced, and was long continued, and
finally the plaintiff recovered the money out of which he had been
swindled by slave-trading with his own preacher. No Presbytery
censured him, although Judge Brown, the chancellor, severely condemned
the imposition.

"In the year 1811, Johab Graham, a preacher, lived with Alexander
Nelson a Presbyterian elder, near Stanton, Virginia, and he informed
me that a man had appeared before Nelson, who was a magistrate, and
swore falsely against his slave,--that the elder ordered him
thirty-nine lashes. All that wickedness was done as an excuse for his
dissipated owner to obtain money. A negro trader had offered him a
considerable sum for the 'boy,' and under the pretence of saving him
from the punishment of the law, he was trafficked away from his woman
and children to another state. The magistrate was aware of the
perjury, and the whole abomination, but all the truth uttered by every
colored person in the southern states would not be of any avail
against the notorious false swearing of the greatest white villain who
ever cursed the world. 'How,' said Johab Graham, can I preach
to-morrow?' I replied, 'Very well; go and thunder the doctrine of
retribution in their ears, Obadiah 15, till by the divine blessing you
kill or cure them. My friends, John M. Nelson of Hillsborough, Ohio,
Samuel Linn, and Robert Herron, and others of the same vicinity, could
'make both the ears of every one who heareth them tingle' with the
accounts which they can give of slave-driving by professors of
religion in the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia.

"In 1815, near Frederick, in Maryland, a most barbarous planter was
killed in a fit of desperation, by four of his slaves _in
self-defence_. It was declared by those slaves while in prison that,
besides his atrocities among their female associates, he had
deliberately butchered a number of his slaves. The four men were
murdered by law, to appease the popular clamor. I saw them executed on
the twenty-eighth day of Jan'y, 1816. The facts I received from the
Rev. Patrick Davidson of Frederick, who constantly visited them during
their imprisonment--and who became an abolitionist in consequence of
the disclosures which he heard from those men in the jail. The name of
the planter is not distinctly recollected, but it can be known by a
inspection of the record of the trial in the clerk's office,
Frederick.

"A minister of Virginia, still living, and whose name must not be
mentioned for fear of Nero Preston and his confederate-hanging
myrmidons, informed me of this fact in 1815, in his own house. 'A
member of my church, said he, lately whipped a colored youth to death.
What shall I do?' I answered, 'I hope you do not mean to continue him
in your church.' That minister replied, 'How can we help it'
We dare not call him to an account. We have no legal testimony.'
Their communion season was then approaching. I addressed his
wife,--'Mrs. ---- do you mean to sit at the Lord's table with that
murderer?'--,'Not I,' she answered: 'I would as soon commune with the
devil himself.' The slave killer was equally unnoticed by the civil
and ecclesiastical authority.

"John Baxter, a Presbyterian elder, the brother of that slaveholding
doctor in divinity, George A. Baxter, held as a slave the wife of a
Baptist colored preacher, familiarly called 'Uncle Jack.' In a late
period of pregnancy he scourged her so that the lives of herself and
her unborn child were considered in jeopardy. Uncle Jack was advised
to obtain the liberation of his wife. Baxter finally agreed, I think,
to sell the woman and her children, three of them, I believe for six
hundred dollars, and an additional hundred if the unborn child
survived a certain period after its birth. Uncle Jack was to pay one
hundred dollars per annum for his wife and children for seven years,
and Baxter held a sort of mortgage upon them for the payment. Uncle
Jack showed me his back in furrows like a ploughed field. His master
used to whip up the flesh, then beat it downwards, and then apply the
'negro plaster,' salt, pepper, mustard, and vinegar, until all Jack's
back was almost as hard and unimpressible as the bones. There is
slaveholding religion! A Presbyterian elder receiving from a Baptist
preacher seven hundred dollars for his wife and children. James Kyle
and uncle Jack used to tell that story with great Christian
sensibility; and uncle Jack would weep tears of anguish over his
wife's piteous tale, and tears of ecstasy at the same moment that he
was free, and that soon, by the grace of God, his wife and children,
as he said, 'would be all free together.'"

Rev. JAMES NOURSE, a Presbyterian clergyman of Mifflia co. Penn.,
whose father is, we believe, a slaveholder in Washington City, says,--

"The Rev. Mr. M----, now of the Huntingdon Presbytery, after an absence
of many months, was about visiting his old friends on what is commonly
called the 'Eastern Shore.' Late in the afternoon, on his journey, he
called at the house of Rev. A.C. of P----town, Md. With this brother
he had been long acquainted. Just at that juncture Mr. C. was about
proceeding to whip a colored female, who was his slave. She was firmly
tied to a post in FRONT of his dwelling-house. The arrival of a
clerical visitor at such a time, occasioned a temporary delay in the
execution of Mr. C's purpose. But the delay was only temporary; for
not even the presence of such a guest could destroy the bloody design.
The guest interceded with all the mildness yet earnestness of a
brother and new visitor. But all in vain, 'the woman had been saucy
and must be punished.' The cowhide was accordingly produced, and the
_Rev. Mr. C_., a large and very stout man, applied it 'manfully' on
'woman's' bare and 'shrinking flesh.' I say bare, because you know
that the slave women generally have but three or four inches of the
arm near the shoulder covered, and the neck is left entirely exposed.
As the cowhide moved back and forward, striking right and left, on the
head, neck and arms, at every few strokes the sympathizing guest would
exclaim, 'O, brother C. desist' But brother C. pursued his brutal
work, till, after inflicting about sixty lashes, the woman was found
to be suffused with blood on the hinder part of her neck, and under
her frock between the shoulders. Yet this Rev. gentleman is well
esteemed in the church--was, three or four years since, moderator of
the synod of Philadelphia, and yet walks abroad, feeling himself
unrebuked by law or gospel. Ah, sir does not this narration give
fearful force to the query--_What has the church to do with slavery_?'
Comment on the facts is unnecessary, yet allow me to conclude by
saying, that it is my opinion such occurrences _are not rare in the
south_.

J.N."


REV. CHARLES STEWART RENSHAW, of Quincy, Illinois, in a recent letter,
speaking of his residence, for a period, in Kentucky, says--

"In a conversation with Mr. Robert Willis, he told me that his negro
girl had run away from him some time previous. He was convinced that
she was lurking round, and he watched for her. He soon found the place
of her concealment, drew her from it, got a rope, and tied her hands
across each other, then threw the rope over a beam in the kitchen, and
hoisted her up by the wrists; 'and,' said he, 'I whipped her there
till I made the lint fly, I tell you.' I asked him the meaning of
making 'the lint fly,' and he replied, '_till the blood flew_.' I spoke
of the iniquity and cruelty of slavery, and of its immediate
abandonment. He confessed it an evil, but said, 'I am a
_colonizationist_--I believe in that scheme.' Mr. Willis is a teacher
of sacred music, and a member of the Presbyterian Church in Lexington,
Kentucky."

Mr. R. speaking of the PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER and church where he
resided, says:

"The minister and all the church members held slaves. Some were
treated kindly, others harshly. _There was not a shade of difference_
between their slaves and those of their _infidel_ neighbors, either in
their physical, intellectual, or moral state: in some cases they would
_suffer_ in the comparison.

"In the kitchen of the minister of the church, a slave man was living
in open adultery with a slave woman, who was a member of the church,
with an 'assured hope' of heaven--whilst the man's wife was on the
minister's farm in Fayette county. The minister had to bring a cook
down from his farm to the place in which he was preaching. The choice
was between the wife of the man and this church member. He _left the
wife_, and brought the church member to the adulterer's bed.

"A METHODIST PREACHER last fall took a load of produce down the river.
Amongst other _things_ he took down five slaves. He sold them at New
Orleans--he came up to Natchez--bought seven there--and took them down
and sold them also. Last March he came up to preach the Gospel again.
A number of persons on board the steamboat (the Tuscarora.) who had
seen him in the slave-shambles in Natchez and New Orleans, and now,
for the first time, found him to be a preacher, had much sport at the
expense of 'the fine old preacher who dealt in slaves.'

A non-professor of religion, in Campbell county, Ky. sold a female and
two children to a Methodist professor, with the proviso that they
should not leave that region of country. The slave-driver came, and
offered $5 more for the woman than he had given, and he sold her. She
is now in the lower country, and _her orphan babes are in Kentucky_.

"I was much shocked once, to see a Presbyterian elder's wife call a
little slave to her to kiss her feet. At first the boy hesitated--but
the command being repeated in tones not to be misunderstood, be
approached timidly, knelt, and kissed her foot."

Rev. W.T. ALLAN, of Chatham, Illinois, gives the following in a letter
dated Feb. 4, 1839:

"Mr. Peter Vanarsdale, an elder of the Presbyterian church in
Carrollton, formerly from Kentucky, told me, the other day, that a
Mrs. Burford, in the neighborhood of Harrodsburg, Kentucky, had
_separated a woman and her children_ from their husband and father,
taking them into another state. Mrs. B. was a member of the
_Presbyterian Church_. The bereaved husband and father was also a
professor of religion.

"Mr. V. told me of a slave woman who had lost her son, separated from
her by public sale. In the anguish of her soul, she gave vent to her
indignation freely, and perhaps harshly. Sometime after, she wished to
become a member of the church. Before they received her, she had to
make humble confession for speaking as she had done. _Some of the
elders that received her, and required the confession, were engaged is
selling the son from his mother_."


The following communication from the Rev. WILLIAM BARDWELL, of
Sandwich, Massachusetts, has just been published in Zion's Watchman,
New York city:

_Mr. Editor_:--The following fact was given me last evening, from the
pen of a shipmaster, who has traded in several of the principal ports
in the south. He is a man of unblemished character, a member of the
M.E. Church in this place, and familiarly known in this town. The
facts were communicated to me last fall in a letter to his wife, with
a request that she would cause them to be published. I give verbatim,
as they were written from the letter by brother Perry's own hand while
I was in his house.

"A Methodist preacher, Wm. Whitby by name, who married in Bucksville,
S.C., and by marriage came into possession of some slaves, in July,
1838, was about moving to another station to preach, and wished, also,
to move his family and slaves to Tennessee, much against the will of
the slaves, one of which, to get clear from him, ran into the woods
after swimming a brook. The parson took after him with his gun, which,
however, got wet and missed fire, when he ran to a neighbor for
another gun, with the intention, as he said, of killing him: he did
not, however, catch or kill him; he chained another for fear of his
running away also. The above particulars were related to me by William
Whitby himself. THOMAS C. PERRY. March 3, 1839."

"I find by examining the minutes of the S.C. Conference, that there is
such a preacher in the Conference, and brother Perry further stated to
me that he was well acquainted with him, and if this statement was
published, and if it could be known where he was since the last
Conference, he wished a paper to be sent him containing the whole
affair. He also stated to me, verbally, that the young man he
attempted to shoot was about nineteen years of age, and had been shut
up in a corn-house, and in the attempt of Mr. Whitby to chain him, he
broke down the door and made his escape as above mentioned, and that
Mr. W. was under the necessity of hiring him out for one year, with
the risk of his employer's getting him. Brother Perry conversed with
one of the slaves, who was so old that he thought it not profitable to
remove so far, and had been sold; _he_ informed him of all the above
circumstances, and said, with tears, that he thought he had been so
faithful as to be entitled to liberty, but instead of making him free,
he had sold him to another master, besides parting one husband and
wife from those ties rendered a thousand times dearer by an infant
child which was torn for ever from the husband.

WILLIAM BARDWELL.
_Sandwich, Mass._, March 4, 1839."


Mr. WILLIAM POE, till recently a slaveholder in Virginia, now an elder
in the Presbyterian Church at Delhi, Ohio, gives the following
testimony:--

"An elder in the Presbyterian Church in Lynchburg had a most faithful
servant, whom he flogged severely and sent him to prison, and had him
confined as a felon a number of days, for being _saucy_. Another elder
of the same church, an auctioneer, habitually sold slaves at his
stand--very frequently _parted families_--would often go into the
country to sell slaves on execution and otherwise; when remonstrated
with, he justified himself, saying, 'it was his business;' the church
also justified him on the same ground.

"A Doctor Duval, of Lynchburg, Va. got offended with a very faithful,
worthy servant, and immediately sold him to a negro trader, to be
taken to New Orleans; Duval still keeping the wife of the man as his
slave. This Duval was a professor of religion."

Mr. SAMUEL HALL, a teacher in Marietta College, Ohio, says, in a
recent letter:--

"A student in Marietta College, from Mississippi, a professor of
religion, and in every way worthy of entire confidence, made to me the
following statement. [If his name were published it would probably
cost him his life.]

"When I was in the family of the Rev. James Martin, of Louisville,
Winston county, Mississippi, in the spring of 1838, Mrs. Martin became
offended at a female slave, because she did not move faster. She
commanded her to do so; the girl quickened her pace; again she was
ordered to move faster, or, Mrs. M. declared, she would break the
broomstick over her head. Again the slave quickened her pace; but not
coming up to the _maximum_ desired by Mrs. M. the latter declared she
would _see_ whether she (the slave) could move or not: and, going into
another apartment, she brought in a raw hide, awaiting the return of
her husband for its application. In this instance I know not what was
the final result, but I have heard the sound of the raw-hide in at
least _two_ other instances, applied by this same reverend gentleman
to the back of his _female_ servant."

Mr. Hall adds--"The name of my informant must be suppressed, as" he
says, "there are those who would cut my throat in a moment, if the
information I give were to be coupled with my name." Suffice it to say
that he is a professor of religion, a native of Virginia, and a
student of Marietta College, whose character will bear the strictest
scrutiny. He says:--

"In 1838, at Charlestown, Va. I conversed with several members of the
church under the care of the Rev. Mr. Brown, of the same place. Taking
occasion to speak of slavery, and of the sin of slaveholding, to one
of them who was a lady, she replied, "I am a slaveholder, and I
_glory_ in it." I had a conversation, a few days after, with the
pastor himself, concerning the state of religion in his church, and
who were the most exemplary members in it. The pastor mentioned
several of those who were of that description; the _first_ of whom,
however, was the identical lady who _gloried_ in being a slaveholder!
That church numbers nearly two hundred members.

"Another lady, who was considered as devoted a Christian as any in the
same church, but who was in poor health, was accustomed to flog some
of her female domestics with a raw-hide till she was exhausted, and
then go and lie down till her strength was recruited, rising again and
resuming the flagellation. This she considered as not at all
derogatory to her Christian character."

Mr. JOEL S. BINGHAM, of Cornwall, Vermont, lately a student in
Middlebury College, and a member of the Congregational Church, spent a
few weeks in Kentucky, in the summer of 1838. He relates the following
occurrence which took place in the neighborhood where he resided, and
was a matter of perfect notoriety in the vicinity.

"Rev. Mr. Lewis, a Baptist minister in the vicinity of Frankfort, Ky.
had a slave that ran away, but was retaken and brought back to his
master, who threatened him with punishment for making an attempt to
escape. Though terrified the slave immediately attempted to run away
again. Mr. L. commanded him to stop, but he did not obey. _Mr. L. then
took a gun, loaded with small shot and fired at the slave, who fell_;
but was not killed, and afterward recovered. Mr. L. did not probably
intend to kill the slave, as it was his legs which were aimed at and
received the contents of the gun. The master asserted that he was
driven to this necessity to maintain his authority. This took place
about the first of July, 1838."

The following is given upon the authority of Rev. ORANGE SCOTT, of
Lowell, Mass. for many years a presiding elder in the Methodist
Episcopal Church.

"Rev. Joseph Hough, a Baptist minister, formerly of Springfield, Mass.
now of Plainfield, N.H. while traveling in the south, a few years ago,
put up one night with a Methodist family, and spent the Sabbath with
them. While there, one of the female slaves did something which
displeased her mistress. She took a chisel and mallet, and very
deliberately cut off one of her toes!"


SLAVE BREEDING AN INDEX OF PUBLIC 'OPINION' AMONG THE 'HIGHEST CLASS
OF SOCIETY' IN VIRGINIA AND OTHER NORTHERN SLAVE STATES.

But we shall be told, that 'slave-breeders' are regarded with
contempt, and the business of slave breeding is looked upon as
despicable; and the hot disclaimer of Mr. Stevenson, our Minister
Plenipotentiary at the Court of St. James, in reply to Mr. O'Connell,
who had intimated that he might be a 'slave breeder,' will doubtless
be quoted.[40] In reply, we need not say what every body knows, that
if Mr. Stevenson is not a 'slave breeder,' he is a solitary exception
among the large slaveholders of Virginia. What! Virginia slaveholders
not 'slave-breeders?' the pretence is ridiculous and contemptible; it
is meanness, hypocrisy, and falsehood, as is abundantly proved by the
testimony which follows:--

Mr. GHOLSON, of Virginia, in his speech in the Legislature of that
state, Jan. 18, 1832, (see Richmond Whig,) says:--

"It has always (perhaps erroneously) been considered by steady and
old-fashioned people, that the owner of land had a reasonable right to
its annual profits; the owner of orchards, to their annual fruits; the
owner of _brood mares_, to their product; and the owner of _female
slaves, to their increase_. We have not the fine-spun intelligence,
nor legal acumen, to discover the technical distinctions drawn by
gentlemen. The legal maxim of '_Partus sequitur ventrem_' is coeval
with the existence of the rights of property itself, and is founded in
wisdom and justice. It is on the justice and inviolability of this
maxim that the master foregoes the service of the female slave; has
her nursed and attended during the period of her gestation, and raises
the helpless and infant offspring. The value of the property justifies
the expense; and I do not hesitate to say, that in its _increase
consists much of our wealth_."

Hon. THOMAS MANN RANDOLPH, of Virginia. formerly Governor of that
state, in his speech before the legislature in 1832, while speaking of
the number of slaves annually sold from Virginia to the more southern
slave states, said:--

"The exportation has _averaged_ EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED for the
last twenty years. Forty years ago, the whites exceeded the colored
25,000, the colored now exceed the whites 81,000; and these results
too during an exportation of near 260,000 slaves since the year 1790,
now perhaps the fruitful progenitors of half a million in other
states. It is a practice and an increasing practice, in parts of
Virginia, to rear slaves for market. How can an honorable mind, a
patriot and a lover of his country, bear to see this ancient dominion
converted into one grand menagerie, where men are to be reared for
market, like oxen for the shambles."

Professor DEW, now President of the University of William and Mary,
Virginia, in his Review of the Debate in the Virginia Legislature,
1831-2, says, p 49.

"From all the information we can obtain, we have no hesitation in
saying that upwards of six thousand [slaves] are yearly exported [from
Virginia] to other states.' Again, p. 61: 'The 6000 slaves which
Virginia annually sends off to the south, are a source of wealth to
Virginia'--Again, p. 120: 'A full equivalent being thus left in the
place of the slave, this emigration becomes an advantage to the state,
and does not check the black population as much as, at first view, we
might imagine--because it furnishes every inducement to the master to
attend to the negroes, to ENCOURAGE BREEDING, and to cause the
_greatest number possible to be raised._ &c."

_"Virginia is, in fact, a negro-raising state for other states."_

Extract from the speech of MR. FAULKNER, in the Va. House of
Delegates, 1832. [See Richmond Whig.]

"But he [Mr. Gholson,] has labored to show that the Abolition of
Slavery, were it practicable, would be _impolitic_, because as the
drift of this portion of his argument runs, your slaves constitute the
entire wealth of the state, all the _productive capacity_ Virginia
possesses. And, sir, as things are, _I believe he is correct_. He
says, and in this he is sustained by the gentleman from Halifax, Mr.
Bruce, that the slaves constitute the entire available wealth at
present, of Eastern Virginia. Is it true that for 200 years the only
increase in the wealth and resources of Virginia, has been a remnant
of the natural _increase_ of this miserable race?--Can it be, that on
this _increase_, she places her solo dependence? I had always
understood that indolence and extravagance were the necessary
concomitants of slavery; but, until I heard these declarations, I had
not fully conceived the horrible extent of this evil. These gentlemen
state the fact, which the history and _present aspect of the
Commowealth but too well sustain_. The gentlemen's facts and argument
in support of his plea of impolicy, to me, seem rather unhappy. To me,
such a state of things would itself be conclusive at least, that
something, even as a measure of policy, should be done. What, sir,
have you lived for two hundred years, without personal effort or
productive industry, in extravagance and indolence, sustained alone
_by the return from sales of the increase of slaves_, and retaining
merely such a number as your now impoverished lands can sustain, AS
STOCK, _depending, too, upon a most uncertain market_? When that
market is closed, as in the nature of things it must be, what then
will become of this gentleman's hundred millions worth of slaves, AND
THE ANNUAL PRODUCT?"

In the debates in the Virginia Convention, in 1829, Judge Upsher
said--"The value of slaves as an article of property [and it is in
that view only that they are legitimate subjects of taxation] _depends
much on the state of the market abroad_. In this view, it is the value
of land _abroad_, and not of land here, which furnishes the ratio. It
is well known to us all, that nothing is more fluctuating than the
value of slaves. A late law of Louisiana reduced their value 25 per
cent, in two hours after its passage was known. IF IT SHOULD BE OUR
LOT, AS I TRUST IT WILL BE, TO ACQUIRE THE COUNTRY OF TEXAS, THEIR
PRICE WILL RISE AGAIN."--p. 77.

Mr. Goode, Of Virginia, in his speech before the Virginia Legislature,
in Jan. 1832, [See Richmond Whig, of that date,] said:--

"The superior usefulness of the slaves in the south, will constitute
an _effectual demand_, which will remove them from our limits. We
shall send them from our state, because _it will be our interest to do
so_. Our planters are already becoming farmers. Many who grew tobacco
as their only staple, have already introduced, and commingled the
wheat crop. They are already semi-farmers; and in the natural course
of events, they must become more and more so.--As the greater quantity
of rich western lands are appropriated to the production of the staple
of our planters, that staple will become less profitable.--We shall
gradually divert our lands from its production, until we shall become
actual farmers.--Then will the necessity for slave labor diminish;
then will the effectual demand diminish, and then will the quantity of
slaves diminish, until they shall be adapted to the effectual demand.

"But gentlemen are alarmed _lest the markets of other states be closed
against the introduction of our slaves_. Sir, the demand for slave
labor MUST INCREASE through the South and West. It has been heretofore
limited by the want of capital; but when emigrants shall be relieved
from their embarrassments, contracted by the purchase of their lands,
the annual profits of their estates, will constitute an accumulating
capital, which they will _seek to invest in labor_. That the demand
for labor must increase in proportion to the increase of capital, is
one of the demonstrations of political economists; and I confess, that
for the removal of slavery from Virginia, I look to the efficacy of
that principle; together with the circumstance that our southern
brethren are constrained to continue planters, by their position, soil
and climate."

The following is from Niles' Weekly Register, published at Baltimore,
Md. vol. 35, p. 4.

_"Dealing in slaves has become a large business_; establishments are
made in several places in Maryland and Virginia, at which they are
sold like cattle; these places of deposit are strongly built, and well
supplied with thumb-screws and gags, and ornamented with cow-skins and
other whips oftentimes bloody."


R.S. FINLEY, Esq., late General Agent of the American Colonization
Society, at a meeting in New York, 27th Feb. 1833, said:

"In Virginia and other grain-growing slave states, the blacks do not
support themselves, and the only profit their masters derive from them
is, repulsive as the idea may justly seem, in breeding them, like
other live stock for the more southern states."


Rev. Dr. GRAHAM, of Fayetteville, N.C. at a Colonization Meeting,
held in that place in the fall of 1837 said:

"He had resided for 15 years in one of the largest slaveholding
counties in the state, had long and anxiously considered the subject,
and still it was dark. There were nearly 7000 slaves offered in New
Orleans market last winter. From Virginia alone 6000 were annually
sent to the south; and from Virginia and N.C. there had gone, in the
same direction, in the last twenty years, 300,000 slaves. While not
4000 had gone to Africa. What it portended, he could not predict, but
he felt deeply, that _we must awake in these states and consider the
subject_."


Hon. PHILIP DODDRIDGE, of Virginia, in his speech in the Virginia
Convention, in 1829, [Debates p. 89.] said:--

"The acquisition of Texas will greatly _enhance the value of the
property_, in question, [Virginia slaves.]"


Hon C.F. MERCER, in a speech before the same Convention, in 1829,
says:

"The tables of the natural growth of the slave population demonstrate,
when compared with the increase of its numbers in the commonwealth for
twenty years past, that an annual revenue of not less than a million
and a half of dollars is derived from the exportation of a part of
this population." (Debates, p. 199.)


Hon. HENRY CLAY, of Ky., in his speech before the Colonization
Society, in 1829, says:

"It is believed that nowhere in the farming portion of the United
States, would slave labor be generally employed, if the proprietor
were not tempted to RAISE SLAVES BY THE HIGH PRICE OF THE SOUTHERN
MARKET WHICH KEEPS IT UP IN HIS OWN."

The New Orleans Courier, Feb. 15, 1839, speaking of the prohibition of
the African Slave-trade, while the internal slave-trade is plied,
says:

"The United States law may, and probably does, put MILLIONS _into the
pockets of the people living between the Roanoke, and Mason and
Dixon's line_; still we think it would require some casuistry to show
that _the present slave-trade from that quarter_ is a whit better than
the one from Africa. One thing is certain--that its results are more
menacing to the tranquillity of the people in this quarter, as there
can be no comparison between the ability and inclination to do
mischief, possessed by the Virginia negro, and that of the rude and
ignorant African."

That the New Orleans Editor does not exaggerate in saying that the
internal slave-trade puts 'millions' into the pockets of the
slaveholders in Maryland and Virginia, is very clear from the
following statement, made by the editor of the Virginia Times, an
influential political paper, published at Wheeling, Virginia. Of the
exact date of the paper we are not quite certain, it was, however,
sometime in 1836, probably near the middle of the year--the file will
show. The editor says:--

"We have heard intelligent men estimate the number of slaves exported
from Virginia within the last twelve months, at 120,000--each slave
averaging at least $600, making an aggregate at $72,000,000. Of the
number of slaves exported, not more than _one-third_ have been sold,
(the others having been carried by their owners, who have removed,)
_which would leave in the state the_ SUM OF $24,000,000 ARISING FROM
THE SALE OF SLAVES."

According to this estimate about FORTY THOUSAND SLAVES WERE SOLD OUT
OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA IN A SINGLE YEAR, and the 'slave-breeders'
who hold them, put into their pockets TWENTY-FOUR MILLION OF DOLLARS,
the price of the 'souls of men.'

The New York Journal of Commerce of Oct. 12, 1835, contained a letter
from a Virginian, whom the editor calls 'a very good and sensible
man,' asserting that TWENTY THOUSAND SLAVES had been driven to the
south from Virginia _during that year_, nearly one-fourth of which was
then remaining.

The Maryville (Tenn.) Intelligencer, some time in the early part of
1836, (we have not the date,) says, in an article reviewing a
communication of Rev. J.W. Douglass, of Fayetteville, North Carolina:
"Sixty thousand slaves passed through a little western town for the
southern market, during the year 1835."

The Natchez (Miss.) Courier, says "that the states of Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas, imported TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY
THOUSAND SLAVES from the more northern slave states in the year 1836."

The Baltimore American gives the following from a Mississippi paper,
of 1837:

"The report made by the committee of the citizens Of Mobile, appointed
at their meeting held on the 1st instant, on the subject of the
existing pecuniary pressure, states, among other things: that so large
has been the return of slave labor, that purchases by Alabama of that
species of property from other states since 1833, have amounted to
about TEN MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY."

FURTHER the _inhumanity_ of a slaveholding 'public opinion' toward
slaves, follows legitimately from the downright ruffianism of the
slaveholding _spirit_ in the 'highest class of society,' When roused,
it tramples upon all the proprieties and courtesies, and even common
decencies of life, and is held in check by none of those
considerations of time, and place, and relations of station,
character, law, and national honor, which are usually sufficient, even
in the absence of conscientious principles, to restrain other men from
outrages. Our National Legislature is a fit illustration of this.
Slaveholders have converted the Congress of the United States into a
very bear garden. Within the last three years some of the most
prominent slaveholding members of the House, and among them the late
speaker, have struck and kicked, and throttled, and seized each other
by the hair, and with their fists pummelled each other's faces, on the
floor of Congress. We need not publish an account of what every body
knows, that during the session of the last Congress, Mr. Wise of
Virginia and Mr. Bynum of North Carolina, after having called each
other "liars, villains" and "damned rascals" sprung from their seats
"both sufficiently armed for any desperate purpose," cursing each
other as they rushed together, and would doubtless have butchered each
other on the floor of Congress, if both had not been seized and held
by their friends.

The New York Gazette relates the following which occurred at the close
of the session of 1838.

"The House could not adjourn without another brutal and bloody row. It
occurred on Sunday morning immediately at the moment of adjournment,
between Messrs. Campbell and Maury, both of Tennessee. He took offence
at some remarks made to him by his colleague, Mr. Campbell, and the
fight followed."

The Huntsville (Ala.) Democrat of June 16, 1838, gives the particulars
which follow:

"Mr. Maury is said to be badly hurt. He was near losing his life by
being knocked through the window; but his adversary, it is said, saved
him by clutching the hair of his head with his left hand, while he
struck him with his right."

The same number of the Huntsville Democrat, contains the particulars
of a fist-fight on the floor of the House of Representatives, between
Mr. Bell, the late Speaker, and his colleague Mr. Turney of Tennessee.
The following is an extract:

"Mr. Turney concluded his remarks in reply to Mr. Bell, in the course
of which he commented upon that gentleman's course at different
periods of his political career with great severity.

"He did not think his colleague [Mr. Turney,] was actuated by private
malice, but was the willing voluntary instrument of others, the tool
of tools.

Mr. Turney. It is false! it is false!

Mr. Stanley called Mr. TURNEY to order.

At the same moment both gentlemen were perceived in personal conflict,
and blows with the fist were aimed by each at the other. Several
members interfered, and suppressed the personal violence; others
called order, order, and some called for the interference of the
Speaker.

The Speaker hastily took the chair, and insisted upon order; but both
gentlemen continued struggling, and endeavoring, notwithstanding the
constraint of their friends, to strike each other."

The correspondent of the New York Gazette gives the following, which
took place about the time of the preceding affrays:

"The House was much agitated last night, by the passage between Mr.
Biddle, of Pittsburgh, and Mr. Downing, of Florida. Mr. D. exclaimed
"do you impute falsehood to me!" at the same time catching up some
missile and making a demonstration to advance upon Mr. Biddle. Mr.
Biddle repeated his accusation, and meanwhile, Mr. Downing was
arrested by many members."

The last three fights all occurred, if we mistake not, in the short
space of one month. The fisticuffs between Messrs. Bynum and Wise
occurred at the previous session of Congress. At the same session
Messrs. Peyton of Tenn. and Wise of Virginia, went armed with pistols
and dirks to the meeting of a committee of Congress, and threatened to
shoot a witness while giving his testimony.

We begin with the first on the list. Who are Messrs. Wise and Bynum?
Both slaveholders. Who are Messrs. Campbell and Maury? Both
slaveholders. Who are Messrs. Bell and Turney? Both slaveholders. Who
is Mr. Downing, who seized a weapon and rushed upon Mr. Biddle? A
slaveholder. Who is Mr. Peyton who drew his pistol on a witness before
a committee of Congress? A slaveholder of course. All these bullies
were slaveholders, and they magnified their office, and slaveholding
was justified of her children. We might fill a volume with similar
chronicles of slaveholding brutality. But time would fail us. Suffice
it to say, that since the organization of the government, a majority
of the most distinguished men in the slaveholding states have gloried
in strutting over the stage in the character of murderers. Look at the
men whom the people delight to honor. President Jackson, Senator
Benton, the late Gen. Coffee,--it is but a few years since these
slaveholders shot at, and stabbed, and stamped upon each other in a
tavern broil. General Jackson had previously killed Mr. Dickenson.
Senator Clay of Kentucky has immortalized himself by shooting at a
near relative of Chief Justice Marshall, and being wounded by him; and
not long after by shooting at John Randolph of Virginia. Governor
M'Duffie of South Carolina has signalized himself also, both by
shooting and being shot,--so has Governor Poindexter, and Governor
Rowan, and Judge M'Kinley of the U.S. Supreme Court, late senator in
Congress from Alabama,--but we desist; a full catalogue would fill
pages. We will only add, that a few months since, in the city of
London, Governor Hamilton, of South Carolina, went armed with pistols,
to the lodgings of Daniel O'Connell, 'to stop his wind' in the
bullying slang of his own published boast. During the last session of
Congress Messrs. Dromgoole and Wise[41] of Virginia, W. Cost Johnson
and Jenifer of Maryland, Pickens and Campbell of South Carolina, and
we know not how many more slaveholding members of Congress have been
engaged, either as principals or seconds, in that species of murder
dignified with the name of duelling. But enough; we are heart-sick.
What meaneth all this? Are slaveholders worse than other men? No! but
arbitrary power has wrought in them its mystery of iniquity, and
poisoned their better nature with its infuriating sorcery.

Their savage ferocity toward each other when their passions are up, is
the natural result of their habit of daily plundering and oppressing
the slave.

The North Carolina Standard of August 30, 1837, contains the following
illustration of this ferocity exhibited by two southern lawyers in
settling the preliminaries of a duel.

"The following conditions were proposed by Alexander K. McClung, of
Raymond, in the State of Mississippi, to H.C. Stewart, as the laws to
govern a duel they were to fight near Vicksburg:

"Article 1st. The parties shall meet opposite Vicksburg, in the State
of Louisiana, on Thursday the 29th inst. precisely at 4 o'clock, P.M.
Agreed to.

"2d. The weapons to be used by each shall weigh one pound two and a
half ounces, measuring sixteen inches and a half in length, including
the handle, and one inch and three-eighths in breadth. Agreed to.

"3d. Both knives shall be sharp on one edge, and on the back shall be
sharp only one inch at the point. Agreed to.

"4th. Each party shall stand at the distance of eight feet from the
other, until the word is given. Agreed to.

"5th. The second of each party shall throw up, with a silver dollar, on
the ground, for the word, and two best out of three shall win the
word. Agreed to.

"6th. After the word is given, either party may take what advantage he
can with his knife, but on throwing his knife at the other, shall be
shot down by the second of his opponent. Agreed to.

"7th. Each party shall be stripped entirely naked, except one pair of
linen pantaloons; one pair of socks, and boots or pumps as the party
please. Acceded to.

"8th. The wrist of the left arm of each party shall be tied tight to
his left thigh, and a strong cord shall be fastened around his left
arm at the elbow, and then around his body. Rejected.

"9th. After the word is given, each party shall be allowed to advance
or recede as he pleases, over the space of twenty acres of ground,
until death ensues to one of the parties. Agreed to--the parties to be
placed in the centre of the space.

"10th. The word shall be given by the winner of the same, in the
following manner, viz: "Gentlemen are you ready?" Each party shall
then answer, "I am!" The second giving the word shall then distinctly
command--_strike_. Agreed to.

"If either party shall violate these rules, upon being notified by the
second of either party, he may be liable to be shot down instantly. As
established usage points out the duty of both parties, therefore
notification is considered unnecessary."

The FAVORITE AMUSEMENTS of slaveholders, like the gladiatorial shows
of Rome and the Bull Fights of Spain, reveal a public feeling
insensible to suffering, and a depth of brutality in the highest
degree revolting to every truly noble mind. One of their most common
amusements is cock fighting. Mains of cocks, with twenty, thirty, and
fifty cocks on each side, are fought for hundreds of dollars aside.
The fowls are armed with steel spurs or '_gafts_,' about two inches
long. These 'gafts' are fastened upon the legs by sawing off the
_natural_ 'spur,' leaving only enough of it to answer the purpose of a
_stock_ for the tube of the "gafts," which are so sharp that at a
stroke the fowls thrust them through each other's necks and heads, and
tear each other's bodies till one or both dies, then two others are
brought forward for the amusement of the multitude assembled, and this
barbarous pastime is often kept up for days in succession, hundreds
and thousands gathering from a distance to witness it. The following
advertisements from the Raleigh Register, June 18, 1838, edited by
Messrs. Gales and Son, the father and brother of Mr. Gales, editor of
the National Intelligencer, and late Mayor of Washington City, reveal
the public sentiment of North Carolina.

"CHATHAM AGAINST NASH, or any other county in the State. I am
authorized to take a bet of any amount that may be offered, to FIGHT A
MAIN OF COCKS, at any place that may be agreed upon by the parties--to
be fought the ensuing spring. GIDEON ALSTON. Chatham county, June 7,
1838."

Two weeks after, this challenge was answered as follows:

"TO MR. GIDEON ALSTON, of Chatham county, N.C.

"SIR: In looking over the North Carolina Standard of the 20th inst. I
discover a challenge over your signature, headed 'Chatham against
Nash,' in which you state: that you are 'authorized to take a bet of
any amount that may be offered, to fight a main of cocks, at any place
that may be agreed upon by the parties, to be fought the ensuing
spring' which challenge I ACCEPT: and do propose to meet you at
Rolesville, in Wake county, N.C. on the last Wednesday in May next,
the parties to show thirty-one cocks each--fight four days, and be
governed by the rules as laid down in Turner's Cock Laws--which, if
you think proper to accede to, you will signify through this or any
other medium you may select, and then I will name the sum for which we
shall fight, as that privilege was surrendered by you in your
challenge.

"I am, sir, very respectfully, &c. NICHOLAS W. ARRINGTON, near
Hilliardston, Nash co. North Carolina June 22nd, 1838"

The following advertisement in the Richmond Whig, of July 12, 1837,
exhibits the public sentiment of Virginia.

"MAIN OF COCKS.--A large 'MAIN OF COCKS,' 21 a side, for $25 'the
fight', and $500 'the odd,' will be fought between the County of
Dinwiddie on one part, and the Counties of Hanover and Henrico on the
other.

"The 'regular' fighting will be continued _three days_, and from the
large number of 'game uns' on both sides and in the adjacent country,
will be prolonged no doubt a _fourth_. To prevent confusion and
promote 'sport,' the Pit will be enclosed and furnished with _seats_;
so that those having a curiosity to witness a species of diversion
originating in a better day (for they had no rag money then,) can have
_that_ very _natural_ feeling gratified.

"The Petersburg Constellation is requested to copy."

_Horse-racing_ too, as every body knows, is a favorite amusement of
slaveholders. Every slave state has its race course, and in the older
states almost every county has one on a small scale. There is hardly a
day in the year, the weather permitting, in which crowds do not
assemble at the south to witness this barbarous sport. Horrible
cruelty is absolutely inseparable from it. Hardly a race occurs of any
celebrity in which some one of the coursers is not lamed, 'broken
down,' or in some way seriously injured, often for life, and not
unfrequently they are killed by the rupture of some vital part in the
struggle. When the heats are closely contested, the blood of the
tortured animal drips from the lash and flies at every leap from the
stroke of the rowel. From the breaking of girths and other accidents,
their riders (mostly slaves) are often thrown and maimed or killed.
Yet these amusements are attended by thousands in every part of the
slave states. The wealth and fashion, the gentlemen and _ladies_ of
the 'highest circles' at the south, throng the race course.

That those who can fasten steel spurs upon the legs of dunghill fowls,
and goad the poor birds to worry and tear each other to death--and
those who can crowd by thousands to _witness_ such barbarity--that
those who can throng the race-course and with keen relish witness the
hot pantings of the life-struggle, the lacerations and fitful spasms
of the muscles, swelling through the crimsoned foam, as the tortured
steeds rush in blood-welterings to the goal--that such, should look
upon the sufferings of their slaves with, indifference is certainly
small wonder.

Perhaps we shall be told that there are thronged race-courses at the
North. True, there are a few, and they are thronged chiefly by
_Southerners_, and 'Northern men with _Southern_ principles,' and
supported mainly by the patronage of slaveholders who summer at the
North. Cock-fighting and horse-racing are "_Southern_ institutions."
The idleness, contempt of labor, dissipation, sensuality, brutality,
cruelty, and meanness, engendered by the habit of making men and women
work without pay, and flogging them if they demur at it, constitutes a
congenial soil out of which cock-fighting and horse-racing are the
spontaneous growth.

Again,--The kind treatment of the slaves is often argued from the
liberal education and enlarged views of slaveholders. The facts and
reasonings of the preceding pages have shown, that 'liberal
education,' despotic habits and ungoverned passions work together with
slight friction. And every day's observation shows that the former is
often a stimulant to the latter.

But the notion so common at the north that the majority of the
slaveholders are persons of education, is entirely erroneous. A _very
few_ slaveholders in each of the slave states have been men of _ripe_
education, to whom our national literature is much indebted. A larger
number may be called _well_ educated--these reside mostly in the
cities and large villages, but a majority of the slaveholders are
ignorant men, thousands of them notoriously so, _mere boors_ unable to
write their names or to read the alphabet.

No one of the slave states has probably so much general education as
Virginia. It is the oldest of them--has furnished one half of the
presidents of the United States--has expended more upon her university
than any state in the Union has done during the same time upon its
colleges--sent to Europe nearly twenty years since for her most
learned professors, and in fine, has far surpassed every other slave
state in her efforts to disseminate education among her citizens, and
yet, the Governor of Virginia in his message to the legislature (Jan.
7, 1839) says, that of four thousand six hundred and fourteen adult
males in that state, who applied to the county clerks for marriage
licenses in the year 1837, 'ONE THOUSAND AND FORTY SEVEN _were unable
to write their names_.' The governor adds, 'These statements, it will
be remembered, are confined to one sex: the education of females it is
to be feared, is in a condition of _much greater neglect_.'

The Editor of the Virginia Times, published at Wheeling, in his paper
of Jan. 23, 1839, says,--

"We have every reason to suppose that one-fourth of the people of the
state cannot write their names, and they have not, of course, any
other species of education."

Kentucky is the child of Virginia; her first settlers were some of the
most distinguished citizens of the mother state; in the general
diffusion of intelligence amongst her citizens Kentucky is probably in
advance of all the slave states except Virginia and South Carolina;
and yet Governor Clark, in his last message to the Kentucky
Legislature, (Dec 5, 1838) makes the following declaration: "From the
computation of those most familiar with the subject, it appears that
AT LEAST ONE THIRD OF THE ADULT POPULATION OF THE STATE ARE UNABLE TO
WRITE THEIR NAMES."

The following advertisement in the "Milledgeville (Geo.) Journal,"
Dec. 26, 1837, is another specimen from one of the 'old thirteen.'

"NOTICE.--I, Pleasant Webb, of the State of Georgia, Oglethorpe
county, being an _illiterate man, and not able to write my own name_,
and whereas it hath been represented to me that there is a certain
promissory note or notes out against me that I know nothing of, and
further that some man in this State holds a bill of sale for _a
certain negro woman named Ailsey and her increase, a part of which is
now in my possession_, which I also know nothing of. Now do hereby
certify and declare, that I have no knowledge whatsoever of any such
papers existing in my name as above stated and I hereby require all or
any person or persons whatsoever holding or pretending to hold any
such papers, to produce them to me within thirty days from the date
hereof, shewing their authority for holding the same, or they will be
considered fictitious and fraudulently obtained or raised, by some
person or persons for base purposes after my death.

"Given under my hand this 2nd day of December, 1837. PLEASANT WEBB.
his mark X."

FINALLY, THAT SLAVES MUST HABITUALLY SUFFER GREAT CRUELTIES, FOLLOWS
INEVITABLY FROM THE BRUTAL OUTRAGES WHICH THEIR MASTERS INFLICT ON
EACH OTHER.

Slaveholders, exercising from childhood irresponsible power over human
beings, and in the language of President Jefferson, "giving loose to
the worst of passions" in the treatment of their slaves, become in a
great measure unfitted for self control in their intercourse with each
other. Tempers accustomed to riot with loose reins, spurn restraints,
and passions inflamed by indulgence, take fire on the least friction.
We repeat it, the state of society in the slave states, the duels, and
daily deadly affrays of slaveholders with each other--the fact that
the most deliberate and cold-blooded murders are committed at noon
day, in the presence of thousands, and the perpetrators eulogized by
the community as "honorable men," reveals such a prostration of law,
as gives impunity to crime--a state of society, an omnipresent public
sentiment reckless of human life, taking bloody vengeance on the spot
for every imaginary affront, glorying in such assassinations as the
only true honor and chivalry, successfully defying the civil arm, and
laughing its impotency to scorn.

When such things are done in the green tree, what will be done in the
dry? When slaveholders are in the habit of caning, stabbing, and
shooting _each other_ at every supposed insult, the unspeakable
enormities perpetrated by such men, with such passions, upon their
defenceless slaves, _must_ be beyond computation. To furnish the
reader with an illustration of slaveholding civilization and morality,
as exhibited in the unbridled fury, rage, malignant hate, jealousy,
diabolical revenge, and all those infernal passions that shoot up rank
in the hot-bed of arbitrary power, we will insert here a mass of
testimony, detailing a large number of affrays, lynchings,
assassinations, &c., &c., which have taken place in various parts of
the slave states within a brief period--and to leave no room for cavil
on the subject, these extracts will be made exclusively from
newspapers published in the slave states, and generally in the
immediate vicinity of the tragedies described. They will not be made
second hand from _northern_ papers, but from the original _southern_
papers, which now lie on our table.

Before proceeding to furnish details of certain classes of crimes in
the slave states, we advertise the reader--1st. That _we shall not_
include in the list those crimes which are ordinarily committed in the
free, as well as in the slave states. 2d. We shall not include any of
the crimes perpetrated by whites upon slaves and free colored persons,
who constitute a majority of the population in Mississippi and
Louisiana, a large majority in South Carolina, and, on an average,
two-fifths in the other slave states. 3d. Fist fights, canings,
beatings, biting off noses and ears, gougings, knockings down, &c.,
unless they result in _death_, will not be included in the list, nor
will _ordinary_ murders, unless connected with circumstances that
serve as a special index of public sentiment. 4th. Neither will
_ordinary, formal duels_ be included, except in such cases as just
specified. 5th. The only crimes which, as the general rule, will be
specified, will be deadly affrays with bowie knives, dirks, pistols.
rifles, guns, or other death weapons, and _lynchings_. 6th. The crimes
enumerated will, for the most part, be only those perpetrated
_openly_, without _attempt at concealment_. 7th. We shall not attempt
to give a full list of the affrays, &c., that took place in the
respective states during the period selected, as the only files of
southern papers to which we have access are very imperfect.

The reader will perceive, from these preliminaries, that only a
_small_ proportion of the crimes actually perpetrated in the
respective slave states during the period selected, will be entered
upon this list. He will also perceive, that the crimes which will be
presented are of a class rarely perpetrated in the free states; and if
perpetrated there at all, they are, with scarcely an exception,
committed either by slaveholders, temporarily resident in them, or by
persons whose passions have been inflamed by the poison of a southern
contact--whose habits and characters have become perverted by living
among slaveholders, and adopting the code of slaveholding morality.

We now proceed to the details, commencing with the new state of
Arkansas.



ARKANSAS.

At the last session of the legislature of that state, Col. John
Wilson, President of the Bank at Little Rock, the capital of the
state, was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. He had
been elected to that office for a number of years successively, and
was one of the most influential citizens of the state. While presiding
over the deliberations of the House, he took umbrage at words spoken
in debate by Major Anthony, a conspicuous member, came down from the
Speaker's chair, drew a large bowie knife from his bosom, and attacked
Major A., who defended himself for some time, but was at last stabbed
through the heart, and fell dead on the floor. Wilson deliberately
wiped the blood from his knife, and returned to his seat. The
following statement of the circumstances of the murder, and the trial
of the murderer, is abridged from the account published in the
Arkansas Gazette, a few months since--it is here taken from the
Knoxville (Tennessee) Register, July 4, 1838.

"On the 14th of December last, Maj. Joseph J. Anthony, a member of the
Legislature of Arkansas, was murdered, while performing his duty as a
member of the House of Representatives, by John Wilson, Speaker of
that House.

"The facts were these: A bill came from the Senate, commonly called the
_Wolf Bill_. Among the amendments proposed, was one by Maj. Anthony,
that the signature of the President of the Real Estate Bank should be
attached to the certificate of the wolf scalp. Col. Wilson, the
Speaker, asked Maj. Anthony whether he intended the remark as
personal. Maj. Anthony promptly said, "_No, I do not_." And at that
instant of time, a message was delivered from the Senate, which
suspended the proceedings of the House for a few minutes. Immediately
after the messenger from the Senate had retired, Maj. Anthony rose
from his seat, and said he wished to explain, that he did not intend
to insult the Speaker or the House; when Wilson, interrupting,
peremptorily ordered him to take his seat. Maj. Anthony said, as a
member, he had a right to the floor, to explain himself. Wilson said,
in an angry tone, 'Sit down, or you had better;' and thrust his hand
into his bosom, and drew out a large bowie knife, 10 or 11 inches in
length, and descended from the Speaker's chair to the floor, with the
knife drawn in a menacing manner. Maj. Anthony, seeing the danger he
was placed in, by Wilson's advance on him with a drawn knife, rose
from his chair, set it out of his way, stepped back a pace or two, and
drew his knife. Wilson caught up a chair, and struck Anthony with it.
Anthony, recovering from the blow, caught the chair in his left hand,
and a fight ensued over the chair. Wilson received two wounds, one on
each arm, and Anthony lost his knife, either by throwing it at Wilson,
or it escaped by accident. After Anthony had lost his knife, Wilson
advanced on Anthony, who was then retreating, looking over his
shoulder. Seeing Wilson pursuing him, he threw a chair. Wilson still
pursued, and Anthony raised another chair as high as his breast, with
a view, it is supposed, of keeping Wilson off. Wilson then caught hold
of the chair with his left hand, raised it up, and with his right hand
deliberately thrust the knife, up to the hilt, into Anthony's heart,
and as deliberately drew it out, and wiping off the blood with his
thumb and finger, retired near to the Speaker's chair.

"As the knife was withdrawn from Anthony's heart, he fell a lifeless
corpse on the floor, without uttering a word, or scarcely making a
struggle; so true did the knife, as deliberately directed, pierce his
heart.

"Three days elapsed before the constituted authorities took any notice
of this horrible deed; and not then, until a relation of the murdered
Anthony had demanded a warrant for the apprehension of Wilson. Several
days then elapsed before he was brought before an examining court. He
then, in a carriage and four, came to the place appointed for his
trial. Four or five days were employed in the examination of
witnesses, and never was a clearer case of murder proved than on that
occasion. Notwithstanding, the court (Justice Brown dissenting)
admitted Wilson to bail, and positively refused that the prosecuting
attorney for the state should introduce the law, to show that it was
not a bailable case, or even to hear an argument from him.

"At the time appointed for the session of the Circuit Court, Wilson
appeared agreeably to his recognizance. A motion was made by Wilson's
counsel for _change of venue_, founded on the affidavits of Wilson,
and two other men. The court thereupon removed the case to Saline
county, and ordered the Sheriff to take Wilson into custody, and
deliver him over to the Sheriff of Saline county.

"The Sheriff of Pulaski never confined Wilson one minute, but
permitted him to go where he pleased, without a guard, or any
restraint imposed on him whatever. On his way to Saline, he
entertained him freely at his own house, and the next day delivered
him over to the Sheriff of that county, who conducted the prisoner to
the debtor's room in the jail, and gave him the key, so that he and
every body else had free egress and ingress at all times. Wilson
invited every body to call on him, as he wished to see his friends,
and his room was crowded with visitors, who called to drink grog, and
laugh and talk with him. But this theatre was not sufficiently large
for his purpose. He afterwards visited the dram-shops, where he freely
treated all that would partake with him, and went fishing and hunting
with others at pleasure, and entirely with out restraint. He also ate
at the same table with the Judge, while on trial.

"When the court met at Saline, Wilson was put on his trial. Several
days were occupied in examining the witnesses in the case. After the
examination was closed, while Col. Taylor was engaged in a very able,
lucid, and argumentative speech, on the part of the prosecution, some
man collected a parcel of the rabble, and came within a few yards of
the court-house door, and bawled in a loud voice, 'part them--part
them!' Every body supposed there was an affray, and ran to the doors
and windows to see; behold, there was nothing more than the man, and
the rabble he had collected around him, for the purpose of annoying
Col. Taylor while speaking. A few minutes afterwards, this same person
brought a horse near the court-house door, and commenced crying the
horse, as though he was for sale, and continued for ten or fifteen
minutes to ride before the court-house door, crying the horse, in a
loud and boisterous tone of voice. The Judge sat as a silent listener
to the indignity thus offered the court and counsel by this man,
without interposing his authority.

"To show the depravity of the times, and the people, after the verdict
had been delivered by the jury, and the court informed Wilson that he
was discharged, there was a rush toward him: some seized him by the
hand, some by the arm, and there was great and loud rejoicing and
exultation, directly in the presence of the court: and Wilson told the
Sheriff to take the jury to a grocery, that he might treat them, and
invited every body that chose to go. The house was soon filled to
overflowing. The rejoicing was kept up till near supper time: but to
cap the climax, soon after supper was over, a majority of the jury,
together with many others, went to the rooms that had been occupied
several days by the friend and relation of the murdered Anthony, and
commenced a scene of the most ridiculous dancing, (as it is believed,)
in triumph for Wilson, and as a triumph over the feelings of the
relations of the departed Anthony. The scene did not close here. The
party retired to a dram-shop, and continued their rejoicing until
about half after 10 o'clock. They then collected a parcel of horns,
trumpets, &c., and marched through the streets, blowing them, till
near day, when one of the company rode his horse in the porch
adjoining the room which was occupied by the relations of the
deceased."

This case is given to the reader at length, in order fully to show,
that in a community where the law sanctions the commission of every
species of outrage upon one class of citizens, it fosters passions
which will paralyze its power to protect the other classes. Look at
the facts developed in this case, as exhibiting the state of society
among slaveholders. 1st. That the members of the legislature are _in
the habit_ of wearing bowie knives. Wilson's knife was 10 or 11 inches
long.[42] 2d. The murderer, Wilson, was a man of wealth, president of
the bank at the capital of the state, a high military officer, and
had, for many years, been Speaker of the House of Representatives, as
appears from a previous statement in the Arkansas Gazette. 3d. The
murder was committed in open day, before all the members of the House,
and many spectators, not one of whom seems to have made the least
attempt to intercept Wilson, as he advanced upon Anthony with his
knife drawn, but "made way for him," as is stated in another account.
4th. Though the murder was committed in the state-house, at the
capital of the state, days passed before the civil authorities moved
in the matter; and they did not finally do it, until the relations of
the murdered man demanded a warrant for the apprehension of the
murderer. Even then, several days elapsed before he was brought before
an examining court. When his trial came on, he drove to it in state,
drew up before the door with "his coach and four," alighted, and
strided into court like a lord among his vassals; and there, though a
clearer case of deliberate murder never reeked in the face of the sun,
yet he was admitted to bail, the court absolutely refusing to hear an
argument from the prosecuting attorney, showing that it was not a
bailable case. 5th. The sheriff of Pulaski county, who had Wilson in
custody, "never confined him a moment, but permitted him to go at
large wholly unrestrained." When transferred to Saline co. for trial,
the sheriff of that county gave Wilson the same liberty, and he spent
his time in parties of pleasure, fishing, hunting, and at houses of
entertainment. 6th. Finally, to demonstrate to the world, that justice
among slaveholders is consistent with itself; that authorizing
man-stealing and patronising robbery, it will, of course, be the
patron and associate of murder also, the judge who sat upon the case,
and the murderer who was on trial for his life before him, were
boon-companions together, eating and drinking at the same table
throughout the trial. Then came the conclusion of the farce--the
uproar round the court-house during the trial, drowning the voice of
the prosecutor while pleading, without the least attempt by the court
to put it down--then the charge of the judge to the jury, and their
unanimous verdict of acquittal--then the rush from all quarters around
the murderer with congratulations--the whole crowd in the court room
shouting and cheering--then Wilson leading the way to a tavern,
inviting the sheriff, and jury, and all present to "a treat"--then the
bacchanalian revelry kept up all night, a majority of the jurors
participating--the dancing, the triumphal procession through the
streets with the blowing of horns and trumpets, and the prancing of
horses through the porch of the house occupied by the relations of the
murdered Anthony, adding insult and mockery to their agony.

A few months before this murder on the floor of the legislature,
George Scott, Esq., formerly marshall of the state was shot in an
affray at Van Buren, Crawford co., Arkansas, by a man named Walker;
and Robert Carothers, in an affray in St. Francis co., shot William
Rachel, just as Rachel was shooting at Carothers' father. (_National
Intelligencer, May 8, 1837, and Little Rock Gazette, August 30,
1837._)

While Wilson's trial was in progress, Mr. Gabriel Sibley was stabbed
to the heart at a public dinner, in St. Francis co., Arkansas, by
James W. Grant. (_Arkansas Gazette, May 30, 1838._)

Hardly a week before this, the following occurred:

"On the 16th ult., an encounter took place at Little Rock, Ark.,
between David F. Douglass, a young man of 18 or 19, and Dr. Wm. C.
Howell. A shot was exchanged between them at the distance of 8 or 10
feet with double-barrelled guns. The load of Douglass entered the left
hip of Dr. Howell, and a buckshot from the gun of the latter struck a
negro girl, 13 or 14 years of age, just below the pit of the stomach.
Douglass then fired a second time and hit Howell in the left groin,
penetrating the abdomen and bladder, and causing his death in four
hours. The negro girl, at the last dates, was not dead, but no hopes
were entertained of her recovery. Douglass was committed to await his
trial at the April term of the Circuit Court."--_Louisville Journal_.

The Little Rock Gazette of Oct. 24, says, "We are again called upon
to record the cold blooded murder of a valuable citizen. On the 10th
instant, Col. John Lasater, of Franklin co., was murdered by John W.
Whitson, who deliberately shot him with a shot gun, loaded with a
handful of rifle balls, six of which entered his body. He lived twelve
hours after he was shot.

"Whitson is the son of William Whitson, who was unfortunately killed,
about a year since, in a rencontre with Col. Lasater, (who was fully
exonerated from all blame by a jury,) and, in revenge of his father's
death, committed this bloody deed."

These atrocities were all perpetrated within a few months of the time
of the deliberate assassination, on the floor of the legislature by
the speaker, already described, and are probably but a small portion
of the outrages committed in that state during the same period. The
state of Arkansas contains about forty-five thousand white
inhabitants, which is, if we mistake not, the present population of
Litchfield county, Connecticut. And we venture the assertion, that a
public affray, with deadly weapons, has not taken place in that county
for fifty years, if indeed ever since its settlement a century and a
half ago.


MISSOURI.

Missouri became one of the United States in 1821. Its present white
population is about two hundred and fifty thousand. The following are
a few of the affrays that have occurred there during the years 1837
and '38.

The "Salt River Journal" March 8, 1838, has the following.

"_Fatal Affray_.--An affray took place during last week, in the town
of New London, between Dr. Peake and Dr. Bosley, both of that village,
growing out of some trivial matter at a card party. After some words,
Bosley threw a glass at Peake, which was followed up by other acts of
violence, and in the quarrel Peake stabbed Bosley, several times with
a dirk, in consequence of which, Bosley died the following morning.
The court of inquiry considered Peake justifiable, and discharged him
from arrest."

From the "St. Louis Republican," of September 29, 1837.

"We learn that a fight occurred at Bowling-Green, in this state, a few
days since, between Dr. Michael Reynolds and Henry Lalor. Lalor
procured a gun, and Mr. Dickerson wrested the gun from him; this
produced a fight between Lalor and Dickerson, in which the former
stabbed the latter in the abdomen. Mr. Dickerson died of the wound."

The following was in the same paper about a month previous, August 21,
1837.

"_A Horse Thief Shot_.--A thief was caught in the act of stealing a
horse on Friday last, on the opposite side of the river, by a company
of persons out sporting. Mr. Kremer, who was in the company, levelled
his rifle and ordered him to stop; which he refused; he then fired and
lodged the contents in the thief's body, of which he died soon
afterwards. Mr. K. went before a magistrate, who after hearing the
case, REFUSED TO HOLD HIM FOR FURTHER TRIAL!"

On the 5th of July, 1838, Alpha P. Buckley murdered William Yaochum in
an affray in Jackson county, Missouri. (Missouri Republican, July 24,
1838.)

General Atkinson of the United States Army was waylaid on the 4th of
September, 1838, by a number of persons, and attacked in his carriage
near St. Louis, on the road to Jefferson Barracks, but escaped after
shooting one of the assailants. The New Orleans True American of
October 29, '38, speaking of this says: "It will be recollected that a
few weeks ago, Judge Dougherty, one of the most respectable citizens
of St. Louis, was murdered upon the same road."

The same paper contains the following letter from the murderer of
Judge Dougherty.

"_Murder of Judge Dougherty_.--The St. Louis Republican received the
following mysterious letter, unsealed, regarding this brutal
murder:"--

"NATCHEZ, Miss., Sept. 24.

"Messrs. Editors:--Revenge is sweet. On the night of the 11th, 12th,
and 13th, I made preparations, and did, on the 14th July kill a
rascal, and only regret that I have not the privilege of telling the
circumstance. I have so placed it that I can never be identified; and
further, I have no compunctions of conscience for the death of Thomas
M. Dougherty."

But instead of presenting individual affrays and single atrocities,
however numerous, (and the Missouri papers abound with them,) in order
to exhibit the true state of society there, we refer to the fact now
universally notorious, that for months during the last fall and
winter, some hundreds of inoffensive Mormons, occupying a considerable
tract of land; and a flourishing village in the interior of the state,
have suffered every species of inhuman outrage from the inhabitants of
the surrounding counties--that for weeks together, mobs consisting of
hundreds and thousands, kept them in a state of constant siege, laying
waste their lands, destroying their cattle and provisions, tearing
down their houses, ravishing the females, seizing and dragging off and
killing the men. Not one of the thousands engaged in these horrible
outrages and butcheries has, so far as we can learn, been indicted.
The following extract of a letter from a military officer of one of
the brigades ordered out by the Governor of Missouri, to terminate the
matter, is taken from the North Alabamian of December 22, 1838.

Correspondence of the Nashville Whig.


THE MORMON WAR.

"MILLERSBURG, Mo. November 8.

"Dear Sir--A lawless mob had organized themselves for the express
purpose of driving the Mormons from the country, or exterminating
them, for no other reason, that I can perceive, than that these poor
deluded creatures owned a large and fertile body of land in their
neighborhood, and would not let them (the Mobocrats) have it for their
own price. I have just returned from the seat of difficulty, and am
perfectly conversant with all the facts in relation to it. The mob
meeting with resistance altogether unanticipated, called loudly upon
the kindred spirits of adjacent counties for help. The Mormons
determined to die in defence of their rights, set about fortifying
their town "Far West," with a resolution and energy that kept the mob
(who all the time were extending their cries of help to all parts of
Missouri) at bay. The Governor, from exaggerated accounts of the
Mormon depredations, issued orders for the raising of several thousand
mounted riflemen, of which this division raised five hundred, and the
writer of this was _honored_ with the appointment of ---- to the
Brigade.

"On the first day of this month, we marched for the "seat of war," but
General Clark, Commander-in-chief, having reached Far West on the day
previous with a large force, the difficulty was settled when we
arrived, so we escaped the infamy and disgrace of a bloody victory.
Before General Clark's arrival, the mob had increased to about four
thousand, and determined to attack the town. The Mormons upon the
approach of the mob, sent out a white flag, which being fired on by
the mob, Jo Smith and Rigdon, and a few other Mormons of less
influence, gave themselves up to the mob, with a view of so far
appeasing their wrath as to save their women and children from
violence. Vain hope! The prisoners being secured, the mob entered the
town and perpetrated every conceivable act of brutality and
outrage--forcing fifteen or twenty Mormon girls to yield to their
brutal passions!!! Of these things I was assured by many persons while
I was at Far West, in whose veracity I have the utmost confidence. I
conversed with many of the prisoners, who numbered about eight
hundred, among whom there were many young and interesting girls, and I
assure you, a more distracted set of creatures I never saw. I assure
you, my dear sir, it was peculiarly heart-rending to see old gray
headed fathers and mothers, young ladies and innocent babes, forced at
this inclement season, with the thermometer at 8 degrees below zero,
to abandon their warm houses, and many of them the luxuries and
elegances of a high degree of civilization and intelligence and take
up their march for the uncultivated wilds of the Missouri frontier.

"The better informed here have but one opinion of the result of this
Mormon persecution, and that is, it is a most fearful extension of
Judge Lynch's jurisdiction."

The present white population of Missouri is but thirty thousand less
than that of New Hampshire, and yet the insecurity of human life in
the former state to that in the latter, is probably at least twenty to
one.



ALABAMA.

This state was admitted to the Union in 1819. Its present white
population is not far from three hundred thousand. The security of
human life to Alabama, may be inferred from the facts and testimony
which follow:

The Mobile Register of Nov. 15, 1837, contains the annual message of
Mr. McVay, the acting Governor of the state, at the opening of the
Legislature. The message has the following on the frequency of
homicides:

"We hear of homicides in different parts of the state _continually_,
and yet how few convictions for murder, and still fewer executions?
How is this to be accounted for? In regard to 'assault and battery
with intent to commit murder,' why is it that this offence continues
so common--why do we hear of stabbings and shootings _almost daily_ in
some part or other of our state?"

The "Montgomery (Alabama) Advertiser" of April 22, 1837, has the
following from the Mobile Register:

"Within a few days a man was shot in an affray in the upper part of
the town, and has since died. The perpetrator of the violence is at
large. We need hardly speak of another scene which occurred in Royal
street, when a fray occurred between two individuals, a third standing
by with a cocked pistol to prevent interference. On Saturday night a
still more exciting scene of outrage took place in the theatre.

"An altercation commenced at the porquett entrance between the
check-taker and a young man, which ended in the first being
desperately wounded by a stab with a knife. The other also drew a
pistol. If some strange manifestations of public opinion, do not
coerce a spirit of deference to law, and the abandonment of the habit
of carrying secret arms, we shall deserve every reproach we may
receive, and have our punishment in the unchecked growth of a spirit
of lawlessness, reckless deeds, and exasperated feeling, which will
destroy our social comfort at home, and respectability abroad."

From the "Huntsville Democrat," of Nov. 7, 1837.

"A trifling dispute arose between Silas Randal and Pharaoh Massingale,
both of Marshall county. They exchanged but a few words, when the
former drew a Bowie knife and stabbed the latter in the abdomen
fronting the left hip to the depth of several inches; also inflicted
several other dangerous wounds, of which Massengale died
immediately.--Randal is yet at large, not having been apprehended."

From the "Free Press" of August 16, 1838.

"The streets of Gainesville, Alabama, have recently been the scene of
a most tragic affair. Some five weeks since, at a meeting of the
citizens, Col. Christopher Scott, a lawyer of good standing, and one
of the most influential citizens of the place, made a violent attack
on the Tombeckbee Rail Road Company. A Mr. Smith, agent for the T.R.R.
Company, took Col. C's remarks as a personal insult, and demanded an
explanation. A day or two after, as Mr. Smith was passing Colonel
Scott's door, he was shot down by him, and after lingering a few hours
expired.

"It appears also from an Alabama paper, that Col. Scott's brother,
L.S. Scott Esq., and L.J. Smith Esq., were accomplices of the Colonel
in the murder."

The following is from the "Natchez Free Trader," June 14, 1838.

"An affray, attended with fatal consequences, occurred in the town of
Moulton, Alabama, on the 12th May. It appears that three young men
from the country, of the name of J. Walton, Geo. Bowling, and
Alexander Bowling, rode into Moulton on that day for the purpose of
chastising the bar-keeper at McCord's tavern, whose name is Cowan, for
an alleged insult offered by him to the father of young Walton. They
made a furious attack on Cowan, and drove him into the bar room of the
tavern. Some time after, a second attack was made upon Cowan in the
street by one of the Bowlings and Walton, when pistols were resorted
to by both parties. Three rounds were fired, and the third shot, which
was said to have been discharged by Walton, struck a young man by the
name of Neil, who happened to be passing in the street at the time,
and killed him instantly. The combatants were taken into custody, and
after an examination before two magistrates, were bailed."

The following exploits of the "Alabama Volunteers," are recorded in
the Florida Herald, Jan. 1, 1838.

"SAVE US FROM OUR FRIENDS.--On Monday last, a large body of men,
calling themselves Alabama Volunteers, arrived in the vicinity of this
city. It is reported that their conduct during their march from
Tallahassee to this city has been a series of excesses of every
description. They have committed almost every crime except murder, and
have even threatened life.

"Large numbers of them paraded our streets, grossly insulted our
females, and were otherwise extremely riotous in their conduct. One of
the squads, forty or fifty in number, on reaching the bridge, where
there was a small guard of three or four men stationed, assaulted the
guard, overturned the sentry-box into the river, and bodily seized two
of the guard, and threw them into the river, where the water was deep,
and they were forced to swim for their lives. At one of the men while
in the water, they pointed a musket, threatening to kill him; and
pelted with every missile which came to hand."


The following Alabama tragedy is published by the "Columbia (S.C.)
Telescope," Sept. **, 1837, from the Wetumpka Sentinel.

"Our highly respectable townsman, Mr. Hugh Ware, a merchant of
Wetumpka, was standing in the door of his counting room, between the
hours of 8 and 9 o'clock at night, in company with a friend, when an
assassin lurked within a few paces of his position, and discharged his
musket, loaded with ten or fifteen buckshot. Mr. Ware instantly fell,
and expired without a struggle or a groan. A coroner's inquest decided
that the deceased came to his death by violence, and that Abner J.
Cody, and his servant John, were the perpetrators. John frankly
confessed, that his master, Cody, compelled him to assist, threatening
his life if he dared to disobey; that he carried the musket to the
place at which it was discharged; that his master then received it
from him, rested it on the fence, fired and killed Mr. Ware."


From the "Southern (Miss.) Mechanic," April 17, 1838.

"HORRID BUTCHERY.--A desperate fight occurred in Montgomery, Alabama,
on the 28th ult. We learn from the Advocate of that city, that the
persons engaged were Wm. S. Mooney and Kenyon Mooney, his son, Edward
Bell, and Bushrod Bell, Jr. The first received a wound in the abdomen,
made by that fatal instrument, the Bowie knife, which caused his death
in about fifteen hours. The second was shot in the side, and would
doubtless have been killed, had not the ball partly lost its force by
first striking his arm. The third received a shot in the neck, and now
lies without hope of recovery. The fourth escaped unhurt, and, we
understand has fled. This is a brief statement of one of the bloodiest
fights that we ever heard of."


From the "Virginia Statesman," May 6, 1837.

"Several affrays, wherein pistols, dirks and knives were used, lately
occurred at Mobile. One took place on the 8th inst., at the theatre,
in which a Mr. Bellum was so badly stabbed that his life is despaired
of. On the Wednesday preceding, a man named Johnson shot another named
Snow dead. No notice was taken of the affair."


From the "Huntsville Advocate," June 20, 1837.

"DESPERATE AFFRAY.--On Sunday the 11th inst., an affray of desparate
and fatal character occurred near Jeater's Landing, Marshall county,
Alabama. The dispute which led to it arose out of a contested right to
_possession_ of a piece of land. A Mr. Steele was the occupant, and
Mr. James McFarlane and some others, claimants. Mr. F. and his friends
went to Mr. Steele's house with a view to take possession, whether
peaceably or by violence, we do not certainly know. As they entered
the house a quarrel ensued between the opposite parties, and some
blows perhaps followed; in a short time, several guns were discharged
from the house at Mr. McFarlane and friends. Mr. M. was killed, a Mr.
Freamster dangerously wounded, and it is thought will not recover; two
others were also wounded, though not so as to endanger life. Mr.
Steele's brother was wounded by the discharge of a pistol from one of
Mr. M's friends. We have heard some other particulars about the
affray, but we abstain from giving them, as incidental versions are
often erroneous, and as the whole matter will be submitted to legal
investigation. Four of Steele's party, his brother, and three whose
names are Lenten, Collins and Wills, have been arrested, and are now
confined in the gaol in this place."


From the "Norfolk Beacon," July 14, 1838.

"A few days since at Claysville, Marshal co., Alabama, Messrs.
Nathaniel and Graves W. Steele, while riding in a carriage, were shot
dead, and Alex. Steele and Wm. Collins, also in the carriage, were
severely wounded, (the former supposed mortally,) by Messrs. Jesse
Allen, Alexander and Arthur McFarlane, and Daniel Dickerson. The
Steeles, it appears, last year killed James McFarlane and another
person in a similar manner, which led to this dreadful retaliation."


From the Montgomery (Ala.) Advocate--Washington, Autauga Co., Dec. 28,
1838.

"FATAL RENCONTRE.--On Friday last, the 28th ult., a fatal rencontre
took place in the town of Washington, Autauga county, between John
Tittle and Thomas J. Tarleton, which resulted in the death of the
former. After a patient investigation of the matter, Mr. Tarleton was
released by the investigating tribunal, on the ground that the
homicide was clearly justifiable."


The "Columbus (Ga.) Sentinel" July 6, 1837, quotes the following from
the Mobile (Ala.) Examiner.

"A man by the name of Peter Church was killed on one of the wharves
night before last. The person by whom it was done delivered himself to
the proper authorities yesterday morning. The deceased and destroyer
were friends and the act occurred in consequence of an immaterial
quarrel."


The "Milledgeville Federal Union" of July 11, 1837, has the following

"In Selma, Alabama resided lately messrs. Philips and Dickerson,
physicians. Mr. P. is brother to the wife of V. Bleevin Esq., a rich
cotton planter in that neighborhood; the latter has a very lovely
daughter, to whom Dr. D. paid his addresses. A short time since a
gentleman from Mobile married her. Soon after this, a schoolmaster in
Selma set a cry afloat to the effect, that he had heard Dr. D. say
things about the lady's conduct before marriage which ought not to be
said about any lady. Dr. D. denied having said such things, and the
other denied having spread the story; but neither denials sufficed to
pacify the enraged parent. He met Dr. D. fired at him two pistols, and
wounded him. Dr. D. was unarmed, and advanced to Mr. Bleevin, holding
up his hands imploringly, when Mr. B. drew a Bowie knife, and stabbed
him to the heart. The doctor dropped dead on the spot: and Mr. Bleevin
has been held to bail."


The following is taken from the "Alabama, Intelligencer," Sept. 17,
1838.

"On the 5th instant, a deadly rencounter took place in the streets of
Russelville, (our county town,) between John A. Chambers, Esq., of the
city of Mobile, and Thomas L. Jones, of this county. In the
rencounter, Jones was wounded by several balls which took effect in
his chin, mouth, neck, arm, and shoulder, believed to be mortal; he
did not fire his gun.

"Mr. Chambers forthwith surrendered himself to the Sheriff of the
county, and was on the 6th, tried and fully acquitted, by a court of
inquiry."


The "Maysville (Ky.) Advocate" of August 14, 1838, gives the following
affray, which took place in Girard, Alabama, July 10th.

"Two brothers named Thomas and Hal Lucas, who had been much in the
habit of quarrelling, came together under strong excitement, and Tom,
as was his frequent custom, being about to flog Hal with a stick of
some sort, the latter drew a pistol and shot the former, his own
brother, through the heart, who almost instantly expired!"

The "New Orleans Bee" of Oct. 5, 1838, relates an affray in Mobile,
Alabama, between Benjamin Alexander, an aged man of ninety, with
Thomas Hamilton, his grandson, on the 24th of September, in which the
former killed the latter with a dirk.

The "Red River Whig" of July 7, 1838, gives the particulars of a
tragedy in Western Alabama, in which a planter near Lakeville, left
home for some days, but suspecting his wife's fidelity, returned home
late at night, and finding his suspicions verified, set fire to his
house and waited with his rifle before the door, till his wife and her
paramour attempted to rush out, when he shot them both dead.


From the "Morgan (Ala.) Observer," Dec. 1838.

"We are informed from private sources, that on last Saturday, a poor
man who was moving westward with his wife and three little children
and driving a small drove of sheep, and perhaps a cow or two, which
was driven by his family, on arriving in Florence, and while passing
through, met with a citizen of that place, who rode into his flock and
caused him some trouble to keep it together, when the mover informed
the individual that he must not do so again or he would throw a rock
at him, upon which some words ensued, and the individual again
disturbed the flock, when the mover, as near as we can learn, threw at
him upon this the troublesome man got off his horse, went into a
grocery, got a gun, and came out and deliberately shot the poor
stranger in the presence of his wife and little children. The wounded
man then made an effort to get into some house, when his murderous
assailant overtook and stabbed him to the heart with a _Bowie knife_.
This revolting scene, we are informed, occurred in the presence of
many citizens, who, report says, never even lifted their voices in
defence of the murdered man."

A late number of the "Flag of the Union," published at Tuscalosa, the
seat of the government of Alabama, states that "since the commencement
of the late session of the legislature of that state, no less than
THIRTEEN FIGHTS had been had within sight of the capitol." _Pistols
and Bowie knives were used in every case_.

The present white population of Alabama is about the same with that of
New Jersey, yet for the last twenty years there has not been so many
public deadly affrays, and of such a horrible character, in New
Jersey, as have taken place in Alabama within the last eight months.



MISSISSIPPI.

Mississippi became one of the United States in 1817. Its present white
population is about one hundred and sixty thousand.

The following extracts will serve to show that those who combine
together to beat, rob, and manacle innocent men, women and children,
will stick at nothing when their passions are up.

The following murderous affray at Canton, Mississippi, is from the
"Alabama Beacon," Sept, 13, 1838.

"A terrible tragedy recently occurred at Canton, Miss., growing out of
the late duel between Messrs. Dickins and Drane of that place. A
Kentuckian happening to be in Canton, spoke of the duel, and charged
Mr. Mitchell Calhoun, the second of Drane, with cowardice and
unfairness. Mr. Calhoun called on the Kentuckian for an explanation,
and the offensive charge was repeated. _A challenge and fight with
Bowie knives, toe to toe_, were the consequences. Both parties were
dreadfully and dangerously wounded, though neither was dead at the
last advices. Mr. Calhoun is a brother to the Hon. John Calhoun,
member of Congress."

Here follows the account of the duel referred to above, between
Messrs. Dickins and Drane.

"Intelligence has been received in this town of a fatal duel that took
place in Canton, Miss., on the 28th ult., between Rufus K. Dickins,
and a Mr. Westley Drane. They fought with double barrelled guns,
loaded with buckshot--both were mortally wounded."


The "Louisville Journal" publishes the following, Nov. 23.

"On the 7th instant, a fatal affray took place at Gallatin,
Mississippi. The principal parties concerned were, Messrs. John W.
Scott, James G. Scott, and Edmund B. Hatch. The latter was shot down
and then stabbed twice through the body, by J.G. Scott."


The "Alabama Beacon" of Sept. 13, 1838, says:

"An attempt was made in Vicksburg lately, by a gang of Lynchers, to
inflict summary punishment on three men of the name of Fleckenstein.
The assault was made upon the house, about 11 o'clock at night.
Meeting with some resistance from the three Fleckensteins, a leader of
the gang, by the name of Helt, discharged his pistol, and wounded one
of the brothers severely in the neck and jaws. A volley of four or
five shots was almost instantly returned, when Helt fell dead, a piece
of the top of the skull being torn off, and almost the whole of his
brains dashed out. His comrades seeing him fall, suddenly took to
their heels. There were, it is supposed, some _ten or fifteen_
concerned in the transaction."


The "Manchester (Miss.) Gazette," August 11, 1838, says:

"It appears that Mr. Asa Hazeltine, who kept a public or boarding
house in Jackson, during the past winter, and Mr. Benjamin Tanner,
came here about five or six weeks since, with the intention of opening
a public house. Foiled in the design, in the settlement of their
affairs some difficulty arose as to a question of veracity between the
parties. Mr. Tanner, deeply excited, procured a pistol and loaded it
with the charge of death, sought and found the object of his hatred in
the afternoon, in the yard of Messrs. Kezer & Maynard, and in the
presence of several persons, after repeated and ineffectual attempts
on the part of Capt. Jackson to baffle his fell spirit, shot the
unfortunate victim, of which wound Mr. Hazeltine died in a short time.

"We understand that Mr. Hazeltine was a native of Boston."


The "Columbia (S.C.) Telescope," Sept. 16, 1837, gives the details
below:

"By a letter from Mississippi, we have an account of a rencontre which
took place in Rodney, on the 27th July, between Messrs. Thos. J.
Johnston and G.H. Wilcox, both formerly of this city. In consequence
of certain publications made by these gentlemen against each other,
Johnston challenged Wilcox. The latter declining to accept the
challenge, Johnston informed his friends at Rodney, that he would be
there at the term of the court then not distant, when he would make an
attack upon him. He repaired thither on the 26th, and on the next
morning the following communication was read aloud in the presence of
Wilcox and a large crowd:

"Rodney, July 27, 1837.

"Mr. Johnston informs Mr. Wilcox, that at or about 1 o'clock of this
day, he will be on the common, opposite the Presbyterian Church of
this town, waiting and expecting Mr. Wilcox to meet him there.

"I pledge my honor that Mr. Johnston will not fire at Mr. Wilcox,
until he arrives at a distance of one hundred yards from him, and I
desire Mr. Wilcox or any of his friends, to see that distance
accurately measured.

"Mr. Johnston will wait there thirty minutes.

"J. M. DUFFIELD.

"Mr. Wilcox declined being a party to any such arrangement, and Mr. D.
told him to be prepared for an attack. Accordingly, about an hour
after this, Johnston proceeded towards Wilcox's office, armed with a
double-barrelled gun, (one of the barrels rifled,) and three pistols
in his belt. He halted about fifty yards from W's door and leveled his
gun. W. withdrew before Johnston could fire, and seized a musket,
returned to the door and flashed. Johnston fired both barrels without
effect. Wilcox then seized a double barrel gun, and Johnston a musket,
and both again fired. Wilcox sent twenty-three buck shot over
Johnston's head, one of them passing through his hat, and Wilcox was
slightly wounded on both hands, his thigh and leg."


From the "Alabama Beacon," May 27, 1838.

"An affray of the most barbarous nature was expected to take place in
Arkansas opposite Princeton, on Thursday last. The two original
parties have been endeavoring for several weeks, to settle their
differences at Natchez. One of the individuals concerned stood
pledged, our informant states, to fight three different antagonists in
one day. The fights, we understand, were to be with pistols; but a
variety of other weapons were taken along--among others, the deadly
Bowie knife. These latter instruments, we are told, were whetted and
dressed up at Grand Gulf, as the parties passed up, avowedly with the
intention of being used in the field."


From the "Southern (Miss) Argus," Nov. 21, 1837.

"We learn that, at a wood yard above Natchez, on Sunday evening last,
a difficulty arose between Captain Crosly, of the steamboat Galenian,
and one of his deck passengers. Capt. C. drew a Bowie knife, and made
a pass at the throat of the passenger, which failed to do any harm,
and the captain then ordered him to leave his boat. The man went on
board to get his baggage, and the captain immediately sought the cabin
for a pistol. As the passenger was about leaving the boat, the captain
presented a pistol to his breast, which snapped. Instantly the enraged
and wronged individual seized Capt. Crosly by the throat, and brought
him to the ground, when he drew a dirk and stabbed him eight or nine
times in the breast, each blow driving the weapon into his body up to
the hilt. The passenger was arrested, carried to Natchez, tried and
acquitted."

The "Planter's Intelligencer" publishes the following from the
Vicksburg Sentinel of June 19, 1838.

"About 1 o'clock, we observed two men 'pummeling' one another in the
street, to the infinite amusement of a crowd. Presently a third hero
made his appearance in the arena, with Bowie knife in hand, and he
cried out, "Let me come at him!" Upon hearing this threat, one of the
pugilists 'took himself off,' our hero following at full speed.
Finding his pursuit was vain, our hero returned, when an attack was
commenced upon another individual. He was most cruelly beat, and cut
through the skull with a knife; it is feared the wounds will prove
mortal. The sufferer, we learn, is an inoffensive German."


From the "Mississippian," Nov. 9, 1838.

"On Tuesday evening last, 23d, an affray occurred at the town of
Tallahasse, in this county, between Hugh Roark and Captain Flack,
which resulted in the death of Roark. Roark went to bed, and Flack,
who was in the barroom below, observed to some persons there, that he
believed they had set up Roark to whip him; Roark, upon hearing his
name mentioned, got out of bed and came downstairs. Flack met and
stabbed him in the lower part of his abdomen with a knife, letting out
his bowels. Roark ran to the door, and received another stab in the
back. He lived until Thursday night, when he expired in great agony.
Flack was tried before a justice of the peace, and we understand was
only held to bail to appear at court in the event Roark should die."


From the "Grand Gulf Advertiser" Nov. 7, 1838.

"_Attempt at Riot at Natchez_.--The _Courier_ says, that in
consequence of the discharge of certain individuals who had been
arraigned for the murder of a man named _Medill_, a mob of about 200
persons assembled on the night of the 1st instant, with the avowed
purpose of _lynching_ them. But fortunately, the objects of their
vengeance had escaped from town. Foiled in their purpose, the rioters
repaired to the shantee where the murder was committed, and
precipitated it over the bluff. The military of the city were ordered
out to keep order."


From the "Natchez Free Trader."

"A violent attack was lately made on Captain Barrett, of the steamboat
Southerner, by three persons from Wilkinson co., Miss., whose names
are Carey, and one of the name of J.S. Towles. The only reason for the
outrage was, that Captain B. had the assurance to require of the
gentlemen, who were quarreling on board his boat, to keep order for
the peace and comfort of the other passengers. _Towles_ drew a Bowie
knife upon the Captain; which the latter wrested from him. A pistol,
drawn by one of the Careys was also taken, and the assailant was
knocked overboard. Fortunately for him he was rescued from drowning.
The brave band then landed. On her return up the river, the Southerner
stopped at Fort Adams, and on her leaving that place, an armed party,
among whom were the Careys and Towles, fired into the boat, but
happily the shot missed a crowd of passengers on the hurricane deck."


From the "Mississippian," Dec. 18, 1838.

"Greet Spikes, a citizen of this county, was killed a few days ago,
between this place and Raymond, by a man named Pegram. It seems that
Pegram and Spikes had been carrying weapons for each other for some
time past. Pegram had threatened to take Spikes' life on first sight,
for the base treatment he had received at his hands.

"We have heard something of the particulars, but not enough to give
them at this time. Pegram had not been seen since."


The "Lynchburg Virginian," July 23, 1638, says:

"A fatal affray occurred a few days ago in Clinton, Mississippi. The
actors in it were a Mr. Parham, Mr. Shackleford, and a Mr. Henry.
Shackleford was killed on the spot, and Henry was slightly wounded by
a shot gun with which Parham was armed."


From the "Columbus (Ga.) Sentinel," Nov. 22, 1838.

"_Butchery_.--A Bowie knife slaughter took place a few days since in
Honesville, Miss. A Mr. Hobbs was the victim; Strother the butcher."


The "Vicksburg Sentinel," Sept. 28, 1837, says:

"It is only a few weeks since humanity was shocked by a most atrocious
outrage, inflicted by the Lynchers, on the person of a Mr. Saunderson
of Madison, co. in this state. They dragged this respectable planter
from the bosom of his family, and mutilated him in the most brutal
manner--maiming him most inhumanly, besides cutting off his nose and
ears and scarifying his body to the very ribs! We believe the subject
of this foul outrage still drags out a miserable existence--an object
of horror and of pity. Last week a club of Lynchers, amounting to four
or five individuals, as we have been credibly informed, broke into the
house of Mr. Scott of Wilkinson co., a respectable member of the bar,
forced him out, and hung him dead on the next tree. We have heard of
numerous minor outrages committed against the peace of society, and
the welfare and happiness of the country; but we mention these as the
most enormous that we have heard for some months.

"It now becomes our painful duty, to notice a most disgraceful outrage
committed by the Lynchers of Vicksburg, on last Sunday. The victim was
a Mr. Grace, formerly of the neighborhood of Warrenton, Va., but for
two years a resident of this city. He was detected in giving free
passes to slaves and brought to trial before Squire Maxey.
Unfortunately for the wretch, either through the want of law or
evidence, he could not be punished, and he was set at liberty by the
magistrate. The city marshal seeing that a few in the crowd were
disposed to lay violent hands on the prisoner in the event of his
escaping punishment by law, resolved to accompany him to his house.
The Lynch mob still followed, and the marshal finding the prisoner
could only be protected by hurrying him to jail, endeavored to effect
that object. The Lynchers, however, pursued the officer of the law,
dragged him from his horse, bruised him, and conveyed the prisoner to
the most convenient point of the city for carrying their blood-thirsty
designs into execution. We blush while we record the atrocious deed;
in this city, containing nearly 5,000 souls, in the broad light of
day, this aged wretch was stripped and flogged, we believe within
hearing of the lamentations and the shrieks of his afflicted wife and
children."


In an affray at Montgomery, Mississippi, July 1, 1838, Mr. A.L.
Herbert was killed by Dr. J.B. Harrington. See Grand Gulf Advertiser,
August 1, 1838.


The "Maryland Republican" of January 30, 1838, has the following:

"A street rencounter lately took place in Jackson, Miss., between Mr.
Robert McDonald and Mr. W.H. Lockhart, in which McDonald was shot with
a pistol and immediately expired. Lockhart was committed to prison."


The "Nashville Banner," June 22, 1838, has the following:

"On the 8th inst. Col. James M. Hulet was shot with a rifle without
any apparent provocation in Gallatin, Miss., by one Richard M. Jones."


From the "Huntsville Democrat," Dec. 8, 1838.

"The Aberdeen (Miss.) Advocate, of Saturday last, states that on the
morning of the day previous, (the 9th) a dispute arose between Mr.
Robert Smith and Mr. Alexander Eanes, both of Aberdeen, which resulted
in the death of Mr. Smith, who kept a boarding house, and was an
amiable man and a good citizen. In the course of the contradictory
words of the disputants, the lie was given by Eanes, upon which Smith
gathered up a piece of iron and threw it at Eanes, but which missed
him and lodged in the walls of the house. At this Eanes drew a large
dirk knife, and stabbed Smith in the abdomen, the knife penetrating
the vitals, and thus causing immediate death. Smith breathed only a
few seconds after the fatal thrust.

"Eanes immediately mounted his horse and rode off, but was pursued by
Mr. Hanes, who arrested and took him back, when he was put under guard
to await a trial before the proper authorities."


From the "Vicksburg Register," Nov. 17, 1838.

"On the 2d inst. an affray occurred between one Stephen Scarbrough and
A.W. Higbee of Grand Gulf, in which Scarbrough was stabbed with a
knife, which occasioned his death in a few hours. Higbee has been
arrested and committed for trial."


From the "Huntsville (Ala.) Democrat" Nov. 10, 1838.

"_Life in the Southwest_.--A friend in Louisiana writes, under date of
the 31st ult., that a fight took place a few days ago in Madison
parish, 60 miles below Lake Providence, between a Mr. Nevils and a Mr.
Harper, which terminated fatally. The police jury had ordered a road
on the right bank of the Mississippi, and the neighboring planters
were out with their forces to open it. For some offence, Nevils, the
superintendent of the operations, flogged two of Harper's negroes. The
next day the parties met on horseback, when Harper dismounted, and
proceeded to cowskin Nevils for the chastisement inflicted on the
negroes. Nevils immediately drew a pistol and shot his assailant dead
on the spot. Both were gentlemen of the highest respectability.

"An affray also came off recently, as the same correspondent writes
us, in Raymond, Hinds co., Miss., which for a serious one, was rather
amusing. The sheriff had a process to serve on a man of the name of
Bright, and, in consequence of some difficulty and intemperate
language, thought proper to commence the service by the application of
his cowskin to the defendant. Bright thereupon floored his adversary,
and, wresting his cowhide from him, applied it to its owner to the
extent of at least five hundred lashes, meanwhile threatening to shoot
the first bystander who attempted to interfere. The sheriff was
carried home in a state of insensibility, and his life has been
despaired of. The mayor of the place, however, issued his warrant, and
started three of the sheriff's deputies in pursuit of the delinquent,
but the latter, after keeping them at bay till they found it
impossible to arrest him, surrendered himself to the magistrate, by
whom he was bound over to the next Circuit Court. From the mayor's
office, his honor and the parties litigant proceeded to the tavern to
take a drink by way of ending hostilities. But the civil functionary
refused to sign articles of peace by touching glasses with Bright,
whereupon the latter made a furious assault upon him, and then turned
and flogged 'mine host' within an inch of his life because he
interfered. Satisfied with his day's work, Bright retired. Can we show
any such specimens of chivalry and refinement in Kentucky!"


From the "Grand Gulf (Miss.) Advertiser," June 27, 1837.

"DEATH BY VIOLENCE.--The moral atmosphere in our state appears to be
in a deleterious and sanguinary condition. _Almost every exchange
paper which reaches us contains some inhuman and revolting case of
murder or death by violence. Not less than fifteen deaths by violence
have occurred, to our certain knowledge, within the past three
months._ Such a state of things, in a country professing to be moral
and christian, is a disgrace to human nature and is well calculated,
to induce those abroad unacquainted with our general habits and
feelings, to regard the morals of our people in no very enviable
light; and does more to injure and weaken our political institutions
than years of pecuniary distress. The frequency of such events is a
burning disgrace to the morality, civilization, and refinement of
feeling to which we lay claim and so often boast in comparison with
the older states. And unless we set about and put an immediate and
effectual termination to such revolting scenes, we shall be compelled
to part with what all genuine southerners have ever regarded as their
richest inheritance, the proud appellation of the '_brave, high-minded
and chivalrous sons of the south_.'

"This done, we should soon discover a change for the better--peace and
good order would prevail, and the ends of justice be effectually and
speedily attained, and then the people of this wealthy state would be
in a condition to bid defiance to the disgraceful reproaches which are
now daily heaped upon them by the religious and moral of other
states."

"The present white population of Mississippi is but little more than
half as great as that of Vermont, and yet more horrible crimes are
perpetrated by them EVERY MONTH, than have ever been perpetrated in
Vermont since it has been a state, now about half a century. Whoever
doubts it, let him get data and make his estimate, and he will find
that this is no random guess."



LOUISIANA.

Louisiana became one of the United States in 1811. Its present white
population is about one hundred and fifteen thousand.

The extracts which follow furnish another illustration of the horrors
produced by passions blown up to fury in the furnace of arbitrary
power. We have just been looking over a broken file of Louisiana
papers, including the last six months of 1837, and the whole of 1838,
and find ourselves obliged to abandon our design of publishing even an
abstract of the scores and _hundreds_ of affrays, murders,
assassinations, duels, lynchings, assaults, &c. which took place in
that state during that period. Those which have taken place in New
Orleans alone, during the last eighteen months, would, in detail, fill
a volume. Instead of inserting the details of the principal atrocities
in Louisiana, as in the states already noticed, we will furnish the
reader with the testimony of various editors of newspapers, and
others, residents of the state, which will perhaps as truly set forth
the actual state of society there, as could be done by a publication
of the outrages themselves.


From the "New Orleans Bee," of May 23, 1838.

"_Contempt of human life._--In view of the crimes which are _daily_
committed, we are led to inquire whether it is owing to the
inefficiency of our laws, or to the manner in which those laws are
administered, that this _frightful deluge of human blood fowl through
our streets and our places of public resort_.

"Whither will such contempt for the life of man lead us? The
unhealthiness of the climate mows down annually a part of our
population; the murderous steel despatches its proportion; and if
crime increases as it has, the latter will soon become _the most
powerful agent in destroying life_.

"We cannot but doubt the perfection of our criminal code, when we see
that _almost every criminal eludes the law_, either by boldly avowing
the crime, or by the tardiness with which legal prosecutions are
carried on, or, lastly, by the convenient application of _bail_ in
criminal cases."


The "New Orleans Picayune" of July 30, 1837, says:

"It is with the most painful feelings that we _daily_ hear of some
_fatal_ duel. Yesterday we were told of the unhappy end of one of our
most influential and highly respectable merchants, who fell yesterday
morning at sunrise in a duel. As usual, the circumstances which led to
the meeting were trivial."


The New Orleans correspondent of the New York Express, in his letter
dated New Orleans, July 30, 1837, says:

"THIRTEEN DUELS have been fought in and near the city during the week;
_five more were to take place this morning_."


The "New Orleans Merchant" of March 20, 1838, says:

"Murder has been rife within the two or three weeks last past; and
what is worse, the authorities of those places where they occur are
_perfectly regardless of the fact_."


The "New Orleans Bee" of September 8, 1838, says:

"Not two months since, the miserable BARBA became a victim to one of
the most cold-blooded schemes of assassination that ever disgraced a
civilized community. Last Sunday evening an individual, Gonzales by
name, was seen in perfect health, in conversation with his friends. On
Monday morning his dead body was withdrawn from the Mississippi, near
the ferry of the first municipality, in a state of terrible
mutilation. To cap the climax of horror, on Friday morning, about half
past six o'clock, the coroner was called to hold an inquest over the
body of an individual, between Magazine and Tchoupitoulas streets. The
head was entirely severed from the body; the lower extremities had
likewise suffered amputation; the right foot was completely
dismembered from the leg, and the left knee nearly severed from the
thigh. Several stabs, wounds and bruises, were discovered on various
parts of the body, which of themselves were sufficient to produce
death."


The "Georgetown (South Carolina) Union" of May 20, 1837, has the
following extract from a New Orleans paper.

"A short time since, two men shot one another down in one of our bar
rooms, one of whom died instantly. A day or two after, one or two
infants were found murdered, there was every reason to believe, by
their own mothers. Last week we had to chronicle a brutal and bloody
murder, committed in the heart of our city: the very next day a
murder-trial was commenced in our criminal court: the day ensuing
this, we published the particulars of Hart's murder. The day after
that, Tibbetts was hung for attempting to commit a murder; the next
day again we had to publish a murder committed by two Spaniards at the
Lake--this was on Friday last. On Sunday we published the account of
another murder committed by the Italian, Gregorio. On Monday, another
murder was committed, and the murderer lodged in jail. On Tuesday
morning another man was stabbed and robbed, and is not likely to
recover, but the assassin escaped. The same day Reynolds, who killed
Barre, shot himself in prison. On Wednesday, another person, Mr.
Nicolet, blew out his brains. Yesterday, the unfortunate George
Clement destroyed himself in his cell; and in addition to this
dreadful catalogue we have to add that of the death of two, brothers,
who destroyed themselves through grief at the death of their mother;
and truly may we say that 'we know not what to-morrow will bring
forth.'"


The "Louisiana Advertiser," as quoted by the Salt River (Mo.) Journal
of May 25, 1837, says:

"Within the last ten or twelve days, three suicides, four murders, and
two executions, have occurred in the city!"

The "New Orleans Bee" of October 25, 1837, says:

"We remark with regret the frightful list of homicides that are
_daily_ committed in New Orleans."

The "Planter's Banner" of September 30. 1838, published at Franklin,
Louisiana, after giving an account of an affray between a number of
planters, in which three were killed and a fourth mortally wounded,
says that "Davis (one of the murderers) was arrested by the
by-standers, but a _justice of the peace_ came up and told them, he
did not think it right to keep a man 'tied in that manner,' and
'thought it best to turn him loose.' _It was accordingly so done_."

This occurred in the parish of Harrisonburg. The Banner closes the
account by saying:

"Our informant states that _five white men_ and _one_ negro have been
murdered in the parish of Madison, during the months of July and
August."

This _justice of the peace_, who bade the by-standers unloose the
murderer, mentioned above, has plenty of birds of his own feather
among the law officers of Louisiana. Two of the leading officers in
the New Orleans police took two witnesses, while undergoing legal
examination at Covington, near New Orleans, "carried them to a
bye-place, and _lynched_ them, during which inquisitorial operation,
they divulged every thing to the officers, Messrs. Foyle and Crossman."
The preceding fact is published in the Maryland Republican of August
22, 1837.

Judge Canonge of New Orleans, in his address at the opening of the
criminal court, Nov. 4, 1837, published in the "Bee" of Nov. 8, in
remarking upon the prevalence of out-breaking crimes, says:

"Is it possible in a civilized country such crying abuses are
_constantly_ encountered? How many individuals have given themselves
up to such culpable habits! Yet we find magistrates and juries
hesitating to expose crimes of the blackest dye to eternal contempt
and infamy, to the vengeance of the law.

"As a Louisianian parent, _I reflect with terror_ that our beloved
children, reared to become one day honorable and useful citizens, may
be the victims of these votaries of vice and licentiousness. Without
some powerful and certain remedy, _our streets will become butcheries
overflowing with the blood of our citizens_."

The Editor of the "New Orleans Bee," in his paper of Oct. 21, 1837,
has a long editorial article, in which he argues for the virtual
legalizing of LYNCH LAW, as follows:

"We think then that in the circumstances in which we are placed, the
Legislature ought to sanction such measures as the situation of the
country render necessary, by giving to justice a _convenient
latitude_. There are occasions when the delays inseparable from the
administration of justice would be inimical to the public safety, and
when the most fatal consequences would be the result.

"It appears to us, that there is an urgent necessity to provide
against the inconveniences which result from popular judgment, and to
check the disposition for the speedy execution of justice resulting
from the unconstitutional principle of a pretended Lynch law, by
authorizing the parish court to take cognizance without delay, against
every free man who shall be convicted of a crime; from the accusations
arising from the mere provocations to the insurrection of the working
classes.

"All judicial sentences ought to be based upon law, and the terrible
privilege which the populace now have of punishing with death certain
crimes, _ought to be consecrated by law_, powerful interests would not
suffice in our view to excuse the interruption of social order, if the
public safety was not with us the supreme law.

"This is the reason that whilst we deplore the imperious necessity
which exists, we entreat the legislative power to give the sanction of
principle to what already exists in fact."

The Editor of the "New Orleans Bee," in his paper, Oct 25, 1837, says:

"We remark with regret the frightful list of homicides, whether
justifiable or not, that are daily committed in New Orleans. It is not
through any inherent vice of legal provision that such outrages are
perpetrated with impunity: it is rather in the neglect of the
_application of the law_ which exists on this subject.

"We will confine our observation to the dangerous facilities afforded
by this code for the escape of the homicide. We are well aware that
the laws in question are intended for the distribution of equal
justice, yet we have too often witnessed the acquittal of delinquents
whom we can denominate by no other title than that of homicides, while
the simple affirmation of others has been admitted (in default of
testimony) who are themselves the authors of the deed, for which they
stand in judgment. The _indiscriminate system of accepting bail_ is a
blot on our criminal legislation, and is one great reason why so many
violators of the law avoid its penalties. To this doubtless must be
ascribed the non-interference of the Attorney General. The law of
_habeas corpus_ being subjected to the interpretation of every
magistrate, whether versed or not in criminal cases, a degree of
arbitrary and incorrect explanation necessarily results. How
frequently does it happen that the Mayor or Recorder decides upon the
gravest case without putting himself to the smallest trouble to inform
the Attorney General, who sometimes only hears of the affair when
investigation is no longer possible, or when the criminal has wisely
commuted his punishment into temporary or perpetual exile."

That morality suffers by such practices, is beyond a doubt; yet
moderation and mercy are so beautiful in themselves, that we would
scarcely protest against indulgence, were it not well known that the
acceptance of bail is the safeguard of every delinquent who, through
wealth or connections, possesses influence enough to obtain it. Here
arbitrary construction glides amidst the confusion of testimony; there
it presumes upon the want of evidence, and from one cause or another
it is extremely rare, that a refusal to bail has delivered the accused
into the hands of justice. In criminal cases, the Court and Jury are
the proper tribunals to decide upon the reality of the crime, and the
palliating circumstances; _yet it is not unfrequent_ for the public
voice to condemn as an odious assassin, the very individual who by the
acquittal of the judge, walks at large and scoffs at justice.

"It is time to restrict within its proper limits this pretended right
of personal protection; it is time to teach our population to abstain
from mutual murder upon slight provocation.--Duelling, Heaven knows,
is dreadful enough, and quite a sufficient means of gratifying private
aversion, and avenging insult. Frequent and serious brawls in our
cafes, streets and houses, every where attest the insufficiency or
misapplication of our legal code, or the want of energy in its organs.
To say that unbounded license is the insult of liberty is folly.
Liberty is the consequence of well regulated laws--without these,
Freedom can exist only in name, and the law which favors the escape of
the opulent and aristocratic from the penalties of retribution, but
consigns the poor and friendless to the chain-gang or the gallows, is
in fact the very essence of slavery!!"


The editor of the same paper says (Nov. 4, 1837.)

"Perhaps by an equitable, but strict application of that law, (the law
which forbids the wearing of deadly weapons concealed,) the effusion
of human blood might be stopt _which now defiles our streets and our
coffee-houses as if they were shambles_! Reckless disregard of the
life of man is rapidly gaining ground among us, and the habit of
seeing a man whom it is taken for granted was armed, murdered merely
for a _gesture_, may influence the opinion of a jury composed of
citizens, whom, LONG IMPUNITY TO HOMICIDES OF EVERY KIND has
persuaded, that the right of self-defence extends even to the taking
of life for _gestures_, more or less threatening. So many DAILY
instances of outbreaking passion which have thrown whole families into
the deepest affliction, teach us a terrible lesson."


From the "Columbus (Ga.) Sentinel," July 6, 1837.

"_Wholesale Murders_.--No less than three murders were committed in
New Orleans on Monday evening last. The first was that of a man in
Poydras, near the corner of Tehapitoulas. The murdered individual had
been suspected of a _liason_ with another man's wife in the
neighbourhood, was caught in the act, followed to the above corner and
shot.

"The second was that of a man in Perdido street. Circumstances not
known.

"The third was that of a watchman, on the corner of Custom House and
Burgundy street, who was found dead yesterday morning, shot through
the heart. The deed was evidently committed on the opposite side from
where he was found, as the unfortunate man was tracked by his blood
across the street. In addition to being shot through the heart, two
wounds in his breast, supposed to have been done with a Bowie knife,
were discovered. No arrests have been made to our knowledge."


The editor of the "Charleston, (S.C.) Mercury" of April, 1837, snakes
the following remarks.

"The energy of a Tacon is much needed to vivify the police of New
Orleans. In a single paper we find an account of the execution of one
man for robbery and intent to kill, of the arrest of another for
stabbing a man to death with a carving knife; and of a third found
murdered on the Levee on the previous Sunday morning. In the last
case, although the murderer was known, _no steps had been taken for
his arrest_; and to crown the whole, it is actually stated in so many
words, that the City guards are not permitted, according to their
instructions, to patrol the Levee after night, for fear of attacks
from persons employed in steamboats!"

The present white population of Louisiana is but little more than that
of Rhode Island, yet more appalling crime is committed in Louisiana
_every day_, than in Rhode Island during a year, notwithstanding the
tone of public morals is probably lower in the latter than in any
other New England state.



TENNESSEE.


Tennessee became one of the United States in 1796. Its present white
population is about seven hundred thousand.

The details which follow, go to confirm the old truth, that the
exercise of arbitrary power tends to make men monsters. The following,
from the "Memphis (Tennessee) Enquirer," was published in the Virginia
Advocate, Jan. 26, 1838.

"Below will be found a detailed account of one of the most unnatural
and aggravated murders ever recorded. Col. Ward, the deceased, was a
man of high standing in the state, and very much esteemed by his
neighbors, and by all who knew him. The brothers concerned in this
'murder, most foul and unnatural,' were Lafayette, Chamberlayne,
Caesar, and Achilles Jones, (the nephews of Col. Ward.)

"The four brothers, all armed, went to the residence of Mr. A.G. Ward,
in Shelby co., on the evening of 22d instant. They were conducted into
the room in which Col. Ward was sitting, together with some two or
three ladies, his intended wife amongst the number. Upon their
entering the room, Col. Ward rose, and extended his hand to Lafayette.
He refused, saying he would shake hands with no such d----d rascal.
The rest answered in the same tone. Col. Ward remarked that they were
not in a proper place for a difficulty, if they sought one. Col. Ward
went from the room to the passage, and was followed by the brothers.
He said he was unarmed, but if they would lay down their arms, he
could whip the whole of them; or if they would place him on an equal
footing, he could whip the whole of them one by one. Caesar told
Chamberlayne to give the Col. one of his pistols, which he did, and
both went out into the yard, the other brothers following. While
standing a few paces from each other, Lafayette came up, and remarked
to the Col., 'If you spill my brother's blood, I will spill yours,'
about which time Chamberlayne's pistol fired, and immediately
Lafayette bursted a cap at him. The Colonel turned to Lafayette, and
said, 'Lafayette, you intend to kill,' and discharged his pistol at
him. The ball struck the pistol of Lafayette, and glanced into his
arm. By this time Albert Ward, being close by, and hearing the fuss,
came up to the assistance of the Colonel, when a scuffle amongst all
hands ensued. The Colonel stumbled and fell down--he received several
wounds from a large bowie knife; and, after being stabbed,
Chamberlayne jumped upon him, and stamped him several times. After the
scuffle, Caesar Jones was seen to put up a large bowie knife. Colonel
Ward said he was a dead man. By the assistance of Albert Ward, he
reached the house, distance about 15 or 20 yards, and in a few minutes
expired. On examination by the Coroner, it appeared that he had
received several wounds from pistols and knives. Albert Ward was also
badly bruised, not dangerously."


The "New Orleans Bee," Sept. 22, 1838, published the following from
the "Nashville (Tennessee) Whig."

"The Nashville Whig, of the 11th ult., says: Pleasant Watson, of De
Kalb county, and a Mr. Carmichael, of Alabama, were the principals in
an affray at Livingston, Overton county, last week, which terminated
in the death of the former. Watson made the assault with a dirk, and
Carmichael defended himself with a pistol, shooting his antagonist
through the body, a few inches below the heart. Watson was living at
the last account. The dispute grew out of a horse race."


The New Orleans Courier, April 7, 1837, has the following extract from
the "McMinersville (Tennessee) Gazette."

"On Saturday, the 8th instant, Colonel David L. Mitchell, the worthy
sheriff of White county, was most barbarously murdered by a man named
Joseph Little. Colonel Mitchell had a civil process against Little. He
went to Little's house for the purpose of arresting him. He found
Little armed with a rifle, pistols, &c. He commenced a conversation
with Little upon the impropriety of his resisting, and stated his
determination to take him, at the same time slowly advancing upon
Little, who discharged his rifle at him without effect. Mitchell then
attempted to jump in, to take hold of him when Little struck him over
the head with the barrel of his rifle, and literally mashed his skull
to pieces; and, as he lay prostrate on the earth, Little deliberately
pulled a large pistol from his belt, and placing the muzzle close to
Mitchell's head, he shot the ball through it. Little has made his
escape. _There were three men near by when the murder was committed,
who made no attempt to arrest the murderer_."


The following affray at Athens, Tennessee, from the Mississippian,
August 10, 1838.

"An unpleasant occurrence transpired at Athens on Monday. Captain
James Byrnes was stabbed four times, twice in the arm, and twice in
the side by A.R. Livingston. The wounds are said to be very severe,
and fears are entertained of their proving mortal. The affair
underwent an examination before Sylvester Nichols, Esq., by whom
Livingston was let to bail."


The "West Tennessean," Aug. 4, 1837, says--

"A duel was fought at Calhoun, Tenn., between G.W. Carter and J.C.
Sherley. They used yaugers at the distance of 20 yards. The former was
slightly wounded, and the latter quite dangerously."

June 23d, 1838, Benjamin Shipley, of Hamilton co., Tennessee, shot
Archibald McCallie. (_Nashville Banner_, July 16, 1838.)

June 23d, 1838, Levi Stunston, of Weakly co., Tennessee, killed
William Price, of said county, in an affray. (_Nashville Banner, July
6, 1838_.)

October 8, 1838, in an affray at Wolf's Ferry, Tennessee, Martin
Farley, Senior, was killed by John and Solomon Step. (_Georgia
Telegraph, Nov 6, 1838._.)

Feb. 14, 1838, John Manie was killed by William Doss at Decatur,
Tennessee. (_Memphis Gazette, May 15, 1838_.)

  "From the Nashville Whig."

"_Fatal Affray in Columbia, Tenn_.--A fatal street encounter occurred
at that place, on the 3d inst., between Richard H. Hays, attorney at
law, and Wm. Polk, brother to the Hon. Jas. K. Polk. The parties met,
armed with pistols, and exchanged shots simultaneously. A buck-shot
pierced the brain of Hays, and he died early the next morning. The
quarrel grew out of a sportive remark of Hays', at dinner, at the
Columbia Inn, for which he offered an apology, not accepted, it seems,
as Polk went to Hays' office, the same evening, and chastised him with
a whip. This occurred on Friday, the fatal result took place on
Monday."

In a fight near Memphis, Tennessee, May 15, 1837, Mr. Jackson, of that
place, shot through the heart Mr. W.F. Gholson, son of the late Mr.
Gholson, of Virginia. (_Raleigh Register, June 13, 1837_.)

The following horrible outrage, committed in West Tennessee, not far
from Randolph, was published by the Georgetown (S.C.) Union, May 26,
1837, from the Louisville Journal.

"A feeble bodied man settled a few years ago on the Mississippi, a
short distance below Randolph, on the Tennessee side. He succeeded in
amassing property to the value of about $14,000, and, like most of the
settlers, made a business of selling wood to the boats. This he sold
at $2.50 a cord, while his neighbors asked $3. One of them came to
remonstrate against his underselling, and had a fight with his
brother-in-law Clark, in which he was beaten. He then went and
obtained legal process against Clark, and returned with a deputy
sheriff, attended by a posse of desperate villains. When they arrived
at Clark's house, he was seated among his children--they put two or
three balls through his body. Clark ran, was overtaken and knocked
down; in the midst of his cries for mercy, one of the villains fired a
pistol in his mouth, killing him instantly. They then required the
settler to sell his property to them, and leave the country. He,
fearing that they would otherwise take his life, sold them his
valuable property for $300, and departed with his family. _The sheriff
was one of the purchasers._"

The Baltimore American, Feb. 8, 1838, publishes the following from the
Nashville (Tennessee) Banner:

"A most atrocious murder was committed a few days ago at Lagrange, in
this state, on the body of Mr. John T. Foster, a respectable merchant
of that town. The perpetrators of this bloody act are E. Moody, Thomas
Moody, J.E. Douglass, W.R. Harris, and W.C. Harris. The circumstances
attending this horrible affair, are the following:--On the night
previous to the murder, a gang of villains, under pretence of wishing
to purchase goods, entered Mr. Foster's store, took him by force, and
rode him through the streets _on a rail_. The next morning, Mr. F. met
one of the party, and gave him a caning. For this just retaliation for
the outrage which had been committed on his person, he was pursued by
the persons alone named, while taking a walk with a friend, and
murdered in the open face of day."

The following presentment of a Tennessee Grand Jury, sufficiently
explains and comments on itself:

The Grand Jurors empanelled to inquire for the county of Shelby, would
separate without having discharged their duties, if they were to omit
to notice public evils which they have found their powers inadequate
to put in train for punishment. The evils referred to exist more
particularly in the town of Memphis.

The audacity and frequency with which outrages are committed, forbid
us, in justice to our consciences, to omit to use the powers we
possess, to bring them to the severe action of the law; and when we
find our powers inadequate, to draw upon them public attention, and
the rebuke of the good.

An infamous female publicly and grossly assaults a lady; therefore a
public meeting is called, the mayor of the town is placed in the
chair, resolutions are adopted, providing for the summary and lawless
punishment of the wretched woman. In the progress of the affair,
_hundreds of citizens_ assemble at her house, and raze it to the
ground. The unfortunate creature, together with two or three men of
like character, are committed, in an open canoe or boat, without oar
or paddle, to the middle of the Mississippi river.

Such is a concise outline of the leading incidents of a recent
transaction in Memphis. It might be filled up by the detail of
individual exploits, which would give vivacity to the description; but
we forbear to mention them. We leave it to others to admire the
manliness of the transaction, and the courage displayed by a mob of
hundreds, in the various outrages upon the persons and property of
three or four individuals who fell under its vengeance.

The present white population of Tennessee is about the same with that
of Massachusetts, and yet more outbreaking crimes are committed in
Tennessee in a _single month_, than in Massachusetts during a whole
year; and this, too, notwithstanding the largest town in Tennessee has
but six thousand inhabitants; whereas, in Massachusetts, besides one
of eighty thousand, and two others of nearly twenty thousand each,
there are at least a dozen larger than the chief town in Tennessee,
which gives to the latter state an important advantage on the score of
morality, the country being so much more favorable to it than large
towns.



KENTUCKY.


Kentucky has been one of the United States since 1792. Its present
white population is about six hundred thousand.

The details which follow show still further that those who unite to
plunder of their rights one class of human beings, regard as _sacred_
the rights of no class.


The following affair at Maysville, Kentucky, is extracted from the
Maryland Republican, January 30, 1838.

"A fight came on at Maysville, Ky. on the 29th ultimo, in which a Mr.
Coulster was stabbed in the side and is dead; a Mr. Gibson was well
hacked with a knife; a Mr. Ferris was dangerously wounded in the head,
and another of the same name in the hip; a Mr. Shoemaker was severely
beaten, and several others seriously hurt in various ways."

The following is extracted from the N.C. Standard.

"A most bloody and shocking transaction took place in the little town
of Clinton, Hickman co. Ken. The circumstances are briefly as follows:
A special canvass for a representative from the county of Hickman, had
for some time been in progress. A gentleman by the name of Binford was
a candidate. The State Senator from the district, Judge James, took
some exceptions to the reputation of Binford, and intimated that if B.
should be elected, he (James) would resign rather than serve with such
a colleague. Hearing this, Binford went to the house of James to
demand an explanation. Mrs. James remarked, in a jest as Binford
thought, that if she was in the place of her husband she would resign
her seat in the Senate, and not serve with such a character. B. told
her that she was a woman, and could say what she pleased. She replied
that she was not in earnest. James then looked B. in the face and said
that, if his wife said so, it was the fact--'he was an infamous
scoundrel and d----d rascal.' He asked B. if he was armed, and on
being answered in the affirmative, he stepped into an adjoining room
to arm himself; He was prevented by the family from returning, and
Binford walked out. J. then told him from his piazza, that he would
meet him next day in Clinton.

"True to their appointment, the enraged parties met on the streets the
following day. James shot first, his ball passing through his
antagonist's liver, whose pistol fired immediately afterwards, and
missing J., the ball pierced the head of a stranger by the name of
Collins, who instantly fell and expired. After being shot, Binford
sprang upon J. with the fury of a wounded tiger, and would have taken
his life but for a second shot received through the back from Bartin
James, the brother of Thomas. Even after he received the last fatal
wound he struggled with his antagonist until death relaxed his grasp,
and he fell with the horrid exclamation, _'I am a dead man!'_

"Judge James gave himself up to the authorities; and when the
informant of the editor left Clinton, Binford, and the unfortunate
stranger lay shrouded corpses together."


The "N.O. Bee" thus gives the conclusion of the matter:

"Judge James was tried and acquitted, the death of Binford being
regarded as an act of justifiable homicide."


From the "Flemingsburg Kentuckian," June 23,'38.

AFFRAY.--Thomas Binford, of Hickman county, Kentucky, recently attacked
a Mr. Gardner of Dresden, with a drawn knife, and cut his face pretty
badly. Gardner picked up a piece of iron and gave him a side-wipe
above the ear that brought him to terms. The skull was fractured about
two inches. Binford's brother was killed at Clinton, Kentucky, last
fall by Judge James.


The "Red River Whig" of September 15, 1838, says:--"A ruffian of the
name of Charles Gibson, attempted to murder a girl named Mary Green,
of Louisville, Ky. on the 23d ult. He cut her in six different places
with a Bowie knife. His object, as stated in a subsequent
investigation before the Police Court, was to cut her throat, which
she prevented by throwing up her arms."


From the "Louisville Advertiser," Dec. 17th, 1838:--"A startling
tragedy occurred in this city on Saturday evening last, in which A.H.
Meeks was instantly killed, John Rothwell mortally wounded, William
Holmes severely wounded, and Henry Oldham slightly, by the use of
Bowie knives, by Judge E.C. Wilkinson, and his brother, B.R.
Wilkinson, of Natchez, and J. Murdough, of Holly Springs, Mississippi.
It seems that Judge Wilkinson had ordered a coat at the shop of
Messrs. Varnum & Redding. The coat was made; the Judge, accompanied by
his brother and Mr. Murdough, went to the shop of Varnum & Redding,
tried on the coat, and was irritated because, as he believed, it did
not fit him. Mr. Redding undertook to convince him that he was in
error, and ventured to assure the Judge that the coat was well made.
The Judge instantly seized an iron poker, and commenced an attack on
Redding. The blow with the poker was partially warded off--Redding
grappled his assailant, when a companion of the Judge drew a Bowie
knife, and, but for the interposition and interference of the
unfortunate Meeks, a journeyman tailor, and a gentleman passing by at
the moment, Redding might have been assassinated in his own shop.
Shortly afterwards, Redding, Meeks, Rothwell, and Holmes went to the
Galt House. They sent up stairs for Judge Wilkinson, and he came down
into the bar room, when angry words were passed. The Judge went up
stairs again, and in a short time returned with his companions, all
armed with knives. Harsh language was again used. Meeks, felt called
on to state what he had seen of the conflict, and did so, and Murdough
gave him the d--d lie, for which Meeks struck him. On receiving the
blow with the whip, Murdough instantly plunged his Bowie knife into
the abdomen of Meeks, and killed him on the spot.

"At the same instant B.R. Wilkinson attempted to get at Redding, and
Holmes and Rothwell interfered, or joined in the affray. Holmes was
wounded, probably by B.R. Wilkinson; and the Judge, having left the
room for an instant, returned, and finding Rothwell contending with
his brother, or bending over him, he (the Judge) stabbed Rothwell in
the back, and inflicted a mortal wound.

"Judge Wilkinson, his brother, and J. Murdough, have been recently
tried and ACQUITTED."

From the "New Orleans Bee," Sept. 27, 1838.

"It appears from the statement of the Lexington Intelligencer, that
there has been for some time past, an enmity between the drivers of
the old and opposition lines of stages running from that city. On the
evening of the 13th an encounter took place at the Circus between two
of them, Powell and Cameron, and the latter was so much injured that
his life was in imminent danger. About 12 o'clock the same night,
several drivers of the old line rushed into Keizer's Hotel, where
Powell and other drivers of the opposition-line boarded, and a general
melee took place, in the course of which several pistols were
discharged, the ball of one of them passing through the head of
Crabster, an old line driver, and killing him on the spot. Crabster,
before he was shot, had discharged his own pistol which had burst into
fragments. Two or three drivers of the opposition were wounded with
buck shot, but not dangerously."

The "Mobile Advertiser" of September 15, 1838, copies the following
from the Louisville (Ky.) Journal.

"A Mr. Campbell was killed in Henderson county on the 31st ult. by a
Mr. Harrison. It appears, that there was an affray between the parties
some months ago, and that Harrison subsequently left home and returned
on the 31st in a trading boat. Campbell met him at the boat with a
loaded rifle and declared his determination to kill him, at the same
time asking him whether he had a rifle and expressing a desire to give
him a fair chance. Harrison affected to laugh at the whole matter and
invited Campbell into his boat to take a drink with him. Campbell
accepted the invitation, but, while he was in the act of drinking,
Harrison seized his rifle, fired it off, and laid Campbell dead by
striking him with the barrel of it."

The "Missouri Republican" of July 29, 1837 published the details which
follow from the Louisville Journal.

MOUNT STERLING, Ky. July 20, 1837.

"Gentlemen:--A most unfortunate and fatal occurrence transpired in our
town last evening, about 6 o'clock. Some of the most prominent friends
of Judge French had a meeting yesterday at Col. Young's, near this
place, and warm words ensued between Mr. Albert Thomas and Belvard
Peters, Esq., and a few blows were exchanged, and several of the
friends of each collected at the spot. Whilst the parties were thus
engaged. Mr. Wm. White, who was a friend of Mr. Peters, struck Mr.
Thomas, whereupon B.F. Thomas Esq. engaged in the combat on the side
of his brother and Mr. W. Roberts on the part of Peters--Mr. G.W.
Thomas taking part with his brothers. Albert Thomas had Peters down
and was taken off by a gentleman present, and whilst held by that
gentleman, he was struck by White; and B.F. Thomas having made some
remark White struck him. B.F. Thomas returned the blow, and having a
large knife, stabbed White, who nevertheless continued the contest,
and, it is said, broke Thomas's arm with a rock of a chair. Thomas
then inflicted some other stabs, of which White died in a few minutes.
Roberts was knocked down twice by Albert Thomas, and, I believe, is
much hurt. G.W. Thomas was somewhat hurt also. White and B.F. Thomas
had always been on friendly terms. You are acquainted with the Messrs.
Thomas. Mr. White was a much larger man than either of them, weighing
nearly 200 pounds, and in the prime of life. As you may very naturally
suppose, great excitement prevails here, and Mr. B.F. Thomas regrets
the fatal catastrophe as much as any one else, but believes from all
the circumstances that he was justifiable in what he did, although he
would be as far from doing such an act when cool and deliberate as any
man whatever."


The "New Orleans Bulletin" of Aug. 24, 1838, extracts the following
from the Louisville Journal.

"News has just reached us, that Thomas P. Moore, attacked the Senior
Editor of this paper in the yard of the Harrodsburg Springs. Mr. Moore
advanced upon Mr. Prentice with a drawn pistol and fired at him; Mr.
Prentice then fired, neither shot taking effect. Mr. Prentice drew a
second pistol, when Mr. Moore quailed and said he had no other arms;
whereupon Mr. Prentice from superabundant magnanimity spared the
miscreant's life."


From "The Floridian" of June 10, 1837. MURDER. Mr. Gillespie, a
respectable citizen aged 50, was murdered a few days since by a Mr.
Arnett, near Mumfordsville, Ky., which latter shot his victim twice
with a rifle.


The "Augusta (Ga.) Sentinel," May 11, 1838, has the following account
of murders in Kentucky:

"At Mill's Point, Kentucky, Dr. Thomas Rivers was shot one day last
week, from out of a window, by Lawyer Ferguson, both citizens of that
place, and both parties are represented to have stood high in the
estimation of the community in which they lived. The difficulty we
understand to have grown out of a law suit at issue between them."

Just as our paper was going to press, we learn that the brother of Dr.
Rivers, who had been sent for, had arrived, and immediately shot
Lawyer Ferguson. He at first shot him with a shot gun, upon his
retreat, which did not prove fatal; he then approached him immediately
with a pistol, and killed him on the spot."

The Right Rev. B.B. Smith, Bishop of the Episcopal diocese of
Kentucky, published about two years since an article in the Lexington
(Ky.) Intelligencer, entitled "Thoughts on the frequency of homicides
in the state of Kentucky." We conclude this head with a brief extract
from the testimony of the Bishop, contained in that article.

"The writer has never conversed with a traveled and enlightened
European or eastern man, who has not expressed the most undisguised
horror at the frequency of homicide and murder within our bounds, and
at the _ease with which the homicide escapes from punishment_.

"As to the frequency of these shocking occurrences, the writer has
some opportunity of being correctly impressed, by means of a yearly
tour through many counties of the State. He has also been particular
in making inquiries of our most distinguished legal and political
characters, and from some has derived conjectural estimates which were
truly alarming. A few have been of the opinion, that on an average one
murder a year may be charged to the account of every county in the
state, making the frightful aggregate of 850 human lives sacrificed to
revenge, or the victims of momentary passion, in the course of every
ten years.

"Others have placed the estimate much lower, and have thought that
thirty for the whole state, every year, would be found much nearer the
truth. An attempt has been made lately to obtain data more
satisfactory than conjecture, and circulars have been addressed to the
clerks of most of the counties, in order to arrive at as correct an
estimate as possible of the actual number of homicides during the
three years last past. It will be seen, however, that statistics thus
obtained, even from every county in the state, would necessarily be
imperfect, inasmuch as the records of the courts _by no means show all
the cases_, which occur, some escaping without _any_ of the forms of a
legal examination, and there being _many affrays_ which end only in
wounds, or where the parties are separated.

"From these returns, it appears that in 27 counties there have been,
within the last three years, of homicides of every grade, 35, but only
8 convictions in the same period, leaving 27 cases which have passed
wholly unpunished. During the same period there have been from
eighty-five counties, only eleven commitments to the state prison,
nine for manslaughter, and two for shooting with intent to kill, _and
not an instance of capital punishment in the person of any white
offender_. Thus an approximation is made to a general average, which
probably would not vary much from one in each county every three
years, or about 280 in ten years.

"It is believed that such a register of crime amongst a people
professing the protestant religion and speaking the English language,
is not to be found, with regard to any three-quarters of a million of
people, since the downfall of the feudal system. Compared with the
records of crime in Scotland, or the eastern states, the results are
ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING! _It is believed there are more homicides, on an
average of two years, in any of our more populous counties, than in
the whole of several of our states, of equal or nearly equal white
population with Kentucky._

"The victims of these affrays are not always, by any means, the most
worthless of our population.

"It too often happens that the enlightened citizen, the devoted
lawyer, the affectionate husband, and precious father, are thus
instantaneously taken from their useful stations on earth, and
hurried, all unprepared, to their final account!

"The question, is again asked, what could have brought about, and can
perpetuate, this shocking state of things?"


As an illustration of the recklessness of life in Kentucky, and the
terrible paralysis of public sentiment, the bishop states the
following fact.

"A case of shocking homicide is remembered, where the guilty person
was acquitted by a sort of acclamation, and the next day was seen in
public, with two ladies hanging on his arm!"


Notwithstanding the frightful frequency of deadly affrays in Kentucky,
as is certified by the above testimony of Bishop Smith, there are
fewer, in proportion to the white population, than in any of the
states which have passed under review, unless Tennessee may be an
exception. The present white population of Kentucky is perhaps seventy
thousand more than that of Maine, and yet more public fatal affrays
have taken place in the former, within the last six months, than in
the latter during its entire existence as a state.

The seven slave states which we have already passed under review, are
just one half of the slave states and territories, included in the
American Union. Before proceeding to consider the condition of society
in the other slave states, we pause a moment to review the ground
already traversed.

The present entire white population of the states already considered,
is about two and a quarter millions; just about equal to the present
white population of the state of New York. If the amount of crime
resulting in loss of life, which is perpetrated by the white
population of those states upon the _whites alone_, be contrasted with
the amount perpetrated in the state of New York, by _all_ classes,
upon _all_, we believe it will be found, that more of such crimes have
been committed in these states within the last 18 months, than have
occurred in the state of New York for half a century. But perhaps we
shall be told that in these seven states, there are scores of cities
and large towns, and that a majority of all these deadly affrays, &c.,
take place in _them_; to this we reply, that there are _three times as
many_ cities and large towns in the state of New York, as in all those
states together, and that nearly all the capital crimes perpetrated in
the state take place in these cities and large villages. In the state
of New York, there are more than _half a million_ of persons who live
in cities and villages of more than two thousand inhabitants, whereas
in Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and
Missouri, there are on the largest computation not more than _one
hundred thousand_ persons, residing in cities and villages of more
than two thousand inhabitants, and the white population of these
places (which alone is included in the estimate of crime, and that too
_inflicted upon whites only_,) is probably not more than _sixty-five
thousand_.

But it will doubtless be pleaded in mitigation, that the cities and
large villages in those states are _new_; that they have not had
sufficient time thoroughly to organize their police, so as to make it
an effectual terror to evil doers; and further, that the rapid growth
of those places has so overloaded the authorities with all sorts of
responsibilities, that due attention to the preservation of the public
peace has been nearly impossible; and besides, they have had no
official experience to draw upon, as in the older cities, the offices
being generally filled by young men, as a necessary consequence of the
newness of the country, &c. To this we reply, that New Orleans is more
than a century old, and for half that period has been the centre of a
great trade; that St. Louis, Natchez, Mobile, Nashville, Louisville
and Lexington, are all half a century old, and each had arrived at
years of discretion, while yet the sites of Buffalo, Rochester,
Lockport, Canandaigua, Geneva, Auburn, Ithaca, Oswego, Syracuse, and
other large towns in Western New-York, _were a wilderness_. Further,
as _a number_ of these places are larger than _either_ of the former,
their growth must have been more _rapid_, and, consequently, they must
have encountered still greater obstacles in the organization of an
efficient police than those south western cities, with this exception,
THEY WERE NOT SETTLED BY SLAVEHOLDERS.

The absurdity of assigning the _newness_ of the country, the
unrestrained habits of pioneer settlers, the recklessness of life
engendered by wars with the Indians, &c., as reasons sufficient to
account for the frightful amount of crime in the states under review,
is manifest from the fact, that Vermont is of the same age with
Kentucky; Ohio, ten years younger than Kentucky, and six years younger
than Tennessee; Indiana, five years younger than Louisiana; Illinois,
one year younger than Mississippi; Maine, of the same age with
Missouri, and two years younger than Alabama; and Michigan of the same
age with Arkansas. Now, let any one contrast the state of society in
Maine, Vermont, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan with that of
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, and
Mississippi, and candidly ponder the result. It is impossible
satisfactorily to account for the immense disparity in crime, on any
other supposition than that the latter states were settled and are
inhabited almost exclusively by those who carried with them the
violence, impatience of legal restraint, love of domination, fiery
passions, idleness, and contempt of laborious industry, which are
engendered by habits of despotic sway, acquired by residence in
communities where such manners, habits and passions, mould society
into their own image.[43] The practical workings of this cause are
powerfully illustrated in those parts of the slave states where slaves
abound, when contrasted with those where very few are held. Who does
not know that there are fewer deadly affrays in proportion to the
white population--that law has more sway and that human life is less
insecure in East Tennessee, where there are very few slaves, than in
West Tennessee, where there are large numbers. This is true also of
northern and western Virginia, where few slaves are held, when
contrasted with eastern Virginia; where they abound; the same remark
applies to those parts of Kentucky and Missouri, where large numbers
of slaves are held, when contrasted with others where there are
comparatively few.

We see the same cause operating to a considerable extent in those
parts of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, settled mainly by slaveholders
and others, who were natives of slave states, in contrast with other
parts of these states settled almost exclusively by persons from free
states; that affrays and breaches of the peace are far more frequent
in the former than in the latter, is well known to all.

We now proceed to the remaining slave states. Those that have not yet
been considered, are Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North and South
Carolina, Georgia, and the territory of Florida. As Delaware has
hardly two thousand five hundred slaves, arbitrary power over human
beings is exercised by so few persons, that the turbulence infused
thereby into the public mind is but an inconsiderable element, quite
insufficient to inflame the passions, much less to cast the character
of the mass of the people; consequently, the state of society there,
and the general security of life is but little less than in New Jersey
and Pennsylvania, upon which states it borders on the north and east.
The same causes operate in a considerable measure, though to a much
less extent to Maryland and in Northern and Western Virginia. But in
lower Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, the
general state of society as it respects the successful triumph of
passion over law, and the consequent and universal insecurity of life
is, in the main, very similar to that of the states already
considered. In some portions of each of these states, human life has
probably as little real protection as in Arkansas, Mississippi and
Louisiana; but generally throughout the former states and sections,
the laws are not so absolutely powerless as in the latter three.
Deadly affrays, duels, murders, lynchings, &c., are, in proportion to
the white population, as frequent and as rarely punished in lower
Virginia as in Kentucky and Missouri; in North Carolina and South
Carolina as in Tennessee; and in Georgia and Florida as in Alabama.

To insert the criminal statistics of the remaining slave states in
detail, as those of the states already considered have been presented,
would, we find, fill more space than can well be spared. Instead of
this, we propose to exhibit the state of society in all the
slaveholding region bordering on the Atlantic, by the testimony of the
slaveholders themselves, corroborated by a few plain facts. Leaving
out of view Florida, where law is the _most_ powerless, and Maryland
where probably it is the _least_ so, we propose to select as a fair
illustration of the actual state of society in the Atlantic
slaveholding regions, North Carolina whose border is but 250 miles
from the free states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and Georgia which
constitutes its south western boundary.

We will begin with GEORGIA. This state was settled more than a century
ago by a colony under General Oglethorpe. The colony was memorable for
its high toned morality. One of its first regulations was an absolute
prohibition of slavery in every form: but another generation arose,
the prohibition was abolished, a multitude of slaves were imported,
the exercise of unlimited power over them lashed up passion to the
spurning of all control, and now the dreadful state of society that
exists in Georgia, is revealed by the following testimony out of her
own mouth.

The editor of the Darien (Georgia) Telegraph, in his paper of November
6, 1838, published the following.

"_Murderous Attack_.--Between the hours of three and four o'clock, on
Saturday last, the editor of this paper was attacked by FOURTEEN armed
ruffians, and knocked down by repeated blows of bludgeons. All his
assailants were armed with pistols, dirks, and large clubs. Many of
them are known to us; but _there is neither law nor justice to be had
in Darien! We are doomed to death_ by the employers of the assassins
who attacked us on Saturday, and no less than our blood will satisfy
them. The cause alleged for this unmanly, base, cowardly outrage, is
some expressions which occurred in an election squib, printed at this
office, and extensively circulated through the county, _before the
election_. The names of those who surrounded us, when the attack was
made, are, A. Lefils, jr. (son to the representative), Madison Thomas,
Francis Harrison, Thomas Hopkins, Alexander Blue, George Wing, James
Eilands, W.I. Perkins, A.J. Raymur: the others we cannot at present
recollect. The two first, LEFILS and THOMAS struck us at the same
time. Pistols were levelled at us in all directions. We can produce
the most respectable testimony of the truth of this statement."

The same number of the "Darien Telegraph," from which the preceding is
taken, contains a correspondence between six individuals, settling the
preliminaries of duels. The correspondence fills, with the exception
of a dozen lines, _five columns_ of the paper. The parties were Col.
W. Whig Hazzard, commander of one of the Georgia regiments in the
recent Seminole campaign, Dr. T.F. Hazzard, a physician of St.
Simons, and Thomas Hazzard, Esq. a county magistrate, on the one side,
and Messrs. J.A. Willey, A.W. Willey, and H.B. Gould, Esqs. of
Darien, on the other. In their published correspondence the parties
call each other "liar," "mean rascal," "puppy," "villain," &c.

The magistrate, Thomas Hazzard, who accepts the challenge of J.A.
Willey, says, in one of his letters, "Being a magistrate, under a
solemn oath to do all in my power to keep the peace," &c., and yet
this personification of Georgia justice superscribes his letter as
follows: "To the Liar, Puppy, Fool, and Poltroon, Mr. John A. Willey"
The magistrate closes his letter thus:

"Here I am; call upon me for personal satisfaction (in _propria
forma_); and in the Farm Field, on St. Simon's Island, (_Deo
juvante_,) I will give you a full front of my body, and do all in my
power to satisfy your thirst for blood! And more, I will wager you
$100, to be planked on the scratch! that J.A. Willey will neither
kill or defeat T.F. Hazzard."

The following extract from the correspondence is a sufficient index of
slaveholding civilization.

"ARTICLES OF BATTLE BETWEEN JOHN A. WILLEY AND W. WHIG HAZZARD.

"Condition 1. The parties to fight on the same day, and at the same
place, (St. Simon's beach, near the lighthouse,) where the meeting
between T.F. Hazzard and J.A. Willey will take place.

"Condition 2. The parties to fight with broad-swords in the right hand,
and a dirk in the left.

"Condition 3. On the word "Charge," the parties to advance, and attack
with the broadsword, or close with the dirk.

"Condition 4. THE HEAD OF THE VANQUISHED TO BE CUT OFF BY THE VICTOR,
AND STUCK UPON A POLE ON THE FARM FIELD DAM, the original cause of
dispute.

"Condition 5. Neither party to object to each other's weapons; and if a
sword breaks, the contest to continue with the dirk.

"This Col. W. Whig Hazzard is one of the most prominent citizens in the
southern part of Georgia, and previously signalized himself, as we
learn from one of the letters in the correspondence, by "three
deliberate rounds in a duel."

The Macon (Georgia) Telegraph of October 9, 1838, contains the
following notice of two affrays in that place, in each of which an
individual was killed, one on Tuesday and the other on Saturday of the
same week. In publishing the case, the Macon editor remarks:

"We are compelled to remark on the inefficiency of our laws in
bringing to the bar of public justice, persons committing capital
offences. Under the present mode, a man has nothing more to do than to
leave the state, or step over to Texas, or some other place not
farther off, and he need entertain no fear of being apprehended. So
long as such a state of things is permitted to exist, just so long
will every man who has an enemy (and there are but few who have not)
_be in constant danger of being shot down in the streets_."

To these remarks of the Macon editor, who is in the centre of the
state, near the capital, the editor of the Darien Telegraph, two
hundred miles distant, responds as follows, in his paper of October
30. 1838.

"The remarks of our contemporary are not without cause. They apply,
with peculiar force, to this community. _Murderers and rioters will
never stand in need of a sanctuary as long as Darien is what it is_."

It is a coincidence which carries a comment with it, that in less than
a week after this Darien editor made these remarks, he was attacked in
the street by "_fourteen_ gentlemen" armed with bludgeons, knives,
dirks, pistols, &c., and would doubtless have been butchered on the
spot if he had not been rescued.

We give the following statement at length as the chief perpetrator of
the outrages, Col. W.N. Bishop, was at the time a high functionary of
the State of Georgia, and, as we learn from the Macon Messenger, still
holds two public offices in the State, one of them from the direct
appointment of the governor.

From the "Georgia Messenger" of August 25, 1837.

"During the administration of WILSON LUMPKIN, WILLIAM N. BISHOP
received from his Excellency the appointment of Indian Agent, in the
place of William Springer. During that year (1834,) the said governor
gave the command of a company of men, 40 in number, to the said W.N.
Bishop, to be selected by him, and armed with the muskets of the
State. This band was organized for the special purpose of keeping the
Cherokees in subjection, and although it is a notorious fact that the
Cherokees in the neighborhood of Spring Place were peaceable and by no
means refractory, the said band were kept there, and seldom made any
excursion whatever out of the county of Murray. It is also _a
notorious fact_, that the said band, from the day of their
organization, never permitted a citizen of Murray county opposed to
the dominant party of Georgia, to exercise the right of suffrage at
any election whatever. From that period to the last of January
election, the said band appeared at the polls with the arms of the
State, rejecting every vote that "was not of the true stripe," as they
called it. That they frequently seized and dragged to the polls honest
citizens, and compelled them to vote contrary to their will.

"Such acts of arbitrary despotism were tolerated by the
administration. Appeals from the citizens of Murray county brought
them no relief--and incensed at such outrages, they determined on the
first Monday in January last, to turn out and elect such Judges of the
Inferior Court and county officers, as would be above the control of
Bishop, that he might thereby be prevented from packing such a jury as
he chose to try him for his brutal and unconstitutional outrages on
their rights. Accordingly on Sunday evening previous to the election,
about twenty citizens who lived a distance from the county site, came
in unarmed and unprepared for battle, intending to remain in town,
vote in the morning and return home. They were met by Bishop and his
State band, and asked by the former 'whether they were for peace or
war.' They unanimously responded, "we are for peace:' At that moment
Bishop ordered a fire, and instantly _every musket of his band was
discharged on those citizens_, 5 of whom were wounded, and others
escaped with bullet holes in their clothes. Not satisfied with the
outrage, _they dragged an aged man from his wagon and beat him nearly
to death_.

"In this way the voters were driven from Spring Place, and before day
light the next morning, the polls were opened by order of Bishop, and
soon after sun rise they were closed; Bishop having ascertained that
the band and Schley men had all voted. A runner was then dispatched to
Milledgeville, and received from Governor Schley commissions for those
self-made officers of Bishop's, two of whom have since runaway, and
the rest have been called on by the citizens of the county to resign,
being each members of Bishop's band, and doubtless runaways from other
States.

"After these outrages, Bishop apprehending an appeal to the judiciary
on the part of the injured citizens of Murray county, had a jury drawn
to suit him and appointed one of his band Clerk of the Superior Court.
For these acts, the Governor and officers of the Central Bank rewarded
him with an office in the Bank of the State, since which his own jury
found _eleven true bills_ against him."

In the Milledgeville Federal Union of May 2, 1837, we find the
following presentment of the Grand Jury of Union County, Georgia,
which as it shows some relics of a moral sense, still lingering in the
state we insert.

Presentment of the Grand Jury of Union Co., March term, 1837.

"We would notice, as a subject of painful interest, the appointment of
Wm. N. Bishop to the high and responsible office of Teller, of the
Central Bank of the State of Georgia--an institution of such magnitude
as to merit and demand the most unslumbering vigilance of the freemen
of this State; as a portion of whom, we feel bound to express our
_indignant reprehension_ of the promotion of such a character to one
of its most responsible posts--and do exceedingly regret the blindness
or _depravity_ of those who can sanction such a measure.

"We request that our presentment be published in the Miners' Recorder
and Federal Union.

JOHN MARTIN, Foreman"

On motion of Henry L. Sims, Solicitor General, "Ordered by the court,
that the presentments of the Grand Jury, be published according to
their request." THOMAS HENRY, Clerk.

The same paper, four weeks after publishing the preceding facts,
contained the following: we give it in detail as the wretch who
enacted the tragedy was another public functionary of the state of
Georgia and acting in an official capacity.

"MURDER.--One of the most brutal and inhuman murders it has ever
fallen to our lot to notice, was lately committed in Cherokee county,
by Julius Bates, the son of the principal keeper of the Penitentiary,
upon an Indian.

"The circumstances as detailed to us by the most respectable men of
both parties, are these. At the last Superior Court of Cass county,
the unfortunate Indian was sentenced to the Penitentiary. Bates, as
_one of the Penitentiary guard_, was sent with another to carry him
and others, from other counties to Milledgeville. He started from
Cassville with the Indian ironed and bare footed; and walked him
within a quarter of a mile of Canton, the C.H. in Cherokee, a distance
of twenty-eight to thirty miles, over a very rough road in little more
than half the day. On arriving at a small creek near town, the Indian
[who had walked until the _soles of his feet were off and those of his
heel turned back_,] made signs to get water, Bates refused to let him,
and ordered him to go on: the Indian stopped and finally set down,
whereupon Bates dismounted and gathering a pine knot, commenced and
continued beating him and jirking him by a chain around his neck,
until the citizens of the village were drawn there by the severity of
the blows. The unfortunate creature was taken up to town and died in a
few hours.

"An inquest was held, and the jury found a verdict of murder by Bates.
A warrant was issued, but Bates had departed that morning in charge of
other prisoners taken from Canton, and the worthy officers of the
county desisted from his pursuit, 'because they apprehended he had
passed the limits of the county.' We understand that the warrant was
immediately sent to the Governor to have him arrested. Will it be
done? We shall see."

Having devoted so much space to a revelation of the state of society
among the slaveholders of Georgia, we will tax the reader's patience
with only a single illustration of the public sentiment--the degree of
actual legal protection enjoyed in the state of North Carolina.

North Carolina was settled about two centuries ago; its present white
population is about five hundred thousand.

Passing by the murders, affrays, &c. with which the North Carolina
papers abound, we insert the following as an illustration of the
public sentiment of North Carolina among 'gentlemen of property and
standing.'

The 'North Carolina Literary and Commercial Journal,' of January 20,
1838, published at Elizabeth City, devotes a column and a half to a
description of the lynching, tarring, feathering, ducking, riding on a
rail, pumping, &c., of a Mr. Charles Fife, a merchant of that city,
for the crime of 'trading with negroes.' The editor informs us that
this exploit of vandalism was performed very deliberately, at mid-day,
and _by a number of the citizens_, 'THE MOST RESPECTABLE IN THE CITY,'
&c. We proceed to give the reader an abridgement of the editor's
statement in his own words.--

"Such being the case, a number of the citizens, THE MOST RESPECTABLE
IN THIS CITY, collected, about ten days since, and after putting the
fellow on a rail, carried him through town with a duck and chicken
tied to him. He was taken down to the water and his head tarred and
feathered; and when they returned he was put under a pump, where for a
few minutes he underwent a little cooling. He was then told that he
must leave town by the next Saturday--if he did not he would be
visited again, and treated more in accordance with the principles of
the laws of Judge Lynch.

"On Saturday last, he was again visited, and as Fife had several of
his friends to assist him, some little scuffle ensued, when several
were knocked down, but nothing serious occurred. Fife was again
mounted on a rail and brought into town, but as he promised if they
would not trouble him he would leave town in a few days, he was set at
liberty. Several of our magistrates _took no notice of the affair_,
and rather seemed to tacitly acquiesce in the proceedings. The whole
subject every one supposed was ended, as Fife was to leave in a few
days, when WHAT WAS OUR ASTONISHMENT to hear that Mr. Charles R.
Kinney had visited Fife, advised him not to leave, and actually took
upon himself to examine witnesses, and came before the public as the
defender of Fife. The consequence was, that all the rioters were
summoned by the Sheriff to appear in the Court House and give bail for
their appearance at our next court. On Monday last the court opened at
12 o'clock, Judge Bailey presiding. Such an excitement we never
witnessed before in our town. A great many witnesses were examined,
which proved the character of Fife beyond a doubt. At one time rather
serious consequences were apprehended--high words were spoken, and
luckily a blow which was aimed at Mr. Kinney, was parried off, and we
are happy to say the court adjourned after ample securities being
given. The next day Fife was taken to jail for trading with negroes,
but has since been released on paying $100. The interference of Mr.
Kinney was wholly unnecessary; it was an assumption on his part which
properly belonged to our magistrates. Fife had agreed to go away, and
the matter would have been amicably settled but for him. We have no
unfriendly feelings towards Mr. Kinney: no personal animosities to
gratify: we have always considered him as one of our best lawyers. But
when he comes forth as the supporter of such a fellow as Fife, under
the plea that the laws have been violated--when he arraigns the acts
of thirty of the inhabitants of this place, it is high time for him to
reflect seriously on the consequences. The Penitentiary system is the
result of the refinement of the eighteenth century. As man advances in
the sciences, in the arts, in the intercourse of social and civilized
life, in the same proportion does crime and vice keep an equal pace,
and always makes demands on the wisdom of legislators. Now, what is
the Lynch law but the Penitentiary system carried out to its full
extent, with a little more steam power? or more properly, it is simply
thus: _There are some scoundrels in society on whom the laws take no
effect; the most expeditious and short way is to let a majority decide
and give them_ JUSTICE."


Let the reader notice, 1st, that this outrage was perpetrated with
great deliberation, and after it was over, the victim was commanded to
leave town by the next week: when that cooling interval had passed,
the outrage was again deliberately repeated. 2d. It was perpetrated by
"thirty persons,' "_the most respectable in the city_." 3d. That at
the second lynching of Fife, several of his neighbors who had gathered
to defend him, (seeing that all the legal officers in the city had
refused to do it, thus violating their oaths of office,) _were knocked
down_, to which the editor adds, with the business air of a
professional butcher, "nothing _serious_ occurred!" 4th. That not a
single magistrate in the city took the least notice either of the
barbarities inflicted upon Fife, or of the assaults upon his friends,
knocking them down, &c., but, as the editor informs us, all "seemed to
acquiesce in the proceedings." 5th. That this conduct of the
magistrates was well pleasing to the great mass of the citizens, is
plain, from the remark of the editor that "every one supposed that the
whole subject was ended," and from his wondering exclamation, "WHAT
WAS OUR ASTONISHMENT to hear that Mr. C.R. Kinney had actually took
upon him to examine witnesses," &c., and also from the editor's
declaration, "Such an excitement we never before witnessed in our
town." Excitement at what? Not because the laws had been most
impiously trampled down at noon-day by a conspiracy of thirty persons,
"the most respectable in the city;" not because a citizen had been
twice seized and publicly tortured for hours, without trial, and in
utter defiance of all authority; nay, verily! this was all
complacently acquiesced in; but because in this slaveholding Sodom
there was found a solitary Lot who dared to uplift his voice for _law_
and the _right of trial by jury_; this crime stirred up such an uproar
in that city of "most respectable" lynchers as was "_never witnessed
before_," and the noble lawyer who thus put every thing at stake in
invoking the majesty of law, would, it seems, have been knocked down,
even in the presence of the Court, if the blow had not been "parried."
6th. Mark the murderous threat of the editor--when he arraigns the
_acts_," (no matter how murderous) "of thirty citizens of this place,
it is high time for him to reflect seriously _on the consequences_."
7th. The open advocacy of "Lynch law" by a set argument, boldly
setting it above all codes, with which the editor closes his article,
reveals a public sentiment in the community which shows, that in North
Carolina, though society may still rally under the flag of
civilization, and insist on wrapping itself in its folds, barbarism is
none the less so in a stolen livery, and savages are savages still,
though tricked out with the gauze and tinsel of the stars and stripes.

It may be stated, in conclusion, that the North Carolina "Literary and
Commercial Journal," from which the article is taken, is a large
six-columned paper, edited by F.S. Proctor, Esq., a graduate of a
University, and of considerable literary note in the South.

Having drawn out this topic to so great a length, we waive all
comments, and only say to the reader, in conclusion, _ponder these
things_, and lay it to heart, that slaveholding "is justified _of her
children_." Verily, they have their reward! "With what measure ye mete
withal it shall be measured to you again." Those who combine to
trample on others, will trample on _each other_. The habit of
trampling upon _one_, begets a state of mind that will trample upon
_all_. Accustomed to wreak their vengeance on their slaves, indulgence
of passion becomes with slaveholders a second law of nature, and, when
excited even by their equals, their hot blood brooks neither restraint
nor delay; _gratification_ is the _first_ thought--prudence generally
comes too late, and the slaves see their masters fall a prey to each
other, the victims of those very passions which have been engendered
and infuriated by the practice of arbitrary rule over _them_. Surely
it need not be added, that those who thus tread down their equals,
must trample as in a wine-press their defenceless vassals. If, when in
passion, they seize those who are _on their own level_, and dash them
under their feet, with what a crushing vengeance will they leap upon
those who are _always_ under their feet?

       *     *     *     *     *

FOOTNOTES.




Footnote 39: A few years since Mr. Bourne published a work entitled,
"Picture of slavery in the United States."  In which he describes a
variety of horrid atrocities perpetrated upon slaves; such as brutal
scourging and lacerations with the application of pepper, mustard,
salt, vinegar, &c., to the bleeding gashes; also maimings,
cat-haulings, burnings, and other tortures similar to hundreds
described on the preceeding pages. These descriptions of Mr. Bourne
were, at that time, thought by multitudes _incredible_, and probably,
even by some abolitionists, who had never given much reflection to the
subject. We are happy to furnish the reader with the following
testimony of a Virginia slaveholder to the _accuracy_ of Mr. Bourne's
delineations. Especially as this slaveholder is a native of one of the
counties (Culpepper) near to which the atrocities described by Mr. B.
were committed.

Testimony of Mr. WILLIAM HANSBOROUGH, of Culpepper, County, Virginia,
the "owner" of sixty slaves, to Mr. Bourne's "Picture or Slavery" as a
_true_ delineation.

Lindley Coates, of Lancaster Co., Pa., a well known member of the
Society of Friends, and a member of the late Pennsylvania Convention
for revising, the Constitution of the State, in a letter now before
us, describing a recent interview between him and Mr. Hansborough, of
several days continuance, says,--"I handed him Bourne's Picture of
slavery to read: _after reading it_, he said, that all of the
sufferings of slaves therein related, were _true delineations, and
that he had seen all those modes of torture himself_."


Footnote 40: The following is Mr. Stevenson's disclaimer: It was
published in the 'London Mail,' Oct 30, 1838.

_To the Editor of the Evening Mail:_

Sir--I did not see until my return from Scotland the note addressed by
Mr. O'Connell, to the editor of the Chronicle, purporting to give an
explanation of the correspondence which has passed between us, and
which I deemed it proper to make public. I do not intend to be drawn
into any discussion of the subject of domestic slavery as it exists in
the United States, nor to give any explanation of the motives or
circumstances under which I have acted.

Disposed to regard Mr. O'Connell as a man of honor. I was induced to
take the course I did; whether justifiable or not, the world will now
decide. The tone and report of his last note (in which he disavows
responsibility for any thing he may say) precludes any further notice
from me, than to say that the charge which he has thought proper again
to repeat, of my being a breeder of slaves for sale and traffick, is
wholly destitute of truth; and that I am warranted in believing it has
been made by him without the slightest authority. SUCH, TOO, I VENTURE
TO SAY, IS THE CASE IN RELATION TO HIS CHARGE OF SLAVE-BREEDING IN
VIRGINIA.

I make this declaration, not because I admit Mr. O'Connell's right to
call for it, but to prevent my silence from being misinterpreted.

A. STEVENSON

_23 Portland Place, Oct. 29_


Footnote 41: Mr. WISE said in one of his speeches during the last
session of Congress, that he was obliged to go armed for the
protection of his life in Washington. It could not have been for fear
of _Northern_ men.


Footnote 42: A correspondent of the "Frederick Herald," writing from
Little Rock, says, "Anthony's knife was about _twenty-eight inches_ in
length. They _all_ carry knives here, or pistols. There are several
kinds of knives in use--a narrow blade, and about twelve inches long,
is called an 'Arkansas tooth-pick.'"


Footnote 43: Bishop Smith of Kentucky, in his testimony respecting
homicides, which is quoted on a preceding pages, thus speaks of the
influence of slave-holding, as an exciting cause.

"Are not some of the indirect influences of a system, the existence of
which amongst us can never be sufficiently deplored, discoverable in
these affrays? Are not our young men more heady, violent and imperious
in consequence of their early habits of command? And are not our
taverns and other public places of resort, much more crowded with an
inflammable material, than if young men were brought up in the staid
and frugal habits of those who are constrained to earn their bread by
the sweat of their brow? * * * Is not intemperance more social, more
inflammatory, more pugnacious where a fancied superiority of
gentlemanly character is felt in consequence of exemption from severe
manual labor? Is there ever stabbing where there is not idleness and
strong drink?"

The Bishop also gives the following as another exciting cause; it is
however only the product of the preceding.

"Has not a public sentiment which we hear characterized as singularly
high-minded and honorable, and sensitively alive to every affront,
whether real or imaginary, but which strangers denominate rough and
ferocious, much to do in provoking these assaults, and then in
applauding instead of punishing the offender."

The Bishop says of the young men of Kentucky, that they "grow up
proud, impetuous, and reckless of all responsibility;" and adds, that
the practice of carrying deadly weapons is with them "NEARLY
UNIVERSAL."


       *     *     *     *     *

INDEX.

       *     *     *     *     *


To facilitate the use of the Index, some of the more common topics are
arranged under one general title. Thus all the volumes which are cited
are classed under the word, BOOKS; and to that head reference must be
made. The same plan has been adopted concerning _Female Slave-Drivers,
Laws, Narratives, Overseers, Runaways, Slaveholders, Slave-Murderers,
Slave-Plantations, Slaves, Female_ and _Male, Testimony_ and
_Witnesses_. Therefore, with a few _emphatical_ exceptions only, the
facts will be found, by recurring to the prominent person or subject
which any circumstance includes. All other miscellaneous articles will
be discovered in alphabetical order.

       *     *     *     *     *


A.

Absolute power of slaveholders
Absurdity of slaveholding pretexts
Abuse of power
Acclimated slaves
Adrian
Adultery in a preacher's house
Advertisement for slaves
Advertisement for slaves to hire
Advertisements
Affray
African slave-trade
Aged slaves uncommon
Alabama
Alexander the tyrant
Allowance of provisions
Amalgamation
American Colonization Society
"Amiable and touching charity!"
Amusements of slave-drivers
Animals and slaves, usage of, contrasted
Antioch, massacre at
"Arbitrary,"
Arbitrary power, cruelty of
    "      "     pernicious
Ardor in betting
Arius
Arkansas
Atlantic Slaveholding Region
Auctioneers of slaves
Auctions for slaves
Augustine
Aurelius
Aversion between the oppressor and the slave


B.

Babbling of slaveholders
Backs of slaves carded
  "        "    putrid
"Ball and chain" men
Baptist preachers
Battles in Congress
Beating a woman's face with shoes
Bedaubing of slaves with oil and tar
Begetting slaves for pay
"Bend your backs"
Benevolence of slaveholders
Betting on crops
    "      slaves
Beware of Kidnappers
Bibles searched for
Blind slaves
Blocks with sharp pegs and nails
Blood-bought luxuries
Bodley, H.S.
Bones dislocated


BOOKS.

  African Observer
  American Convention, minutes of
      "    Museum
      "    State Papers
  Andrews' Slavery and the Slave Trade
  Bay's Reports
  Benezet's Caution to Britain and her Colonies
  Blackstone's Commentaries, by Tucker
  Book and Slavery irreconcilable
  Bourgoing's Spain
  Bourne's Picture of Slavery
  Brevard's Digest of the Laws of South Carolina
  Brewster's Exposition of Slave Treatment
  Buchanan's Oration
  Carey's American Museum
  Carolina, History of
  Channing on Slavery
  Charity, "amiable and touching!"
  Childs' Appeal
  Civil Code of Louisiana
  Clay's Address to Georgia Presbytery
  Colonization Society's Reports
  Cornelius Elias, Life of
  Davis's Travels in Louisiana
  Debates in Virginia Convention
  Devereux's North Carolina Reports
  Dew's Review of Debates in the Virginia Legislature
  Edwards' Sermon
  Emancipation in the West Indies
  Emigrant's Guide through the Valley of Mississippi
  Gales' Congressional Debates
  Harris and Johnson's Reports
  Haywood's Manual
  Hill's reports
  Human Rights
  James' Digest
  Jefferson's Notes
  Josephus' History
  Justinian, Institutes of
  Kennet's Roman Antiquities
  Laponneray's Life of Robespierre
  Law of Slavery
  Laws of United States
  Leland's necessity of Divine Revelation
  Letters from the South, by J.K. Paulding
  Life of Elias Cornelius
  Louisiana, civil code of
      "    , sketches of
  Martineau's Harriet, Society in America
  Martin's Digest of the laws of Louisiana
  Maryland laws of
  Mead's Journal
  Mississippi Revised Code
  Missouri Laws
  Modern state of Spain by J.F. Bourgoing
  Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws
  Necessity of Divine Revelation
  Niles' Baltimore Register
  North Carolina Reports by Devereaux
  Oasis
  Parrish's remarks on slavery
  Paulding's letters from the South
  Paxton's letters on slavery
  Presbyterian Synod, Report of
  Picture of slavery
  Prince's Digest
  Prison Discipline Society, reports of
  Rankin's Letters
  Reed and Matheson's visit to Am. churches
  Review of Nevins' Biblical Antiquities
  Rice, speech of in Kentucky convention
  Robespierre, Life of
  Robin's travels
  Roman Antiquities
  Slavery's Journal
  Slavery and the Slave Trade
  Society in America
  Sewall's Diary
  South Carolina, Laws of
  South vindicated by Drayton
  Spirit of Laws
  Swain's address
  Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws
  Taylor's Agricultural Essays
  Travels in Louisiana
  Tucker's Blackstone
  Tucker's Judge, Letter
  Turner's Sacred History of the world
  Virginia Legislature, Review of Debates in
     "     , Revised Code
     "     , Negro-raising state
  Visit to American churches
  Western Medical Journal
  Western Medical Reformer
  Western Review
  Wheeler's Law of slavery
  Wirt's Life of Patrick Henry
  Woolman John, Life of

Books of slaves stolen
Borrowing of slaves
Bourne, George, anecdote of
Boy killed
Boys' fight to amuse their drivers
Bowie Knives
Boys' retort
Brandings
Branding with hot iron
Brasses
"Breeders"
Breeding of slaves prevented
"Breeding wenches"
     "       "     comparative value of
Bribes for begetting slaves
Brick-yards
"Broken-winded" slaves
Brutality to slaves
Brutes and slaves treated alike
Burial of slaves
Burning of McIntosh
Burning slaves
Burning with hot iron
Burning with smoothing irons
Butchery


C.

Cabins of slaves
Cachexia Africana
Caligula
Can't believe
Capital Crimes
Captain in the U.S. navy, tried for murder
Carding of Slaves
Cat-hauling
Cato the Just
Causes of the laws punishing cruelty to slaves
Chained slave
Chains
Changes in the market
Character of Overseers
    "        Romans
    "        Slave-drivers
Charleston
    "        Infirmary at
    "        Jail
    "        Slave auctions
    "        Surgery at
    "        Work-house
Chastity punished
Child-bearing prevented
Childbirth of slaves
Childhood unprotected
Children flogged
    "    naked
Choking of slaves
Chopping of slaves piecemeal
Christian females tortured
    "     martyr
    "     slave-hunting
    "     slave-murderer
Christian, slave whipped to death
Christians, persecutions of
    "      slavery among
    "      treat their slaves like others
Christian woman kidnapped
Chronic diseases
Churches, abuse of power in
Church members
"Citizens sold as slaves"
Civilization and morality
Clarkson, Thomas
Claudius
Clemens
Clothing for slaves
Cock-fighting
Code of Louisiana
Collars of iron
Columbia, district of
    "     fatal affray at
Comfort of slaves disregarded
Commodus
Concubinage
Condemned criminals
Condition of slaves
Confinement at night
Congress of the United States
    "       a bear garden
Connecticut, law of, against Quakers
Constables, character of
Constantine the Great
Contempt of human life
Contrasts of benevolence
Conversation between C. and H
Converted slave
Cooking for slaves
Correction moderate
Corrupting influence of slavery
Cotton-picking
Cotton-plantations
Cotton seed mixed with corn for food
Council of Nice
Courts, decrees of
Cowhides, with shovel and tongs
Crack of the whip heard afar off
Crimes of slaves, capital
Criminals condemned
Cringing of Northern Preachers
Cropping of ears
Crops for exportation
Cruelties, common
    "      inflicted upon slaves
    "      of Cortez in Mexico
    "         Ovando in Hispaniola
    "         Pizarro in Peru
    "      of slave-drivers incredible
Cruel treatment of slaves the masters' interest
Cultivation of rice
Cutting of A.T. s throat by a Presbyterian woman


D.

D'Almeydra, Donna Sophia
Damaged negroes bought
Darlington C.H., South Carolina
Dauphin Island, Mobile Bay
"Dead or Alive"
Dead slave claimed
Deaf slaves
Death at child birth
Death-bed, horrors of a slave driver
Death by violence,
Death of a slave murderer
Decrees of Courts
Decisions, judicial
Declarations of slaveholders
Deformed slaves
Delivery of a dead child from whipping
Description of slave drivers, by John Randolph
Despair of slaves
Desperate affray
"Despot"
"Dimensum" of Roman slaves
Diseased slaves
Dislocation of bones
District of Columbia
     "        "      prisons in
Ditty of slaves
"Doe-faces"--"Dough-faces"
Dogs provided for
Dogs to hunt slaves
Domestic slavery
Domitian
Donnell, Rev. Mr.
"Dough-faces"
"Drivers"
Driving of slaves
Droves of "human cattle"
   "    "    slaves
Duelling
Dumb slaves
Dwellings of slaves
Dying slave
Dying young women


E.

Ear-cropping
Early market
Ear-notching
Ear-slitting
Eating tobacco worms
Effects of public opinion concerning slavery
Emancipation society of North Carolina
English ladies and gentlemen
Enormities of slave drivers
Evenings in the "Negro quarter"
Evidence of slaves vs. white persons null
Ewall, Merry
Examples pleaded in justification of cruelty to slaves
Exchange of slaves
Exportation of slave from Virginia
Eyes struck out


F.

Faith objectors who "_can't believe_"
Fatal rencontre
"Fault-finding"
Favorite amusements of slaveholders
Fear, the only motive of slaves
Feast for slaves
Feeding insufficient
Feeble infants
_Felonies_ on account of slavery
      "         perpetrated with impunity
Female hypocrite
Female slave deranged


FEMALE SLAVE DRIVERS

  Burford, Mrs.
  Carter, Mrs. Elizabeth L.
  Charleston
  Charlestown, Va
  Galway, Mrs.
  Harris, Mrs.
  H., Mrs. throat cutter
  Laurie, Madame La
  Mallix, Mrs.
  Mann, Mrs.
  Mabtin, Mrs.
  Maxwell, Mrs.
  McNeil, Mrs.
  Morgan, Mrs.
  Newman, Mrs. B.
  Pence, Mrs.
  Phinps, Mrs.
  Professor of religion
  Ruffner, Mrs.
  South Carolina
  Starky, Mrs.
  Swan, Mrs.
  Teacher at Charleston
  T., Mrs.
  Trip, Mrs.
  Truby, Mrs
  Turner, Mrs.
  Walsh, Sarah

Female slave starved to death
  "      "   whipped to death by a Methodist preacher
Female stripped by order of her mistress
Fetters
Field-hands
Lighting of boys to amuse their drivers
Fine old preacher who dealt in slaves
Fingers cut off
Flogging for unfinished tasks
    "    of children
    "    pregnant women until they miscarry
    "    slaves
    "    young man
Floggings
Florida
Food, kinds of
  "     of slaves
  "     quality of
  "     quantity of
Free citizens stolen
Free woman
  "    "   kidnapped
Frequent murders
Friends, memorial of
Front-teeth knocked out
Fundamental rights destroyed


G.

Gadsden Thomas N. Slave Auctioneer
Gagging of slaves
Galloway flogging Jo.
Gambling on crops
Gambling slaveholder
Gang of slaves
Generosity of slaveholders
Georgia
Girls' backs burnt with smoothing irons
Girls' toe cut off
Good treatment of slaves
Governor of North Carolina
    "    "  Shiraz
Grand Jury presentment of,
Guiltiness of Slavery
Gun shot wounds


H.

Habits of slave-drivers
Hampton Wade, murderer of slaves
Handcuffs
"Hands tied"
Hanging of nine slaves
Harris Benjamin, slave murderer
Head found
Head of a runaway slave on a pole
Health of slaves
Heart of slaveholders
Herding of slaves
Hilton James, slave murderer
Hired slaves
Hiring of slaves
"Horrible malady"
"Horrid butchery"
Horrors of a slave-driver at death
   "    "  the "middle passage"
Horse-racing
Horses more cared for than slaves
Hospitality of slaveholders
Hours of rest
  "   "  work
Hospital at New Orleans
House-slaves
Houses of slaves
"House-wench"
Hovels of slaves
Huguenots, persecution of
"Human cattle"
Human rights against slavery
Hunger of slaves
Hunter of slaves
Hunting men with dogs
Hunting of slaves
Hunt, Rev. Thomas P.
Husband whipping his wife
Huts of slaves
Hymn-books searched for
Hypocrisy of vice


I.

Idiot slaves
Ignatius
Ignorance of northern citizens of slavery
       "   " slaveholders
Impunity of killing slaves
Inadequate clothing
Income from hiring slaves
Incorrigible slaves
Incredibility of evidence against slavery
Incredulity discreditable to consistency
        "       "          " intelligence
Indecency of slave-drivers
Indiana Legislature, resolutions of
Infant drowned
Infant slaves
Infirmary at Charleston
Infliction of pain
Inspection of naked slaves
Intercession for slaves
Interest of slaveholders
Introduction
Iron collars
Iron fetters
Iron head-front
Israelites in Egypt


J.

Jewish law
Joe flogged
Jones, Anson, Minister from Texas
Judicial decisions


K.

Kentucky
   "     Sunday morning
Kicking of slaves
Kidnappers
Kidnapping
Kindness of slaveholders
Kinds of food
Kind treatment of slaves.
Knives, Bowie
Knocking out of teeth


L.

Labor, hours of
Labor of slaves
Ladies Benevolent Society
Ladies flog with cowhides
Ladies, public opinion known by
Ladies use shovel and tongs
Law concerning slavery
Law-making
Laws, Georgia
  "   Louisiana
  "   Maryland
  "   Mississippi
  "   North Carolina
  "   South Carolina
  "   Spirit of
  "   Tennessee
  "   United States
  "   Virginia
Law, safeguards of taken from slaves
Law suit for a murdered slave,
Legal restraints
Licentiousness
      "        encouraged by preachers
Licentiousness of slavedrivers
"Lie down" for whipping,
Life in the South-west,
Lives of slaves unprotected
Lodging of slaves
Long, his cruelty
'Loss of property'
Louisiana
    "     law of
    "     sketches of,
Louis XIV. of France
Lovers severed,
Lunatic slaves
"Lynchings" in the United States
Lynch Law,


M.

Maimed slaves
Maimings
Malady of slaves
Manacling of slaves
Maniac woman
Man sold by a Presbyterian elder
Man-stealing paid for
Marriage unknown among slaves
Martyr for Christ
Maryland Journal
Maryville Intelligencer
Massacre at Antioch
  "      "  Thessalonica
  "      "  Vicksburg
Masters grant no redress to slaves
McIntosh, burning of
Maximin
Meals number of
  "   of slaves
"Meat once a year"
Mediation for slaves
Medical attendance
  "     college of South Carolina
  "     Infirmary at Charleston
Medicine administered to slaves
Members of churches
Memorial of friends
Menagerie of slaves
Men and women whipped
Methodist colored preacher hung,
Methodist girl whipped for her chastity
Methodist preacher, a slave dealer
    "        "          "   driver
    "     woman cut off a girl's toe
Method of taking meals
"Middle passage"
Miscarriage of women at the whipping post
Mississippi
Missouri
Mistresses flog slaves
Mobile
"Moderate correction"
Moors, repulsion of
Morgan, William
Mormons
Mothers and babes separated
Mothers of slaves
Mulatto children in all families
Multiplying of slaves
Murderers of slaves tried and acquitted
Murder of slaves by law
    "        "   "  bad feeling
    "        "   "  piece-meal
    "        "   every seven years
    "        "   frequent
    "        "   with impunity
Murders in Alabama
   "    "  Arkansas


N.

Naked children
  "   "Dave"
  "   females whipped
  "     "     inspected
  "   Men and women at work in a field
Nakedness of slaves
Nantz, edict of
'National slave-market'
Natchez
Nat Turner
'Negro Head Point
'Negroes for sale
'Negroes taken
Nero
'Never lose a day's work'
New England, witches of
New Orleans
  "    "    Hospital
New York, thirteen persons burnt at
Nice, council of
'Nigger put in the bill'
Night-confinement
Night at a slaveholder's house
Night in slave huts
Nine slaves hanged
No marriage among slaves
North Carolina
   "      "     Governor of
   "      "     Legislature of
   "      "     Kidnappers
Northern visitors to the slave states
Nothing can disgrace slave-drivers
Novel torture
Nudity of slaves
Nursing of slave-children


O.

Objections considered
Ocra, a slave-driver
Oiling of a slave
Old age uncommon among slaves
 "   "  unprotected
Old dying slaves
"Old settlement"
  "  slaves
Oppressor aversion of to his slave
Outlawry of slaves
Outrageous Felonies on account of slavery
    "        "      perpetrated with impunity
Overseers, character of
    "      generally armed
    "      no appeal from

OVERSEERS OF SLAVES--

  Alabama
  Alexander killed
  Bellemont
  Bellows
  Blocken's
  Bradley
  Cormick's
  Cruel to a proverb
  Farr, James
  Galloway
  Gibbs
  Goochland
  Methodist preacher
  Milligan's Bend
  Nowland's
  Tune
  Turner's cousin
  Walker
  Overworking of slaves
  Ownership Of human beings destroys their comfort.


P.

"Paddle" torture
Paddle whipping
Pain, the means of slave drivers
"Pancake sticks"
Parents and children separated
Parlor-slaves
Parricide threatened
Patrol
Pay for begetting mulatto slaves
Periodical pressure
Persecution of Huguenots
Persecution for religion
PERSONAL NARRATIVES
Philanthropist
Philip II. and the Moors
Physicians not employed for slaves
Physicians of slaves
Physician's statement
Pig-sties more comfortable than slave-huts
Plantations
Pleas for cruelty to slaves
Ploughs and whips equally common
Pliny
Poles, Russian clemency to
Polycarp
"Poor African slave"
Portuguese slaves
Pothinus
Prayer of slaves
Praying and slave-whipping in the same room
Praying slaves whipped
Preacher claims a dead slave
Preacher hung
Preachers, cringing of
Preacher's "hands tied"
Preachers silenced
Pregnant slaves
    "      "    whipped
Presbyterian Elders at Lynchburg
Presbyterian minister killed his slave
Presbyterian slave-trader
Presbyterian woman desirious to cut A.T.'s throat
Presentment of the Grand Jury at Cheraw
Pretexts for slavery absurd
Prisons in the District of Columbia
Prison slave

PRIVATIONS OF THE SLAVES--
  Clothing
  Dwellings
  Food
  Kinds of food
  Labor
  Number of meals
  Quality of food
  Quantity of food
  Time of meals.

Promiscuous concubinage
"Property"
    "     'loss of'
Protection of slaves
Protestants in France
Provisions, allowance of
Public opinion destroys fundamental rights,
  "       "    diabolical
  "       "    protects the slave
Punishment of slaves
Punishments
Purchasing a wife
Puryer "the devil"
Putrid backs of slaves


Q.

Quality of food
Quantity of food


R.

Race of slaves murdered every seven years
Randolph John will of
   "       "  description of slavedrivers
   "       "             "Doe faces"
Rations
Rearing of slaves
Relaxation, no time for
Religious persecutions
Respect for woman lost
Rest, hours of
Restraints, legal
Retort of a boy
Rhode Island, kidnappers and pirates of
Rice plantations
Richmond Whig
Rio Janeiro slavery at
Riot at Natchez
Riots in the United States
Robespierre
Romans
Roman slavery
Runaways
RUNAWAY SLAVES--
   Advertisements for
   Baptist man and woman
   Buried alive
   Chilton's
   Converted
   "Dead or alive"
   Head on a pole
   Hung
   Hunting of
   Intelligent man
   Jim Dragon
   Luke
   Man buried
    "  dragged by a horse
    "  maimed
    "  murdered
    "  severe punishments of
    "  shot
    "   "   by Baptist preacher
    "  taken from jail
    "  tied and driven
    "  to his wife
    "  whipped to death
   Many, annually shot I
  Stallard's man
  White Peter
  Young woman


S.

Sabbath, a nominal holiday
Safeguards of the law taken from slaves
Sale of a man by a Presbyterian elder
Sale of slaves
Savannah, Ga.
Savannah slave-hunter
Save us from our friends
Scarcity, times of
Scenes of horror
Search for Bibles and Hymn books
Secretary of the Navy
Separation of slaves
Shame unknown among naked slaves
Shoes for slaves
Sick, treatment of
"Six pound paddle,"
"Slack-jaw,"
Slave-breeders
  "   breeding
Slave-drivers acknowledge their enormities
  "     "     character of
SLAVEHOLDERS--
  Adams
  Baptist preachers
  Barr
  Baxter, George A
  Baxter, John
  Blocker, Colonel
  Blount
  Britt, Benjamin W.
  Burbecker
  Burvant, Mrs.
  C.A., Rev.
  Casey
  Chilton, Joseph
  Clay
  C., Mr.
  Cooper, Charity
  Curtis,
  Davis, Samuel
  Dras, Henry
  Delaware
  Female hypocrite
  Gautney, Joseph
  Gayle, Governor
  Governor of North Carolina
  Green
  Hampton, Wade
  Harney, William S.
  Harris, Benjamin James
  Hayne, Governor
  Hedding
  Henrico county, Va.
  Heyward, Nathaniel
  Hughes, Philip O.
  Hutchinson
  Hypocrite woman
  Indecency of
  Jones
  Jones, Henry
  Lewis, Benjamin
  Lewis, Isham
  Lewis, Lilburn
  Lewis, Rev. Mr.
  Long, Lucy
  Long, Reuben
  L., of Bath, Ky.
  Maclay, John
  Martin, Rev. James
  Matthews' Bend
  M'Coy
  M'Cue, John
  Methodist
  Methodist Preachers
  M'Neilly
  Moresville
  Morgan
  Mosely, William
  Murderer
  Mushat, Rev. John
  Nansemond, Va.
  Natchez planter
  Nelson, Alexander
  Nichols, of Connecticut
  North Carolina
  Owens, Judge
  Painter
  Physician
  Pinckney, H.L.
  Presbyterian
  Presbyterian minister, Huntsville
         "       "       North Carolina
         "     preacher
  Professing Christian
  Puryar, "the Devil"
  Randolph, John
  Reiks, Micajah
  Rodney
  Ruffner
  Shepherd, S.C.
  Sherrod, Ben
  Slaughter,
  Smith, Judge
  Sophistry of
  South Carolina
  Sparks, William
  Stallard, David
  Starky,
  Swan, John
  Teacher at Charleston
  Thompson
  Thorpe
  Tripp, James
  Truly, James
  Turner, Fielding S.
  Turner, uncle of
  Virginian,
  Wall
  Watkins, Billy
  Watkins, Robert H.
  Watson, A.
  W., Colonel
  Webb, Carroll
   "    Pleasant
  West's uncle
  Widow and daughter, Savannah river
  Willis, Robert
  Wilson, William
  Woman
  Woman, professor of religion,
Slaveholders justify their cruelties by example
     "       possess absolute power
     "       sophistry of
Slaveholding amusements
     "       brutality
     "       indecency
     "       murderers
     "       religion
Slave-mothers,
   "   plantations second only to hell
Slavery among Christians
SLAVERY ILLUSTRATED--
Slave-auctions
   "  blocks with nails
   "  boys fight to amuse their drivers,
   "  branding
   "  breeding
   "  burner
   "  burning
Slave-cabins
   "    "    at night
Slave-children nursed
   "  choking
   "  clothing
   "  collars
   "  cookery
Slave-ditty
   "  dogs
   "  driver's death
   "     "     licentiousness of
   "  driving
   "  fetters
   "  food
   "  gagging
   "  gangs
   "  handcuffs
   "  herding
Slaveholders, civilization and morality of
     "        declarations of
     "        habits of
     "        heart of
     "        hospitality of
     "        interest of
     "        sophistry of
     "        "treat their slaves well"
Slaveholding professor
"Slaveholding religion"
Slave-hovels
   "  hunting
   "    "     by Christians
Slave imprisoned
   "  in chains
   "  in the stocks
   "  kicking
   "  killed, and put in the bill
   "  killing with impunity
   "  labor
   "  manacles
   "  martyr
   "  meals
   "  mothers
   "  murderers, tried and acquitted
   "  patrol
   "  physicians
   "  punishments of
Slave quarters,
Slavery, code of law respecting
   "     among Christians
   "     domestic
   "     guilt of
   "     of whites
   "     public opinion and effects of
   "     unmixed cruelty
Slave selling
Slaves aversion of to their oppressors
  "    backs of, putrid
  "    blind
  "    books of searched for
  "    branded
  "    brutality to
  "    burial of
  "    carded
  "    cat-hauling of
  "    comfort of disregarded
  "    deaf
  "    dead or alive
  "    deformed
  "    deprived of every safeguard of the law
  "    described
  "    diseased
  "    dread to be sold for the South
  "    dumb
  "    dying
  "    evidence of against white persons null
  "    exchanged
  "    reported from Virginia
  "    fear their only motive
  "    feasted and flogged
  "    hired
  "    idiots
  "    incorrigible
  "    infant
  "    in the stocks
  "    "  U.S. treatment of
  "    lunatics
  "    maimed
  "    merchandise
  "    multiply
  "    murdered by cottonseed
  "      "         overwork
  "      "         piece-meal
  "      "         starvation
  "      "      every seven years
  "      "      frequently
  "      "      with impunity
  "    naked
  "    not treated as human beings
  "    outlawed
  "    overworked
  "    prayers of
  "    privations of
  "    protection of
  "    sale of
  "    stock
  "    surgeons of
  "    taking medicine
  "    tantalized
  "    starvation of
  "    teeth of knocked out
  "    tied up all night
  "    toe cut off
  "    torments of
  "    travelling in droves
  "    treated worse as they are farther South
  "    treatment of by Christians
  "    under overseers
  "    watching of
  "    without redress
  "       "    shelter
  "    working animals
  "    worn out
  "    worse treated than brutes
  "    wounded by gun-shot
Slave testimony excluded
  "   torturing hypocrite
  "   trade with Africa
  "   trading
  "      "    honorable
  "   traffic
Slave Murderers
Slave plantation
Slave usage contrasted with that of animals
  Slave whipping
  Slave yokes
  Whipped
  Whipped and burnt
  Whipped to death
  Slaves treatment of
  Slave trade
Sleeping in clothes
Slitting of ears
Smoothing iron on girl's backs
Sophistry of slaveholders
South Carolina laws of
  "      "     medical college
Southern dogs and horses
Spartan slavery
Speece, Rev. Conrad opposed to emancipation
Spirit of laws
Springfield, S.C.
Starvation of a female slave
    "       " slaves
Statement of a physician
State, abuse of power in
Stealing of freemen
Stevenson, Andrew, letter by
St. Helena, S.C.
Stillman's, Dr. medical infirmary at Charleston
Stocks for slaves
"Stock without shelter:
"Subject of prayer"
Suffering of slaves
  "        "    "   drives to despair and suicide
Sugar-planters
Suicide of slaves
Suit for a dead slave
  "   "  " murdered slave
Sunday morning in Kentucky
Surgeon of slaves
Surgery at Charleston
"Susceptibility of pain"


T.

Tanner's oil poured on a slave
Tantalising of slaves
Tappan, Arthur
Tarring of slaves
Taskwork of slaves
Teeth knocked out
Tender regard of slaveholders for slave
Tennessee
TESTIMONY.--
  Allen, Rev. William T.
  Avery, George A.
  Caulkins, Nehemiah
  Channing, Dr.
  Chapin, Rev. William A.
  Chapman, Gordon
  Clergyman
  Cruelty to slaves
  Dickey, Rev. William
  Drayton, Colonel
  Gildersleeve, William C.
  Graham, Rev. John
  Grimké, Sarah M.
  Hawley, Rev. Francis
  Ide, Joseph
  Jefferson, Thomas
  Macy, F.C.
    "   Reuben G.
    "   Richard
    "   T.D.M.
  Moulton, Rev. Horace
  Nelson, John M.
  New Orleans
  Of slaves excluded
  Paulding, James K.
  Poe, William
  Powel, Eleazar
  Sapington, Lemuel
  Scales, Rev. William
  Secretary of the Navy
  Smith, Rev. Phineas
  Summers, Mr.
  Virginian
  Westgate, George W.
  Weld, Angelina Grimké
  White, Hiram
  Wist, William
Texas
Theodosius the Great
Thessalonica, massacre at
Thumb-screws
Tiberius
Time for relaxation, not allowed
Times of scarcity
Titus
Tobacco worms eaten
Tooth knocked out
Tortures
   "     eulogized by a professor of religion
Trading with negroes
Traffic in slaves
Trajan
Treatment of sick slaves
Treatment of slaves in the United States by professing Christians,
    "     little better than that of brutes
Trial of women,--"_white and black_,"
Trials for murdering slaves
Turkish slavery
Turner, Nat
Twelve slaves killed by overwork
Twenty-seven hundred thousands of free-born citizens in the United
  States
Tying up of slaves at night
"Tyrant"

"Uncle Jack," Baptist preacher
Under garments not allowed to slaves
United States, Laws of
University of Virginia
Untimely seasons
Usage of slaves and brutes contrasted

Vapid babblings of slaveholders
Vice, hypocrisy of
Vicksburg, massacre of
Virginia, a slave menagerie
  "       exportation of slaves from
  "       University of
Visitors to slave states
Vitellius

Washing for slaves
Washington slavery
  "        the national slave market
West Indian slaves
Whip, cracking of heard at a distance
"Whipped to death"

WHIPPING--
  Children
  Every day
  Females
  On three plantations heard at one time
  Pregnant women
  Slaves
  Slaves after a feast
    "    for praying
  With paddle
  Women with prayer
Whipping-posts
Whips equally common on plantations as ploughs
"White or black;" trial of
Whites in slavery
White slave
Wholesale murders
Wife, purchase of a
Will of John Randolph
Wilmington, N.C.
Witches of New-England

WITNESSES.
  Abbot, Jordan
  Abdie, P.
  Adams, Mr.
  African Observer
  Alexandria Gazette
  Allan, Rev. William T.
  Alston, J.A., Heirs of
  Alton Telegraph
  Alvis, J.
  Anderson, Benjamin
  Andrews, Professor
  Anthony, Julius C.
  Antram, Joshua
  Appleton, John James
  Arkansas Advocate
  Armstrong, William
  Artop, James
  Ashford, J.P.
  Augusta Chronicle
  Avery, George A.
  Aylethorpe, Thomas
  Bahi, P.
  Baker, William
  Baldwin, J.G.
  Baldwin, Jonathan F.
  Ballinger, A.S.
  Baltimore Sun
  Baptist Deacon
  Bardwell, Rev. William
  Barker, Jacob
  Barnard, Alonzo
  Barnes, George W.
  Barr, James
   "    Mrs.
   "    Rev. Hugh
  Barrer, B.G.
  Barton, David W.
    "     Richard W.
  Bateman, William
  Baton Rouge, Agricultural Society of
  Bayli, P.
  Beall, Samuel
  Beasley, A.G.A.
     "     John C.
     "     Robert
  Beene, Jesse
  Bell, Abraham
   "    Samuel
  Bennett, D.B.
  Besson, Jacob
  Bezon, Mr.
  Bingham, Joel S.
  Birdseye, Ezekiel
  Birney, James G.
  Bishop, J.
  Blackwell, Samuel
  Bland, R.J.
  Bliss Mayhew and Co
    "   Philemon,
  Bolton, J.L. and W.H.
  Boudinot, Tobias
  Bouldin, T.T.
  Bourgoing, J.F.
  Bourne, George
  Bradley, Henry
  Bragg, Thomas
  Brasseale, W.H.
  Brewster, Jarvis
  Brothers, Menard
  Brove, A.
  Brown, J.A.
    "    John
    "    Rev. Abel
    "    William
  Bruce Mr.
  Buchanan, Dr.
  Buckels, William D.
  Burvant, Madame
  Burwell
  Bush, Moses E.
  Buster, Mr.
  Butt, Moses
  Byrn, Samuel H.
  Calvert, Robert
  Carney, R.P.
  Carolina, History of
  Carter, Mrs. Elizabeth
  Caulkins, Nehemiah
  Channing, Dr.
  Chapin, Rev. William A.
  Chapman, B.F.
     "     Gardon
  Charleston Courier
      "      Mercury
      "      Patriot
  Cherry, John W.
  Child, David L.
    "    Mrs.
  Choules, Rev. John O.
  Citizens of Onslow
  Clark, W.G.
  Clarke John
  Clay, Henry,
    "  Thomas
  Clenderson, Benjamin
  Clergyman
  Coates Lindley
  Cobb, W.D.
  Colborn, J.L.
  Cole, Nathan
  Coleman, H.
  Colonization Society
  Columbian Inquirer
  Comegys, Governor
  Congress, Member of
  Connecticut, Medical Society of
  Constant, Dr.
  Cooke, Owen
  Cook, Giles
    "   H.L.
  Cooper, Thomas
  Cornelius, Rev. Elias
  Corner, Charles
    "     L.E.
  Cotton plantere
  Cowles, Mrs. Mary
    "     Rev. Sylvester
  Craige, Charles
  Crane, William
  Crutchfield, Thomas
  Cuggy, T.
  Curtis, Mr.
     "    Rev. John H.
  Cuyler, J.
  Daniel and Goodman
  Darien Telegraph
  Davidson, Rev. Patrick
  Davis, John
  Davis, Benjamin
  Dean, Jethro
    "   Thomas
  Demming, Dr.
  Denser, T.S.
  Derbigny, Judge
  Dew, Philip A.
   "   President
  Dickey, Rev. James H.
    "     William
  Dickinson, Mr.
  Dillahunty, John H.
  Doddridge, Philip
  Dorrah, James
  Downman, Mrs. Lucy M.
  Douglas, Rev. J.W.
  Drake and Thomson
  Drayton, Colonel
  Drown, William
  Dudley, Rev. John
  Duggan, John
  Dunn, John L.
  Dunham, Jacob
  Durell, Judge
  Durett, Francis
  Dustin, W.
  Dyer, William
  Eastman, Rev. D.B.
  Eaton, General William
  Edmunds, Nicholas
  Edwards, F.L.C.
     "     President
     "   Junior "
  Ellison, Samuel
  Ellis, Orren
  Ellsworth, Elijah
  Emancipation Society of N.C.
  English, Walter R.
  Evans, R.A.
  Everett, William
  Faulkner, Mr.
  Fayetteville Observer
  Fernandez and Whiting
  Finley, James C.
    "     R.S.
  Fishers, E.H. and I.
  Fitzhugh, William H.
  Ford, John
  Foster, Francis
  Fox, John B.
  Foy, Enoch
  Francisville Chronicle
  Franklin Republican
  Frederick, John
  Friends, Yearly Meeting of
  Fuller, Isaac C.
  Fullerton, G.S.
  Furman, B.
  Gadsden, Thomas N.
  Gaines, Rev. Ludwell, G.
  Gales, Joseph
  Garcia, Henrico Y.
  Garland, Maurice H.
  Gates, Seth M.
  Gayle, John
  Georgetown Union
  Georgia Constitutionalist
     "    Journal
  Georgian
  Gholson, Mr.
  Giddings, Mr.
  Gilbert, E.W.
  Gildersterre, William C.
  Glidden, Mr.
  Goode, Mr.
  Gourden and Co.
  Grace, Byrd M.
  Graham, Rev. John
     "    Rev. Dr.
  Grand Gulf Advertiser
  Graham, Jehab
  Gray, Abraham
  Greene, R.A.
  Green, James R.
  Gregory, Ossian
  Gridley, H.
  Grimké, Sarah M.
  Grosvenor. Rev. Cyrus P.
  Guex, D.F.
  Gunnell, John J.H.
  Guthrie, A.A.
  Guyler, J.
  Halley, Preston
  Hall, Samuel
  Han, E.
  Hand, John H.
  Hansborough, William
  Hanson, Peter
  Harding, N.H.
  Harman, Samuel
  Harrison, General W.H.
  Hart, F.A.
   "    Rev. Mr.
  Harvey, J.
  Hawley, David
    "     Rev. Francis
  Hayne, General R.Y.
  Henderson, John
     "       Judge
  Hendren, H.
  Herring, D.
    "      Dr.
  Hitchcock, Judge
  Hite, S.N.
  Hodges, B.W.
    "     Rev. Coleman S.
  Holcombe, John P.
  Holmes, George
  Home, Frederick
  Honerton, Philip
  Hopkins, Rev. Henry T.
  Horsey, Outerbridge
  Hough, Rev. Joseph
  Houstoun, Edward
  Hudnall, Thomas
  Hughes, Benjamin
  Hunt, John
   "    Rev. Thomas P.
  Hussey, George P.C.
  Huston, Felix
  Hutchings, A.J.
  Ide, Joseph
  Indiana, Legislature of
  Jackson, Stephen M.
      "    Telegraph
  James, Joseph
  Jarnett, James T. De
  Jarvett, James T.
  Jefferson, Thomas
  Jenkins, John
  Jett, Marshall
  Johnson, Bryant
      "    Cornelius
      "    Isaac
      "    Josiah S.
  Jolley, J.L.
  Jones, Alexander
    "    Anson
    "    Hill
    "    James
    "    R.H.
    "    W. Jefferson
  Jourdan, Green B.
  Judd, D.
    "   Mrs. Nancy
  Keeton, G.W.
  Kennedy, John
  Kentucky, Synod of
  Kephart, George
  Kernin, Charles
  Keyes, Willard
  Kimball and Thome
     "    George
  Kimborough, James
  King, Charles
    "   John H.
    "   Nehemiah
  Knapp, Henry E.
    "    Isaac
  Kyle, Frederick
    "   James
  Lacy, Theodore A.
  Ladd, William
  Lains, O.W.
  Lambeth, William L.
  Lambre, Mr.
  Lancette, R.
  Langhorne, Scruggs and Cook
  Larrimer, Thomas
  Latimer, W.K.
  Lawless, Judge
  Lawyer, Zadok
  Ledwith, Thomas
  Leftwich, William
  Lemes, Ferdinand
  Leverich and Co.
  Lewis, Kirkman
  Lexington Intelligencer
      "     Observer
  Little, Mrs. Sophia
  Loflano, Hazlet
  Long, Joseph
  Loomis, Henry H.
  Loring, R.
     "    Thomas
  Louisville Reporter
  Lowry, Mrs. Nancy
  Luminais, A.
  Lyman, Judge
     "   Rev. H.
  Macoin, J.
  Macon Messenger
   "    Telegraph
  Macy, F.C.
   "    Reuben G.
   "    Richard
   "    T.D.M.
  Magee, William
  Males, Henry
  Maltby, Stephen E.
  Manning, P.T.
  Marietta College, student of
  Marks, James
  Marriott, Charles
  Marshall, John T.
  Martineau, Harriet
  Maryland Journal
  Maryville Intelligencer
  Mason, Samuel
  Mathieson, Rev. James
  May, Rev. Samuel J.
  McCue, Moses
  McDonnell, James
  McGehee, Edward J.
  McGregor, Henry M.
  McMurrain, John
  Mead Whitman
  Medical College of South Carolina
  Memphis Gazette
     "    Inquirer
  Menefee, R.H.
  Menzies, Judge
  Mercer, Mr.
  Metcalf, Asa B.
  Middleton, Mr.
  Miles, Lemuel
  Milledgeville Journal
        "       Recorder
  Miller, C.
  Minister from Texas, A. Jones
  Minor, W.I.
  Missouri Republican
  Mitchell, Dr. Robert
  Mitchell, Isaac
  M'Neilly
  Mobile Advertiser
    "    Examiner
    "    Register
  Mongin, R.P.T.
  Montesquieu
  Montgomery, W.H.
  Moore, Mr. Va.
  Moorhead, John H.
  Morris, E.W.
  Moulton, Rev. Horace
  Moyne Dr. F. Julius Le
  Muggridge, Matthew
  Muir J.G.
  Murat A.
  Murphy S.B.
  Napier T. and L.
  Natchez Courier
     " Daily Free Trade
  National Intelligencer
  Nelson Dr. David
     "   John M.
  Nesbitt Wilson
  Newbern Sentinel
    "     Spectator
  New Hampshire, legislature of
  Newman Mrs. B.
  New Orleans Argus
      "       Bee
      "       Bulletin
      "       Courier
      "       Kidnapping at
      "       Mercantile Advertiser
      "       Post
  New York American
      "    Sun
  Neyle S.
  Nicholas Judge
  Nicoll Robert
  Niles Hezekiah
  Noe James
  Norfolk Beacon
     "    Herald
  N.C. Literary and Commercial-Standard
  N.C. Journal
  Nourse Rev. James
  Nye Horace
  O'Byrne
  O'Connell Daniel
  Oliver Colonel
  O'Neill Peter
  Onslow, Citizens of
  Orme Moses
  O'Rorke John
  Overstreet, Richard
  Overstreet, William
  Owen, Captain N.F.
  Owen, John W.
  Owens, J.G.

  Parrish, John
  Parrott, Dr.
  Patterson, Willie
  Paulding, James K.
  Peacock, Jesse
  Perry, Thomas C.
  Petersburg Constellation
  Philanthropist
  Pickard, J.S.
  Pinckney, H.L.
  Pinkney, William
  Planter's Intelligencer
  Planters of South Carolina
  Poe, William
  Porter, Mr.
  Portsmouth Times
  Powell, Eleazar
  Presbyterian elder
  President of the United States
  Pringle, Thomas
  Pritchard, William H.
  Probate sale
  Purdon, James

  Ragland, Samuel
  Raleigh Register
  Ralston, Samuel
  Randall, J.B.
  Randolph, John
  Riadolph, Thomas Mann
  Rankin, Rev. John
  Rascoe, William D.
  Rawlins, Samuel
  Raworth, Egbert A.
  Redden J.V.
  Red River Whig
  Reed, Rev. Andrew
  Reed, William H.
  Reese, Enoch
  Reins, Richard
  Reeves, W.P.
  Renshaw Rev. C.S.
  Rhodes, Durant H.
  Rice, H.W.
  Rice, Rev. David
  Richardson, G.C.
  Richards, James K.
  Richards, Moses R.
  Richards, Stephen M.
  Richmond Compiler
  Richmond Inquirer
  Richmond Whig
  Ricks, Micajah
  Riley, W.
  Ripley, George B.
  Roach, Philip
  Robbins, Welcome H.
  Robarts, William
  Roberts, J.H.
  Robin, C.C.
  Robinson, N.M.C.
  Robinson, William
  Roebuck, George
  Rogers, N.P.
  Rogers, Thomas
  Ross, Abner
  Rowland, John A.
  Ruffin, Judge
  Russel, Benjamin
  Russel, W.
  Rymes, Littlejohn

  Sadd, Rev. Joseph M.
  Salvo, Conrad
  Sapington, Lemuel
  Saunders, James
  Savage, Rev. Thomas
  Savannah Georgian
  Savannah Republican
  Savory, William
  Scales, Rev. William
  Schmidt, Louis
  Scott, Rev. Orange
  Scott, William
  Scrivener, J.
  Seabrook, Whitmarsh B.
  Secretary of the navy
  Selfer
  Senator of the United States
  Sevier, Ambrose H.
  Sewall, Stephen
  Shafter, M.M.
  Sheith, M.J.
  Shield and Walker
  Shields, Polly C.
  Shropshire, David
  Simmons, B.C.
  Simpson, John
  Sizer, R.W.
  Skinner, W.
  Slaveholders
  Smith, Bishop of Kentucky
  Smith, Gerrit
  Smith, Professor
  Smith, Rev. Phineas
  Smyth, Alexander
  Snow, Henry H.
  Snowden, J.
  Snowden, Rev. Samuel
  South Carolina, legislature of
  South Carolina, Medical College of
  South Carolina, Slaveholder of
  Southern Argus
  Southern Christian Herald
  Southerner
  Southmayd, Rev. Daniel S.
  Spillman, Mr.
  Stansell, William
  Staughton, Rev. Dr.
  Staunton Spectator
  Steams and Co.
  Stevenson, Andrew
  Stewart, Samuel
  Stillmam, Dr.
  Stith, W. and A.
  Stone, Asa A.
  Stone, Silas
  Stone, William L.
  Strickland, William
  Stroud, George M.
  Stuart, Charles
  Summers, Mr.
  Swain, B.
  Synod of South Carolina and Georgia

  Tart, John
  Tate, Calvin H.
  Taylor, James H.
    "     John
    "     Lawton, and Co.
  Texan minister, Anson Jones
  Thatcher, Colonel
  Thome and Kimball
  Thome, James A.
  Thompson, Henry P.
  Thomson, Mr.
    "    , Sandford
  Todd, R.S.
  Toler, William
  Tolin, Cornelius D.
  Townsend, Ely
    "     , Samuel
  Tucker, Judge
  Turnbull, Robert
  Turner, John
    "   , John D.
    "   , L.
  Tarton, S.B.
  Tuscaloosa Flag of the Union
  Upsher, Judge
  Ustick, William A.
  Vance, John
  Van Buren, Martin
  Varillat, H.
  Vicksburg Register
  Virginia Minister
  Virginian
  Walker, John
  Walton, George
    "   , John W.
  Walsh, Sarah
  Washington Globe
  Waugh, Dr. Jeremiah S.
  Weld, Angelina Grimké
  Wells, Thomas J.
  West Eli
  Western Luminary
    "     Medical Journal
    "        "    Reformer
    "     Review
  Westgate, George W.
  Whitbread, Samuel
  Whitefield, George
    "       , Needham
  Whitehead, C.C.
    "      , W.W.
  White, Hiram
  Wightman, Rev. William M.
  Wilberforce, W.
  Wilkins, C.W.
  Wilkinson, Alfred
  Williams, George W.
  Willis, Robert
  Willis, William
  Wilmington Advertiser
  Wilson, Rev. Joseph G.
  Winchester Virginian
  Wirt, William
  Wisner, F.
  Witherspoon, Dr.
  Woodward, Jeremiah
  Woolman, John
  Wotton, John
  Wright, Mr.
  Yampert, T.J. De
  Yearly meeting of Friends
Woman dying
  "   flogged because her child died
  "   maniac
  "   no respect for
Women at childbirth
  "    " the same labor with men
  "    " work
  "   miscarry under the whip
  "   not breeding
  "   pregnant whipped
  "   severe whippers of slaves
  "   slaves
Workhouse at Charleston
Working hours
  "     of slaves
Worn-out slaves
"Worse and worse"
Worship of God prohibited
Wounds by gunshot
Wright Isaac
Yokes for slaves



THE

ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

No. 10.

       *     *     *     *     *

SPEECH

of

HON. THOMAS MORRIS,

OF OHIO,

IN REPLY TO THE SPEECH OF

THE

HON. HENRY CLAY.


IN SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, 1839.



NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,

NO. 143 NASSAU STREET:

1839.

       *     *     *     *     *

This No. contains 2-1/2 sheets.--Postage, under 100 miles, 4 cts. over
  100, 7 cts.

_Please Read and circulate._



SPEECH

       *     *     *     *     *

MR. PRESIDENT--I rise to present for the consideration of the Senate,
numerous petitions signed by, not only citizens of my own State, but
citizens of several other States, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Illinois, and Indiana. These petitioners, amounting in number to
several thousand, have thought proper to make me their organ, in
communicating to Congress their opinions and wishes on subjects which,
to them, appear of the highest importance. These petitions, sir, are
on the subject of slavery, the slave trade as carried on within and
from this District, the slave trade between the different States of
this Confederacy, between this country and Texas, and against the
admission of that country into the Union, and also against that of any
other State, whose constitution and laws recognise or permit slavery.
I take this opportunity to present all these petitions together,
having detained some of them for a considerable time in my hands, in
order that as small a portion of the attention of the Senate might be
taken up on their account as would be consistent with a strict regard
to the rights of the petitioners. And I now present them under the
most peculiar circumstances that have ever probably transpired in this
or any other country. I present them on the heel of the petitions
which have been presented by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay]
signed by the inhabitants of this District, praying that Congress
would not receive petitions on the subject of slavery in the District,
from any body of men or citizens, but themselves. This is something
new; it is one of the devices of the slave power, and most
extraordinary in itself. These petitions I am bound in duty to
present--a duty which I cheerfully perform, for I consider it not only
a duty but an honor. The respectable names which these petitions bear,
and being against a practice which I as deeply deprecate and deplore
as they can possibly do, yet I well know the fate of these petitions;
and I also know the time, place, and disadvantage under which I
present them. In availing myself of this opportunity to explain my own
views on this agitating topic, and to explain and justify the
character and proceedings of these petitioners, it must be obvious to
all that I am surrounded with no ordinary discouragements. The strong
prejudice which is evinced by the petitioners of the District, the
unwillingness of the Senate to hear, the power which is arrayed
against me on this occasion, as well as in opposition to those whose
rights I am anxious to maintain; opposed by the very lions of debate
in this body, who are cheered on by an applauding gallery and
surrounding interests, is enough to produce dismay in one far more
able and eloquent than the _lone_ and humble individual who now
addresses you.

What, sir, can there be to induce me to appear on this public arena,
opposed by such powerful odds? Nothing, sir, nothing but a strong
sense of duty, and a deep conviction that the cause I advocate is
just; that the petitioners whom I represent are honest, upright,
intelligent and respectable citizens; men who love their country, who
are anxious to promote its best interests, and who are actuated by the
purest patriotism, as well as the deepest philanthropy and
benevolence. In representing such men, and in such a cause, though by
the most feeble means, one would suppose that, on the floor of the
Senate of the United States, order, and a decent respect to the
opinions of others, would prevail. From the causes which I have
mentioned, I can hardly hope for this. I expect to proceed through
scenes which ill become this hall; but nothing shall deter me from a
full and faithful discharge of my duty on this important occasion.
Permit me, sir, to remind gentlemen that I have been now six years a
member of this body. I have seldom, perhaps too seldom, in the opinion
of many of my constituents, pressed myself upon the notice of the
Senate, and taken up their time in useless and windy debate. I
question very much if I have occupied the time of the Senate during
the six years as some gentlemen have during six weeks, or even six
days. I hope, therefore, that I shall not be thought obtrusive, or
charged with taking up time with abolition petitions. I hope, Mr.
President, to hear no more about agitating this slave question here.
Who has began the agitation now? The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay.]
Who has responded to that agitation, and congratulated the Senate and
the country on its results? The Senator from South Carolina, Mr.
[Calhoun.] And pray, sir, under what circumstances is this agitation
begun? Let it be remembered, let us collect the facts from the records
on your table, that when I, as a member of this body, but a few days
since offered a resolution as the foundation of proceedings on these
petitions, gentlemen, as if operated on by an electric shock, sprung
from their seats and objected to its introduction. And when you, sir,
decided that it was the right of every member to introduce such motion
or resolution as he pleased, being responsible to his constituents and
this body for the abuse of this right, gentlemen seemed to wonder that
the Senate had no power to prevent the action of one of its members in
cases like this, and the poor privilege of having the resolution
printed, by order of the Senate, was denied.

Let the Senator from South Carolina before me remember that, at the
last session, when he offered resolutions on the subject of slavery,
they were not only received without objection, but printed, voted on,
and decided; and let the Senator from Kentucky reflect, that the
petition which he offered against our right, was also received and
ordered to be printed without a single dissenting voice; and I call on
the Senate and the country to remember, that the resolutions which I
have offered on the same subject have not only been refused the
printing, but have been laid on the table without being debated, or
referred. Posterity, which shall read the proceedings of this time,
may well wonder what power could induce the Senate of the United
States to proceed in such a strange and contradictory manner. Permit
me to tell the country now what this power behind the throne, greater
than the throne itself, is. It is the power of SLAVERY. It is a power,
according to the calculation of the Senator from Kentucky, which owns
twelve hundred millions of dollars in human beings as property; and if
money is power, this power is not to be conceived or calculated; a
power which claims human property more than double the amount which
the whole money of the world could purchase. What can stand before
this power? Truth, everlasting truth, will yet overthrow it. This
power is aiming to govern the country, its constitutions and laws; but
it is not certain of success, tremendous as it is, without foreign or
other aid. Let it be borne in mind that the Bank power, some years
since, during what has been called the panic session, had influence
sufficient in this body, and upon this floor, to prevent the reception
of petitions against the action of the Senate on their resolutions of
censure against the President. The country took instant alarm, and the
political complexion of this body was changed as soon as possible. The
same power, though double in means and in strength, is now doing the
same thing. This is the array of power that even now is attempting
such an unwarrantable course in this country; and the people are also
now moving against the slave, as they formerly did against the Bank
power. It, too, begins to tremble for its safety. What is to be done?
Why, petitions are received and ordered to be printed, against the
right of petitions which are not received, and the whole power of
debate is thrown into the scale with the slaveholding power. But all
will not do; these two powers must now be united: an amalgamation of
the black power of the South with the white power of the North must
take place, as either, separately, cannot succeed in the destruction
of the liberty of speech and the press, and the right of petition. Let
me tell gentlemen, that both united will never succeed; as I said on a
former day, God forbid that they should ever rule this country! I have
seen this billing and cooing between these different interests for
some time past; I informed my private friends of the political party
with which I have heretofore acted, during the first week of this
session, that these powers were forming a union to overthrow the
present administration; and I warned them of the folly and mischief
they were doing in their abuse of those who were opposed to slavery.
All doubts are now terminated. The display made by the Senator from
Kentucky, [Mr. Clay,] and his denunciations of these petitioners as
abolitionists, and the hearty response and cordial embrace which his
efforts met from the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Calhoun,]
clearly shows that new moves have taken place on the political
chessboard, and new coalitions are formed, new compromises and new
bargains, settling and disposing of the rights of the country for the
advantage of political aspirants.

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] seemed, at the
conclusion of the argument made by the Senator from Kentucky, to be
filled not only with delight but with ecstasy. He told us, that about
twelve months since HE had offered a resolution which turned the tide
in favor of the great principle of State rights, and says he is highly
pleased with the course taken by the Kentucky Senator. All is now safe
by the acts of that Senator. The South is now consolidated as one man;
it was a great epoch in our history, but we have now passed it; it is
the beginning of a moral revolution; slavery, so far from being a
political evil, is a great blessing; both races have been improved by
it; and that abolition is now DEAD, and will soon be forgotten. So far
the Senator from South Carolina, as I understand him. But, sir, is
this really the case? Is the South united as one man, and is the
Senator from Kentucky the great centre of attraction? What a lesson to
the friends of the present Administration, who have been throwing
themselves into the arms of the southern slave-power for support! The
black enchantment I hope is now at an end--the dream dissolved, and we
awake into open day. No longer is there any uncertainty or any doubt
on this subject. But is the great epoch passed? is it not rather just
beginning? Is abolitionism DEAD--or is it just awaking into life? Is
the right of petition strangled and forgotten--or is it increasing in
strength and force? These are serious questions for the gentleman's
consideration, that may damp the ardor of his joy, if examined with an
impartial mind, and looked at with an unprejudiced eye. Sir, when
these paeans were sung over the death of abolitionists, and, of
course, their right to liberty of speech and the press, at least in
fancy's eye, we might have seen them lying in heaps upon heaps, like
the enemies of the strong man in days of old. But let me bring back
the gentleman's mind from this delightful scene of abolition death, to
sober realities and solemn facts. I have now lying before me the names
of thousands of living witnesses, that slavery has not entirely
conquered liberty; that abolitionists (for so are all these
petitioners called) are not _all dead_. These are my first proofs to
show the gentleman his ideas are all fancy. I have also, sir, since
the commencement of this debate, received a newspaper, as if sent by
Providence to suit the occasion, and by whom I know not. It is the
Cincinnati Republican of the 2d instant, which contains an extract
from the Louisville Advertiser, a paper printed in Kentucky, in
Louisville, our sister city; and though about one hundred and fifty
miles below us, it is but a few hours distant. That paper is the
leading Administration journal, too, as I am informed, in Kentucky.
Hear what it says on the death of abolition:--


"ABOLITION--CINCINNATI--THE LOUISVILLE ADVERTISER.

"We copy the following notice of an article which we lately published,
upon the subject of abolition movements in this quarter, from the
Louisville Advertiser:--

"'ABOLITION.--The reader is referred to an interesting article which we
have copied from the Cincinnati Republican--a paper which lately
supported the principles of Democracy; a paper which has _turned_, but
not quite far enough to act with the Adamses and Slades in Congress,
or the Whig abolitionists of Ohio. It does not, however, give a
correct view of the strength of the abolitionists in Cincinnati. There
they are in the ascendant. They control the city elections, regulate
what may be termed the morals of the city, give tone to public
opinion, and "rule the roast," by virtue of their superior piety and
intelligence. The Republican tells us, that they are not laboring Loco
Focos--but "drones" and "consumers"--the "rich and well-born," of
course; men who have leisure and means, and a disposition to employ
the latter, to equalize whites and blacks in the slaveholding States.
Even now, the absconding slave is perfectly safe in Cincinnati. We
doubt whether an instance can be adduced of the recovery of a runaway
in that place in the last four years. When negroes reach "the Queen
city" they are protected by its intelligence, its piety, and its
wealth. They receive the aid of the _elite_ of the Buckeyes; and we
have a strong faction in Kentucky, struggling zealously to make her
one of the dependencies of Cincinnati! Let our mutual sons go on. The
day of mutual retribution is at hand--much nearer than is now
imagined. The Republican, which still looks with a friendly eye to the
slaveholding States, warns us of the danger which exists, although its
new-born zeal for Whiggery prompts it to insist, indirectly, on the
right of petitioning Congress to abolish slavery. There are about two
hundred and fifty abolition societies in Ohio at the present time,
and, from the circular issued at head quarters, Cincinnati, it appears
that agents are to be sent through every county to distribute books
and pamphlets designed to inflame the public mind, and then organize
additional societies--or, rather, form new clans, to aid in the war
which has been commenced on the slaveholding States.'"


I do not, sir, underwrite for the truth of this statement as an entire
whole; much of it I repel as an unjust charge on my fellow-citizens of
Cincinnati; but, as it comes from a slaveholding State--from the State
of the Senator who has so eloquently anathematized abolitionists that
it is almost a pity they could not die under such sweet sounds--and as
the South Carolina Senator pronounces them dead, I produce this from a
slaveholding State, for the special benefit and consolation of the two
Senators. It comes from a source to which, I am sure, both gentlemen
ought to give credit. But suppose, sir, that abolitionism is dead, is
liberty dead also and slavery triumphant? Is liberty of speech, of the
press, and the right of petition also dead? True, it has been
strangled here; but gentlemen will find themselves in great error if
they suppose it also strangled in the country; and the very attempt,
in legislative bodies, to sustain a local and individual interest, to
the destruction of our rights, proves that those rights are not dead,
but a living principle, which slavery cannot extinguish; and be my lot
what it may, I shall, to the utmost of my abilities, under all
circumstances, and at all times, contend for that freedom which is the
common gift of the Creator to all men, and against the power of these
two great interests--the slave power of the South, and banking power
of the North--which are now uniting to rule this country. The cotton
bale and the bank note have formed an alliance; the credit system with
slave labor. These two congenial spirits have at last met and embraced
each other, both looking to the same object--to live upon the
unrequited labor of others--and have now erected for themselves a
common platform, as was intimated during the last session, on which
they can meet, and bid defiance, as they hope, to free principles and
free labor.

With these introductory remarks, permit me, sir, to say here, and let
no one pretend to misunderstand or misrepresent me, that I charge
gentlemen, when they use the word abolitionists, they mean petitioners
here such as I now present--men who love liberty, and are opposed to
slavery--that in behalf of these citizens I speak; and, by whatever
name they may be called, it is those who are opposed to slavery whose
cause I advocate. I make no war upon the rights of others. I do no act
but what is moral, constitutional, and legal, against the peculiar
institutions of any State; but acts only in defence of my own rights,
of my fellow citizens, and, above all, of my State, I shall not cease
while the current of life shall continue to flow.

I shall, Mr. President, in the further consideration of this subject,
endeavor to prove, first, the right of the people to petition; second,
why slavery is wrong, and why I am opposed to it; third, the power of
slavery in this country, and its dangers; next, answer the question,
so often asked, what have the free States to do with slavery? Then
make some remarks by way of answer to the arguments of the Senator
from Kentucky, [Mr. Clay.]

Mr. President, the duty I am requested to perform is one of the
highest which a Representative can be called on to discharge. It is to
make known to the legislative body the will and the wishes of his
constituents and fellow-citizens; and, in the present case, I feel
honored by the confidence reposed in me, and proceed to discharge the
duty. The petitioners have not trusted to my fallible judgment alone,
but have declared, in written documents, the most solemn expression of
their will. It is true these petitions have not been sent here by the
whole people of the United States, but from a portion of them only;
yet such is the justice of their claim, and the sure foundation upon
which it rests, that no portion of the American people, until a day or
two past, have thought it either safe or expedient to present counter
petitions; and even now, when counter petitions have been presented,
they dare not justify slavery, and the selling of men and women in
this District, but content themselves with objecting to others
enjoying the rights they practise, and praying Congress not to receive
or hear petitions from the people of the States--a new device of slave
power this, never before thought of or practiced in any country. I
would have been gratified if the inventors of this system, which
denies to others what they practise themselves, had, in their
petition, attempted to justify slavery and the slave trade in the
District, if they believe the practice just, that their names might
have gone down to posterity. No, sir; very few yet have the moral
courage to record their names to such an avowal; and even some of
these petitioners are so squeamish on this subject, as to say that
they might, from conscientious principles, be prevented from holding
slaves. Not so, sir, with the petitioners which I have the honor to
represent; they are anxious that their sentiments and their names
should be made matter of record; they have no qualms of conscience on
this subject; they have deep convictions and a firm belief that
slavery is an existing evil, incompatible with the principles of
political liberty, at war with our system of government, and extending
a baleful and blasting influence over our country, withering and
blighting its fairest prospects and brightest hopes. Who has said that
these petitions are unjust in principle, and on that ground ought not
to be granted? Who has said that slavery is not an evil? Who has said
it does not tarnish the fair fame of our country? Who has said it does
not bring dissipation and feebleness to one race, and poverty and
wretchedness to another, in its train? Who has said, it is not unjust
to the slave, and injurious to the happiness and best interest of the
master? Who has said it does not break the bonds of human affection,
by separating the wife from the husband, and children from their
parents? In fine, who has said it is not a blot upon our country's
honor, and a deep and foul stain upon her institutions? Few, very few,
perhaps none but him who lives upon its labor, regardless of its
misery; and even many whose local situations are within its
jurisdiction, acknowledge its injustice, and deprecate its
continuance; while millions of freemen deplore its existence, and look
forward with strong hope to its final termination. SLAVERY! a word,
like a secret idol, thought too obnoxious or sacred to be pronounced
here but by those who worship at its shrine--and should one who is not
such worshipper happen to pronounce the word, the most disastrous
consequences are immediately predicted, the Union is to be dissolved,
and the South to take care of itself.

Do not suppose, Mr. President, that I feel as if engaged in a
forbidden or improvident act. No such thing. I am contending with a
local and "_peculiar_" interest, an interest which has already banded
together with a force sufficient to seize upon every avenue by which a
petition can enter this chamber, and exclude all without its haven. I
am not now contending for the rights of the negro, rights which his
Creator gave him and which his fellow-man has usurped or taken away.
No, sir! I am contending for the rights of the white person in the
free States, and am endeavoring to prevent them from being trodden
down and destroyed by that power which claims the black person as
_property_. I am endeavoring to sound the alarm to my fellow-citizens
that this power, tremendous as it is, is endeavoring to unite itself
with the monied power of the country, in order to extend its dominion
and perpetuate its existence. I am endeavoring to drive from the back
of the _negro slave_ the politician who has seated himself there to
ride into office for the purpose of carrying out the object of this
unholy combination. The chains of slavery are sufficiently strong,
without being riveted anew by tinkering politicians of the free
States. I feel myself compelled into this contest, in defence of the
institutions of my own State, the persons and firesides of her
citizens, from the insatiable grasp of the slaveholding power as being
used and felt in the free States. To say that I am opposed to slavery
in the abstract, are but cold and unmeaning words, if, however capable
of any meaning whatever, they may fairly be construed into a love for
its existence; and such I sincerely believe to be the feeling of many
in the free States who use the phrase. I, sir, am not only opposed to
slavery in the abstract, but also in its whole volume, in its theory
as well as practice. This principle is deeply implanted within me; it
has "grown with my growth and strengthened with my strength." In my
infant years I learned to hate slavery. Your fathers taught me it was
wrong in their Declaration of Independence: the doctrines which they
promulgated to the world, and upon the truth of which they staked the
issue of the contest that made us a nation. They proclaimed "that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable rights; that amongst these are life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness." These truths are solemnly declared by them.
I believed then, and believe now, they are self-evident. Who can
acknowledge this, and not be opposed to slavery? It is, then, because
I love the principles which brought your government into existence,
and which have become the corner stone of the building supporting you,
sir, in that chair, and giving to myself and other Senators seats in
this body--it is because I love all this, that I hate slavery. Is it
because I contend for the right of petition, and am opposed to
slavery, that I have been denounced by many as an abolitionist? Yes;
Virginia newspapers have so denounced me, and called upon the
Legislature of my State to dismiss me from public confidence. Who
taught me to hate slavery, and every other oppression? _Jefferson_,
the great and the good Jefferson! Yes, _Virginia Senators_, it was
your own Jefferson, Virginia's favorite son, a man who did more for
the natural liberty of man, and the civil liberty of his country, than
any man that ever lived in our country; it was him who taught me to
hate slavery; it was in his school I was brought up. That Mr.
Jefferson was as much opposed to slavery as any man that ever lived in
our country, there can be no doubt; his life and his writings
abundantly prove the fact. I hold in my hand a copy, as he penned it,
of the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, a part of
which was stricken out, as he says, in compliance with the wishes of
South Carolina and Georgia. I will read it. Speaking of the wrongs
done us by the British Government, in introducing slaves among us, he
says: "He (the British King) has waged cruel war against human nature
itself, violating its most sacred right of life and liberty in the
persons of a distant people, who never offended him, captivating and
carrying them into SLAVERY in another hemisphere, or to incur
miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical
warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the
Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market
where MEN should be BOUGHT and SOLD, he has prostituted his
prerogative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or
restrain execrable commerce, and that this assemblage of horrors might
want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very
people to rise in arms against us, and purchase that liberty of which
he has deprived them by murdering the people on whom he has also
obtruded them, thus paying off former crimes committed against the
liberties of one people with crimes which he urges them to commit
against the lives of another." Thus far this great statesman and
philanthropist. Had his contemporaries been ruled by his opinions, the
country had now been at rest on this exciting topic. What
abolitionist, sir, has used stronger language against slavery than Mr.
Jefferson has done? "Cruel war against human nature," "violating its
most sacred rights," "piratical warfare," "opprobrium of infidel
powers," "a market where men should be bought and sold," "execrable
commerce," "assemblage of horrors," "crimes committed against the
liberty of the people," are the brands which Mr. Jefferson has burned
into the forehead of slavery and the slave trade. When, sir, have I,
or any other person opposed to slavery, spoken in stronger and more
opprobrious terms of slavery, than this? You have caused the bust of
this great man to be placed in the centre of your Capitol; in that
conspicuous part where every visitor must see it, with its hand
resting on the Declaration of Independence, engraved upon marble. Why
have you done this? Is it not mockery? Or is it to remind us
continually of the wickedness and danger of slavery? I never pass that
statue without new and increased veneration for the man it represents,
and increased repugnance and sorrow that he did not succeed in driving
slavery entirely from the country. Sir, if I am an abolitionist,
Jefferson made me so; and I only regret that the disciple should be so
far behind the master, both in doctrine and practice. But, sir, other
reasons and other causes have combined to fix and establish my
principles in this matter, never, I trust, to be shaken. A free State
was the place of my birth; a free Territory the theatre of my juvenile
actions. Ohio is my country, endeared to me by every fond
recollection. She gave me political existence, and taught me in her
political school; and I should be worse than an unnatural son did I
forget or disobey her precepts. In her Constitution it is declared,
"That all men are born equally free and independent," and "that there
shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the State,
otherwise than for the punishment of crimes." Shall I stand up for
slavery in any case, condemned as it is by such high authority as
this? No, never! But this is not all, Indiana, our younger Western
sister, endeared to us by every social and political tie, a State
formed in the same country as Ohio, from whose territory slavery was
forever excluded by the ordinance of July, 1787--she too, has declared
her abhorrence of slavery in more strong and empathic terms than we
have done. In her constitution, after prohibiting slavery, or
involuntary servitude, being introduced into the State, she declares,
"But as to the holding any part of the human creation in slavery, or
involuntary servitude, can originate only in _tyranny_ and
_usurpation_, no alteration of her constitution should ever take
place, so as to introduce slavery or involuntary servitude into the
State, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes whereof the party
had been duly convicted." Illinois and Michigan also formed their
constitutions on the same principles. After such a cloud of witnesses
against slavery, and whose testimony is so clear and explicit, as a
citizen of Ohio, I should be recreant to every principle of honor and
of justice, to be found the apologist or advocate of slavery in any
State, or in any country whatever. No, I cannot be so inconsistent as
to say I am opposed to slavery in the _abstract_, in its separation
from a human being, and still lend my aid to build it up, and make it
perpetual in its operation and effects upon _man_ in this or any other
country. I also, in early life, saw a slave kneel before his master,
and hold up his hands with as much apparent submission, humility, and
adoration, as a man would have done before his Maker, while his master
with out-stretched rod stood over him. This, I thought, is slavery;
one man subjected to the will and power of another, and the laws
affording him no protection, and he has to beg pardon of man, because
he has offended man, (not the laws,) as if his master were a superior
and all powerful being. Yes, this is slavery, boasted American
slavery, without which, it is contended even here, that the union of
these States would be dissolved in a day, yes, even in an hour!
Humiliating thought, that we are bound together as States by the
chains of slavery! It cannot be--the blood and the tears of slavery
form no part of the cement of our Union--and it is hoped that by
falling on its bands they may never corrode and eat them asunder. We
who are opposed to and deplore the existence of slavery in our
country, are frequently asked, both in public and private, what have
you to do with slavery? It does not exist in your State; it does not
disturb you! Ah, sir, would to God it were so--that we had nothing to
do with slavery, nothing to fear from its power, or its action within
our own borders, that its name and its miseries were unknown to us.
But this is not our lot; we live upon its borders, and in hearing of
its cries; yet we are unwilling to acknowledge, that if we enter its
territories and violate its laws, that we should be punished at its
pleasure. We do not complain of this, though it might well be
considered just ground of complaint. It is our firesides, our rights,
our privileges, the safety of our friends, as well as the sovereignty
and independence of our State, that we are now called upon to protect
and defend. The slave interest has at this moment the whole power of
the country in its hands. It claims the President as a Northern man
with Southern feelings, thus making the Chief Magistrate the head of
an interest, or a party, and not of the country and the people at
large. It has the cabinet of the President, three members of which are
from the slave States, and one who wrote a book in favor of Southern
slavery, but which fell dead from the press, a book which I have seen,
in my own family, thrown musty upon the shelf. Here then is a decided
majority in favor of the slave interest. It has five out of nine
judges of the Supreme Court; here, also, is a majority from the slave
States. It has, with the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, and the Clerks of both Houses, the army
and the navy; and the bureaus, have, I am told, about the same
proportion. One would suppose that, with all this power operating in
this Government, it would be content to _permit_--yes I will use the
word _permit_--it would be content to permit us, who live in the free
States, to enjoy our firesides and our homes in quietness; but this is
not the case. The slaveholders and slave laws claim that as property,
which the free States know only as persons, a reasoning property,
which, of its own will and mere motion, is frequently found in our
States; and upon which THING we sometimes bestow food and raiment, if
it appear hungry and perishing, believing it to be a human being; this
perhaps is owing to our want of vision to discover the process by
which a man is converted into a THING. For this act of ours, which is
not prohibited by our laws, but prompted by every feeling, Christian
and humane, the slaveholding power enters our territory, tramples
under foot the sovereignty of our State, violates the sanctity of
private residence, seizes our citizens, and disregarding the authority
of our laws, transports them into its own jurisdiction, casts them
into prison, confines them in fetters, and loads them with chains, for
pretended offences against their own laws, found by willing grand
juries upon the oath (to use the language of the late Governor of
Ohio) of a perjured villain. Is this fancy, or is it fact, sober
reality, solemn fact? Need I say all this, and much more, as now
matter of history in the case of the Rev. John B. Mahan, of Brown
county, Ohio? Yes, it is so; but this is but the beginning--a case of
equal outrage has lately occurred, if newspapers are to be relied on,
in the seizure of a citizen of Ohio, without even the forms of law,
and who was carried into Virginia and shamefully punished by tar and
feathers, and other disgraceful means, and rode upon a rail, according
to the order of Judge Lynch, and this, only because in Ohio he was an
abolitionist. Would I could stop here--but I cannot. This slave
interest or power seizes upon persons of color in our States, carries
them into States where men are property, and makes merchandize of
them, sometimes under sanction of law, but more properly by its abuse,
and sometimes by mere personal force, thus disturbing our quiet and
harassing our citizens. A case of this kind has lately occurred, where
a colored boy was seduced from Ohio into Indiana, taken from thence
into Alabama and sold as a slave; and to the honor of the slave
States, and gentlemen who administer the laws there, be it said, that
many who have thus been taken and sold by the connivance, if not
downright corruption, of citizens in the free States, have been
liberated and adjudged free in the States where they have been sold,
as was the case of the boy mentioned, who was sold in Alabama.

Slave power is seeking to establish itself in every State, in defiance
of the constitution and laws of the States within which it is
prohibited. In order to secure its power beyond the reach of the
States, it claims its parentage from the Constitution of the United
States. It demands of us total silence as to its proceedings, denies
to our citizens the liberty of speech and the press, and punishes them
by mobs and violence for the exercise of these rights. It has sent its
agents into the free States for the purpose of influencing their
Legislatures to pass laws for the security of its power within such
State, and for the enacting new offences and new punishments for their
own citizens, so as to give additional security to its interest. It
demands to be heard in its own person in the hall of our Legislature,
and mingle in debate there. Sir, in every stage of these oppressions
and abuses, permit me to say, in the language of the Declaration of
Independence--and no language could be more appropriate--we have
petitioned for redress in the most humble terms, and our repeated
petitions have been answered by repeated injury. A power, whose
character is marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit
to rule over a free people. In our sufferings and our wrongs we have
besought our fellow-citizens to aid us in the preservation of our
constitutional rights, but, influenced by the love of gain or
arbitrary power, they have sometimes disregarded all the sacred rights
of man, and answered in violence, burnings, and murder. After all
these transactions, which are now of public notoriety and matter of
record, shall we of the free States tauntingly be asked what we have
to do with slavery? We should rejoice, indeed, if the evils of slavery
were removed far from us, that it could be said with truth, that we
have nothing to do with slavery. Our citizens have not entered its
territories for the purpose of obstructing its laws, nor do we wish to
do so, nor would we justify any individual in such act; yet we have
been branded and stigmatized by its friends and advocates, both in the
free and slave States, as incendiaries, fanatics, disorganizers,
enemies to our country, and as wishing to dissolve the Union. We have
borne all this without complaint or resistance, and only ask to be
secure in our persons, by our own firesides, and in the free exercise
of our thoughts and opinions in speaking, writing, printing and
publishing on the subject of slavery, that which appears to us to be
just and right; because we all know the power of truth, and that it
will ultimately prevail, in despite of all opposition. But in the
exercise of all these rights, we acknowledge subjection to the laws of
the State in which we are, and our liability for their abuse. We wish
peace with all men; and that the most amicable relations and free
intercourse may exist between the citizens of our State and our
neighboring slaveholding States; we will not enter their States,
either in our proper persons, or by commissioners, legislative
resolutions, or otherwise, to interfere with their slave policy or
slave laws; and we shall expect from them and their citizens a like
return, that they do not enter our territories for the purpose of
violating our laws in the punishment of our people for the exercise of
their undoubted rights--the liberty of speech and of the press on the
subject of slavery. We ask that no man shall be seized and transported
beyond our State, in violation of our own laws, and that we shall not
be carried into and imprisoned in another State for acts done in our
own. We contend that the slaveholding power is properly chargeable
with all the riots and disorders which take place on account of
slavery. We can live in peace with all our sister States; if that
power will be controlled by law, each can exercise and enjoy the full
benefits secured by their own laws; and this is all we ask. If we hold
up slavery to the view of an impartial public as it is, and if such
view creates astonishment and indignation, surely we are not to be
charged as libellers. A State institution ought to be considered the
pride, not the shame of the State; and if we falsify such
institutions, the disgrace is ours, not theirs. If slavery, however,
is a blemish, a blot, an eating cancer in the body politic, it is not
our fault if, by holding it up, others should see in the mirror of
truth its deformity, and shrink back from the view. We have not, and
we intend not, to use any weapons against slavery, but the moral power
of truth and the force of public opinion. If we enter the slave
States, and tamper with the slave contrary to law, punish us, we
deserve it; and if a slaveholder is found in a free State, and is
guilty of a breach of the law there, he also ought to be punished.
These petitioners, as far as I understand them, disclaim all right to
enter a slave State for the purpose of intercourse with the slave. It
is the master whom they wish to address; and they ask and ought to
receive protection from the laws, as they are willing to be judged by
the laws. We invite into the arena of public discussion in our State
the slaveholder; we are willing to hear his reasons and facts in favor
of slavery, or against abolitionists: we do not fear his errors while
we are ourselves free to combat them. The angry feelings which in some
degree exist between the citizens of the free and slaveholding States,
on account of slavery, are, in many cases, properly chargeable to
those who defend and support slavery. Attempts are almost daily making
to force the execution of slave laws in the free States; at least,
their power and principles: and no term is too reproachful to be
applied to those who resist such acts, and contend for the rights
secured to every man under their own laws. We are often reminded that
we ought to take color as evidence of property in a human being. We do
not believe in such evidence, nor do we believe that a man can justly
be made property by human laws. We acknowledge, however, that a _man_,
not a _thing_ may be held to service or labor under the laws of a
State, and, if he escape into another State, he ought to be delivered
up on claim of the party to whom such labor or service may be due;
that this delivery ought to be in pursuance of the laws of the State
where such person is found, and not by virtue of any act of Congress.

This brings me, Mr. President, to the consideration of the petition
presented by the Senator from Kentucky, and to an examination of the
views he has presented to the Senate on this highly important subject.
Sir, I feel, I sensibly feel my inadequacy in entering into a
controversy with that old and veteran Senator; but nothing high or low
shall prevent me from an honest discharge of my duty here. If
imperfectly done, it may be ascribed to the want of ability, not
intention. If the power of my mind, and the strength of my body, were
equal to the task, I would arouse every man, yes, every woman and
child in the country, to the danger which besets them, if such
doctrines and views as are presented by the Senator should ever be
carried into effect. His denunciations are against abolitionists, and
under that term are classed all those who petition Congress on the
subject of slavery. Such I understand to be his argument, and as such
I shall treat it. I, in the first place, put in a broad denial to all
his general facts, charging this portion of my fellow citizens with
improper motives or dangerous designs. That their acts are lawful he
does not pretend to deny. I called for proof to sustain his charges.
None such has been offered, and none such exists, or can be found. I
repel them as calumnies double-distilled in the alembic of slavery. I
deny them, also, in the particulars and inferences; and let us see
upon what ground they rest, or by what process of reasoning they are
sustained.

The very first view of these petitioners against our right of petition
strikes the mind that more is intended than at first meets the eye.
Why was the committee on the District overlooked in this case, and the
Senator from Kentucky made the organ of communication? Is it
understood that anti-abolitionism is a passport to popular favor, and
that the action of this District shall present for that favor to the
public a gentleman upon this hobby? Is this petition presented as a
subject of fair legislation? Was it solicited by members of Congress,
from citizens here, for political effect? Let the country judge. The
petitioners state that no persons but themselves are authorized to
interfere with slavery in the District; that Congress are their own
Legislature; and the question of slavery in the District is only
between them and their constituted legislators; and they protest
against all interference of others. But, sir, as if ashamed of this
open position in favor of slavery, they, in a very coy manner, say
that some of them are not slaveholders, and might be forbidden by
conscience to hold slaves. There is more dictation, more political
heresy, more dangerous doctrine contained in this petition, than I
have ever before seen couched together in so many words. We! Congress
their OWN Legislature in all that concerns this District! Let those
who may put on the city livery, and legislate for them and not for his
constituents, do so; for myself, I came here with a different view,
and for different purposes. I came a free man, to represent the people
of Ohio; and I intend to leave this as such representative, without
wearing any other livery. Why talk about executive usurpation and
influence over the members of Congress? I have always viewed this
District influence as far more dangerous than that of any other power.
It has been able to extort, yes, extort from Congress, millions to pay
District debts, make District improvements, and in support of the
civil and criminal jurisprudence of the District. Pray, sir, what
right has Congress to pay the corporate debts of the cities in the
District more than the Debts of the corporate cities in your State and
mine? None, sir. Yet this has been done to a vast amount; and the next
step is, that we, who pay all this, shall not be permitted to petition
Congress on the subject of their institutions, for, if we can be
prevented in one case, we can in all possible cases. Mark, sir, how
plain a tale will silence these petitioners. If slavery in the
District concerns only the inhabitants and Congress, so does all
municipal regulations. Should they extend to granting lottery,
gaming-houses, tippling-houses, and other places calculated to promote
and encourage vice--should a representative in Congress be instructed
by his constituents to use his influence, and vote against such
establishments, and the people of the District should instruct him to
vote for them, which should he obey? To state the question is to
answer it; otherwise the boasted right of instruction by the
constituent body is "mere sound," signifying nothing. Sir, the
inhabitants of this district are subject to state legislation and
state policy; they cannot complain of this, for their condition is
voluntary; and as this city is the focus of power, of influence, and
considered also as that of fashion, if not of folly, and as the
streams which flow from here irradiate the whole country, it is right,
it is proper, that it should be subject to state policy and state
power, and not used as a leaven to ferment and corrupt the whole body
politic.

The honorable Senator has said the petition, though from a city, is
the fair expression of the opinion of the District. As such I treated
it, am willing to acknowledge the respectability of the petitioners
and their rights, and I claim for the people of my own state equal
respectability and equal rights that the people of the District are
entitled to: any peculiar rights and advantages I cannot admit.

I agree with the Senator, that the proceedings on abolition petitions,
heretofore, have not been the most wise and prudent course. They ought
to have been referred and acted on. Such was my object, a day or two
since, when I laid on your table a resolution to refer them to a
committee for inquiry. You did not suffer it, sir, to be printed. The
country and posterity will judge between the people whom I represent
and those who caused to be printed the petition from the city. It
cannot be possible that justice can have been done in both cases. The
exclusive legislation of Congress over the District is as much the act
of the constituent body, as the general legislation of Congress over
the States, and to the operation of this act have the people within
the District submitted themselves. I cannot, however, join the Senator
that the majority, in refusing to receive and refer petitions, did not
intend to destroy or impair the right in this particular. They
certainly have done so.

The Senator admits the abolitionists are now formidable; that
something must be done to produce harmony. Yes, sir, do justice, and
harmony will be restored. Act impartially, that justice may be done:
hear petitions on both sides, if they are offered, and give righteous
judgments, and your people will be satisfied. You cannot compromise
them out of their rights, nor lull them to sleep with fallacies in the
shape of reports. You cannot conquer them by rebuke, nor deceive them
by sophistry. Remember you cannot now turn public opinion, nor can you
overthrow it. You must, and you will, abandon the high ground you have
taken, and receive petitions. The reason of the case, the argument and
the judgment of the people, are all against you. One in this cause can
"chase a thousand," and the voice of justice will be heard whenever
you agitate the subject. In Indiana, the right to petition has been
most nobly advocated in a protest, by a member, against some puny
resolutions of the Legislature of that State to whitewash slavery.
Permit me to read a paragraph, worthy an American freeman:

"But who would have thought until lately, that any would have doubted
the right to petition in a respectful manner to Congress? Who would
have believed, that Congress had any authority to refuse to consider
the petitions of the people? Such a step would overthrow the autocrat
of Russia, or cost the Grand Seignior of Constantinople his head. Can
it be possible, therefore, that it has been reserved for a republican
Government, in a land boasting of its free institutions, to set the
first precedent of this kind? Our city councils, our courts of
justice, every department of Government are approached by petition,
however unanswerable, or absurd, so that its terms are respectful.
None go away unread, or unheard. The life of every individual is a
perfect illustration of the subject of petitioning. Petition is the
language of want, of pain, of sorrow, of man in all his sad variety of
woes, imploring relief, at the hand of some power superior to himself.
Petitioning is the foundation of all government, and of all
administrations of law. Yet it has been reserved for our Congress,
seconded indirectly by the vote of this Legislature, to question this
right, hitherto supposed to be so old, so heaven-deeded, so undoubted,
that our fathers did not think it necessary to place a guaranty of it
in the first draft of the Federal Constitution. Yet this sacred right
has been, at one blow, driven, destroyed, and trodden under the feet
of slavery. The old bulwarks of our Federal and State Constitutions
seem utterly to have been forgotten, which declare, 'that the freedom
of speech and the press shall not be abridged, nor the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and _petition_ for the redress of their
grievances.'"

These, sir, are the sentiments which make abolitionists formidable,
and set at nought all your councils for their overthrow. The honorable
Senator not only admits that abolitionists are formidable, but that
they consist of three classes. The friends of humanity and justice, or
those actuated by those principles, compose one class. These form a
very numerous class, and the acknowledgment of the Senator proves the
immutable principles upon which opposition to slavery rests. Men are
opposed to it from principles of humanity and justice--men are
abolitionists, he admits, on that account. We thank the Senator for
teaching us that word, we intend to improve it. The next class of
abolitionists, the Senator says, are so, apparently, for the purpose
of advocating the right of petition. What are we to understand from
this? That the right of petition needs advocacy. Who has denied this
right, or who has attempted to abridge it? The slaveholding power,
that power which avoids open discussion, and the free exercise of
opinion; it is that power alone which renders the advocacy of the
right of petition necessary, having seized upon all the powers of the
Government. It is fast uniting together those opposed to its iron
rule, no matter to what political party they have heretofore belonged;
they are uniting with the first class, and act from principles of
humanity and justice; and if the mists and shades of slavery were not
the atmosphere in which gentlemen were enveloped, they would see
constant and increasing numbers of our most worthy and intelligent
citizens attaching themselves to the two classes mentioned, and
rallying under the banners of abolitionism. They are compelled to go
there, if the gentleman will have it so, in order to defend and
perpetuate the liberties of the country. The hopes of the oppressed
spring up afresh from this discussion of the gentleman. The third
class, the Senator says, are those who, to accomplish their ends, act
without regard to consequences. To them, all the rights of property,
of the States, of the Union, the Senator says, are nothing. He says
they aim at other objects than those they profess--emancipation in the
District of Columbia. No, says the Senator, their object is _universal
emancipation_, not only in the District, but in the Territories and in
the States. Their object is to set free three millions of negro
slaves. Who made the Senator, in his place here, the censor of his
fellow citizens? Who authorized him to charge them with other objects
than those they profess?  How long is it since the Senator himself, on
this floor, denounced slavery as an evil? What other inducements or
object had he then in view? Suppose universal emancipation to be the
object of these petitioners; is it not a noble and praiseworthy
object; worthy of the Christian, the philanthropist, the statesman,
and the citizen? But the Senator says, they (the petitioners) aim to
excite one portion of the country against another. I deny, sir, this
charge, and call for the proof; it is gratuitous, uncalled for, and
unjust towards my fellow citizens. This is the language of a stricken
conscience, seeking for the palliation of its own acts by charging
guilt upon others. It is the language of those who, failing in
argument, endeavor to cast suspicion upon the character of their
opponents, in order to draw public attention from themselves. It is
the language of disguise and concealment, and not that of fair and
honorable investigation, the object of which is truth. I again put in
a broad denial to this charge, that any portion of these petitioners,
whom I represent, seek to excite one portion of the country against
another; and without proof I cannot admit that the assertion of the
honorable Senator establishes the fact. It is but opinion, and naked
assertion only. The Senator complains that the means and views of the
abolitionists are not confined to securing the right of petition only;
no, they resort to other means, he affirms, to the BALLOT BOX; and if
that fail, says the Senator, their next appeal will be to the bayonet.
Sir, no man, who is an American in feeling and in heart, but ought to
repel this charge instantly, and without any reservation whatever,
that if they fail at the ballot box they will resort to the bayonet.
If such a fratricidal course should ever be thought of in our country,
it will not be by those who seek redress of wrongs, by exercising the
right of petition, but by those only who deny that right to others,
and seek to usurp the whole power of the Government. If the ballot box
fail them, the bayonet may be their resort, as mobs and violence now
are. Does the Senator believe that any portion of the honest yeomanry
of the country entertain such thoughts? I hope he does not. If
thoughts of this kind exist, they are to be found in the hearts of
aspirants to office, and their adherents, and none others. Who, sir,
is making this question a political affair? Not the petitioners. It
was the slaveholding power which first made this move. I have noticed
for some time past that many of the public prints in this city, as
well as elsewhere, have been filled with essays against abolitionists
for exercising the rights of freemen.

Both political parties, however, have courted them in private and
denounced them in public, and both have equally deceived them. And who
shall dare say that an abolitionist has no right to carry his
principles to the _ballot box? Who fears the ballot box?_ The honest
in heart, the lover of our country and its institutions? No, sir! It
is feared by the tyrant; he who usurps power, and seizes upon the
liberty of others; he, for one, fears the ballot box. Where is the
slave to party in this country who is so lost to his own dignity, or
so corrupted by interest or power, that he does not, or will not,
carry his principles and his judgment into the ballot box? Such an one
ought to have the mark of Cain in his forehead, and sent to labor
among the negro slaves of the South. The honorable Senator seems
anxious to take under his care the ballot box, as he has the slave
system of the country, and direct who shall or who shall not use it
for the redress of what they deem a political grievance. Suppose the
power of the Executive chair should take under its care the right of
voting, and who should proscribe any portion of our citizens who
should carry with them to the polls of election their own opinions,
creeds, and doctrines. This would at once be a deathblow to our
liberties, and the remedy could only be found in revolution. There can
be no excuse or pretext for revolution while the ballot box is free.
Our Government is not one of force, but of principle; its foundation
rests on public opinion, and its hope is in the morality of the
nation. The moral power of that of the ballot box is sufficient to
correct all abuses. Let me, then, proclaim here, from this high arena,
to the citizens not only of my own State, but to the country, to all
sects and parties who are entitled to the right of suffrage, To THE
BALLOT BOX! carry with you honestly your own sentiments respecting the
welfare of your country, and make them operate as effectually as you
can, through that medium, upon its policy and for its prosperity. Fear
not the frowns of power. It trembles while it denounces you. The
Senator complains that the abolitionists have associated with the
politics of the country. So far as I am capable of judging, this
charge is not well founded; many politicians of the country have used
abolitionists as stepping stones to mount into power; and, when there,
have turned about and traduced them. He admits that political parties
are willing to unite with them any class of men, in order to carry
their purposes. Are abolitionists, then, to blame if they pursue the
same course? It seems the Senator is willing that his party should
make use of even abolitionists; but he is not willing that
abolitionists should use the same party for their purpose. This seems
not to be in accordance with that equality of rights about which we
heard so much at the last session. Abolitionists have nothing to fear.
If public opinion should be for them, politicians will be around and
amongst them as the locusts of Egypt. The Senator seems to admit that,
if the abolitionists are joined to either party, there is
danger--danger of what? That humanity and justice will prevail? that
the right of petition will be secured to ALL EQUALLY? and that the
long lost and trodden African race will be restored to their natural
rights? Would the Senator regret to see this accomplished by argument,
persuasion, and the force of an enlightened public opinion? I hope
not; and these petitioners ask the use of no other weapons in this
warfare.

These ultra-abolitionists, says the Senator, invoke the power of this
government to their aid. And pray, sir, what power should they invoke?
Have they not the same right to approach this government as other men?
Is the Senator or this body authorized to deny them any privileges
secured to other citizens? If so, let him show me the charter of his
power and I will be silent. Until he can do this, I shall uphold,
justify, and sustain them, as I do other citizens. The exercise of
power by Congress in behalf of the slaves within this District, the
Senator seems to think, no one without the District has the least
claim to ask for. It is because I reside without the District, and am
called within it by the Constitution, that I object to the existence
of slavery here. I deny the gentleman's position, then, on this point.
On this then, we are equal. The Senator, however, is at war with
himself. He contends the object of the cession by the States of
Virginia and Maryland, was to establish a seat of Government _only_,
and to give Congress whatever power was necessary to render the
District a valuable and comfortable situation for that purpose, and
that Congress have full power to do whatever is necessary for this
District; and if to abolish slavery be necessary, to attain the
object, Congress have power to abolish slavery in the District. I am
sure I quote the gentleman substantially; and I thank him for this
precious confession in his argument; it is what I believe, and I know
it is all I feel disposed to ask. If we can, then, prove that this
District is not as comfortable and convenient a place for the
deliberations of Congress, and the comfort of our citizens who may
visit it, while slavery exists here, as it would be without slavery,
then slavery ought to be abolished; and I trust we shall have the
distinguished Senator from Kentucky to aid us in this great national
reformation. I take the Senator at his word. I agree with him that
this ought to be such a place as he has described; but I deny that it
is so. And upon what facts do I rest my denial? We are a Christian
nation, a moral and religious people. I speak for the free States, at
least for my own State; and what a contrast do the very streets of
your capital daily present to the Christianity and morality of the
nation? A race of slaves, or at least colored persons, of every hue
from the jet black African, in regular gradation, up to the almost
pure Anglo-Saxon color. During the short time official duty has called
me here, I have seen the really red haired, the freckled, and the
almost white negro; and I have been astonished at the numbers of the
mixed race, when compared with those of full color, and I have deeply
deplored this stain upon our national morals; and the words of Dr.
Channing have, thousands of times, been impressed on my mind, that "a
slave country reeks with licentiousness."  How comes this amalgamation
of the races? It comes from slavery. It is a disagreeable annoyance to
persons who come from the free States, especially to their Christian
and moral feelings. It is a great hindrance to the proper discharge of
their duties while here. Remove slavery from this District, and this
evil will disappear. We argue this circumstance alone as sufficient
cause to produce that effect. But slavery presents within the District
other and still more appalling scenes--scenes well calculated to
awaken the deepest emotions of the human heart. The slave-trade exists
here in all its HORRORS, and unwhipt of all its crimes. In view of the
very chair which you now occupy, Mr. President, if the massy walls of
this building, did not prevent it, you could see the prison, the
_pen_, the HELL, where human beings, when purchased for sale, are kept
until a cargo can be procured for transportation to a Southern or
foreign market, for I have little doubt slaves are carried to Texas
for sale, though I do not know the fact.

Sir, since Congress have been in session, a mournful group of these
unhappy beings, some thirty or forty, were marched, as if in derision
of members of Congress, in view of your Capitol, chained and manacled
together, in open day-light, yes, in the very face of heaven itself,
to be shipped at Baltimore for a foreign market. I did not witness
this cruel transaction, but speak from what I have heard and believe.
Is this District, then, a fit place for our deliberations, whose
feelings are outraged with impunity with transactions like this?
Suppose, sir, that mournful and degrading spectacle was at this moment
exhibited under the windows of our chamber, do you think the Senate
could deliberate, could continue with that composure and attention
which I see around me? No, sir; all your powers could not preserve
order for a moment. The feelings of humanity would overcome those of
regard for the peculiar institutions of the States; and though we
would be politically and legally bound not to interfere, we are not
morally bound to withhold our sympathy and our execration in
witnessing such inhuman traffic. This traffic alone, in this District,
renders it an uncomfortable and unfit place for your seat of
Government. Sir, it is but one or two years since I saw standing at
the railroad depot, as I passed from my boarding house to this
chamber, some large wagons and teams, as if waiting for freight; the
cars had not then arrived. I was inquired of, when I returned to my
lodgings, by my landlady, if I knew the object of those wagons which I
saw in the morning. I replied, I did not; I suppose they came and were
waiting for loading. "Yes, for slaves," said she; "and one of those
wagons was filled with little boys and little girls, who had been
bought up through the country, and were to be taken to a southern
market. Ah, sir!" continued she, "it made my very heart ache to see
them." The very recital unnerved and unfitted me for thought or
reflection on any other subject for some time. It is scenes like this,
of which ladies of my country and my state complained in their
petitions, some time since, as rendering this District unpleasant,
should they visit the capital of the nation as wives, sisters,
daughters, or friends of members of Congress. Yet, sir, these
respectable females were treated here with contemptuous sneers; they
were compared, on this floor, to the fish-women of Paris, who dipped
their fingers in the blood of revolutionary France. Sir, if the
transaction in slaves here, which I have mentioned, could make such an
impression on the heart of a lady, a resident of the District, one who
had been used to slaves, and was probably an owner, what would be the
feelings of ladies from free states on beholding a like transaction? I
will leave every gentleman and every lady to answer for themselves. I
am unable to describe it. Shall the capital of your country longer
exhibit scenes so revolting to humanity, that the ladies of your
country cannot visit it without disgust? No; wipe off the foul stain,
and let it become a suitable and comfortable place for the seat of
Government. The Senator, as if conscious that his argument on this
point had proved too much, and of course had proven the converse of
what he wished to establish, concluded this part by saying, that if
slavery is abolished, the act ought to be confined to the city alone.
We thank him for this small sprinkling of correct opinion upon this
arid waste of public feeling. Liberty may yet vegetate and grow even
here.

The Senator insists that the States of Virginia and Maryland would
never have ceded this District if they had have thought slavery would
ever have been abolished in it. This is an old story twice told. It
was never, however, thought of, until the slave power imagined it, for
its own security. Let the States ask a retrocession of the District,
and I am sure the free States will rejoice to make the grant.

The Senator condemns the abolitionists for desiring that slavery
should not exist in the Territories, even in Florida. He insists that,
by the treaty, the inhabitants of that country have the right to
remove their EFFECTS when they please; and that, by this condition,
they have the right to retain their slaves as effects, independently
of the power of Congress. I am no diplomatist, sir, but I venture to
deny the conclusion of the Senator's argument. In all our intercourse
with foreign nations, in all our treaties in which the words "goods,
effects," &c. are used, slaves have never been considered as included.
In all cases in which slaves are the subject matter of controversy,
they are specially named by the word "slaves; and, if I remember
rightly, it has been decided in Congress, that slaves are not property
for which a compensation shall be made when taken for public use, (or
rather, slaves cannot be considered as taken for public use,) or as
property by the enemy, when they are in the service of the United
States. If I am correct, as I believe I am, in the positions I have
assumed, the gentleman can say nothing, by this part of his argument,
against abolitionists, for asking that slavery shall not exist in
Florida."

The gentleman contends that the power to remove slaves from one State
to another, for sale, is found in that part of the Constitution which
gives Congress the power to regulate commerce within the States, &c.
This argument is _non sequiter_, unless the honorable Senator can
first prove that slaves are proper articles for commerce. We say that
Congress have power over slaves only as persons. The United States can
protect persons, _but cannot make them property_, and they have full
power in regulating commerce, and can, in such regulations, prohibit
from its operations every thing but property; property made so by the
laws of nature, and not by any municipal regulations. The dominion of
man over things, as property, was settled by his Creator when man was
first placed upon the earth. He was to subdue the earth, and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowls of the air, and over
every living thing that moveth upon the earth; every herb bearing
seed, and the fruit of a tree yielding seed, was given for his use.
This is the foundation of all right in property of every description.
It is for the use of man the grant is made, and of course man cannot
be included in the grant. Every municipal regulation, then, of any
State, or any of its peculiar institutions, which makes man property,
is a violation of this great law of nature, and is founded in
usurpation and tyranny, and is accomplished by force, fraud, or an
abuse of power. It is a violation of the principles of truth and
justice, in subjecting the weaker to the stronger man. In a Christian
nation such property can form no just ground for commercial
regulations, but ought to be strictly prohibited. I therefore believe
it is the duty of Congress, by virtue of this power, to regulate
commerce, to prohibit, at once, slaves being used as articles of
trade.

The gentleman says, the Constitution left the subject of slavery
entirely to the States. To this position I assent; and, as the States
cannot regulate their own commerce, but the same being the right of
Congress, that body cannot make slaves an article of commerce, because
slavery is left entirely to the States in which it exists; and slaves
within those States, according to the gentleman, are excluded from the
power of Congress. Can Congress, in regulating commerce among the
several States, authorize the transportation of articles from one
State, and their sale in another, which they have not power so to
authorize in any State? I cannot believe in such doctrine; and I now
solemnly protest against the power of Congress to authorize the
transportation to, and the sale in, Ohio, of any negro slave whatever,
or for any possible purpose under the sun. Who is there in Ohio, or
elsewhere, that will dare deny this position? If Ohio contains such a
recreant to her constitution and policy, I hope he may have the
boldness to stand forth and avow it. If the States in which slavery
exists love it as a household god, let them keep it there, and not
call upon us in the free States to offer incense to their idol. We do
not seek to touch it with unhallowed hands, but with pure hands,
upraised in the cause of truth and suffering humanity.

The gentleman admits that, at the formation of our Government, it was
feared that slavery might eventually divide or distract our country;
and, as the BALLOT BOX seems continually to haunt his imagination, he
says there is real danger of dissolution of the Union if
abolitionists, as is evident they do, will carry their principles into
the BALLOT BOX. If not disunion in fact, at least in feeling, in the
country, which is always the precursor to the clash of arms. And the
gentleman further says we are taught by holy writ, "that the race is
not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong." The moral of the
gentleman's argument is, that truth and righteousness will prevail,
though opposed by power and influence; that abolitionists, though few
in number, are greatly to be feared; one, as I have said, may chase a
thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight; and, as their weapons of
warfare are not "carnal, but mighty to the pulling down of strong
holds," even slavery itself; and as the ballot box is the great moral
lever in political action, the gentleman would exclude abolitionists
entirely from its use, and for opinion's sake, deny them this high
privilege of every American citizen. Permit me, sir, to remind the
gentleman of another text of holy writ. "The wicked flee when no man
pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion." The Senator says that
those who have slaves, are sometimes supposed to be under too much
alarm. Does this prove the application of the text I have just quoted:
"Conscience sometimes makes cowards of us all." The Senator appeals to
abolitionists, and beseeches them to cease their efforts on the
subject of slavery, if they wish, says he, "to exercise their
benevolence." What! Abolitionists benevolent! He hopes they will
select some object not so terrible. Oh, sir, he is willing they should
pay tithes of "mint and rue," but the weighter matters of the law,
judgment and mercy, he would have them entirely overlook. I ought to
thank the Senator for introducing holy writ into this debate, and
inform him his arguments are not the sentiments of Him, who, when on
earth, went about doing good.

The Senator further entreats the clergy to desist from their efforts
in behalf of abolitionism. Who authorized the Senator, as a
politician, to use his influence to point out to the clergy what they
should preach, or for what they should pray? Would the Senator dare
exert his power here to bind the consciences of men? By what rule of
ethics, then, does he undertake to use his influence, from this high
place of power, in order to gain the same object, I am at a loss to
determine. Sir, this movement of the Senator is far more censurable
and dangerous, as an attempt to unite Church and State, than were the
petitions against Sunday mails, the report in opposition to which
gained for you, Mr. President, so much applause in the country. I,
sir, also appeal to the clergy to maintain their rights of conscience;
and if they believe slavery to be a sin, we ought to honor and respect
them for their open denunciation of it, rather than call on them to
desist, for between their conscience and their God, we have no power
to interfere; we do not wish to make them political agents for any
purpose.

But the Senator is not content to entreat the clergy alone to desist;
he calls on his countrywomen to warn them, also, to cease their
efforts, and reminds them that the ink shed from the pen held in their
fair fingers when writing their names to abolition petitions, may be
the cause of shedding much human blood! Sir, the language towards this
class of petitioners is very much changed of late; they formerly were
pronounced idlers, fanatics, old women and school misses, unworthy of
respect from intelligent and respectable men. I warned gentlemen then
that they would change their language; the blows they aimed fell
harmless at the feet of those against whom they were intended to
injure. In this movement of my countrywomen I thought was plainly to
be discovered the operations of Providence, and a sure sign of the
final triumph of _universal emancipation_. All history, both sacred
and profane, both ancient and modern, bears testimony to the efficacy
of female influence and power in the cause of human liberty. From the
time of the preservation, by the hands of women, of the great Jewish
law-giver, in his infantile hours, and who was preserved for the
purpose of freeing his countrymen from Egyptian bondage, has woman
been made a powerful agent in breaking to pieces the rod of the
oppressor. With a pure and uncontaminated mind, her actions spring
from the deepest recesses of the human heart. Denounce her as you
will, you cannot deter her from her duty. Pain, sickness, want,
poverty and even death itself form no obstacles in her onward march.
Even the tender Virgin would dress, as a martyr for the stake, as for
her bridal hour, rather than make sacrifice of her purity and duty.
The eloquence of the Senate, and clash of arms, are alike powerful
when brought in opposition to the influence of pure and virtuous
woman. The liberty of the slave seems now to be committed to her
charge, and who can doubt her final triumph? I do not.--You cannot
fight against her and hope for success; and well does the Senator know
this; hence this appeal to her feelings to terrify her from that which
she believes to be her duty. It is a vain attempt.

The Senator says that it was the principles of the Constitution which
carried us through the Revolution. Surely it was; and to use the
language of another Senator from a slave State, on a former occasion,
these are the very principles on which the abolitionists plant
themselves. It was the principle that all men are born FREE AND EQUAL,
that nerved the arm of our fathers in their contest for independence.
It was for the natural and inherent rights of _man_ they contended. It
is a libel upon the Constitution to say that its object was not
liberty, but slavery, for millions of the human race.

The Senator, well fearing that all his eloquence and his arguments
thus far are but chaff, when weighed in the balance against truth and
justice, seems to find consolation in the idea, and says that which
opposes the ulterior object of abolitionists, is that the general
government has no power to act on the subject of slavery, and that the
Constitution or the Union would not last an hour if the power claimed
was exercised by Congress. It is slavery, then, and not liberty, that
makes us one people. To dissolve slavery, is to dissolve the Union.
Why require of us to support the Constitution by oath, if the
Constitution itself is subject to the power of slavery, and not the
moral power of the country? Change the form of the oath which you
administer to Senators on taking seats here, swear them to support
slavery, and according to the logic of the gentleman, the Constitution
and the Union will both be safe. We hear almost daily threats of
dissolving the Union, and from whence do they come? From citizens of
the free States? No! From the slave States only. Why wish to dissolve
it? The reason is plain, that a new government may be formed, by which
we, as a nation, may be made a slaveholding people. No impartial
observer of passing events, can, in my humble judgment, doubt the
truth of this. The Senator thinks the abolitionists in error, if they
wish the slaveholder to free his slave. He asks, why denounce him? I
cannot admit the truth of the question; but I might well ask the
gentleman, and the slaveholders generally, "why are you angry at me,
because I tell you the truth?" It is the light of truth which the
slaveholder cannot endure; a plain unvarnished tale of what slavery
is, he considers a libel upon himself. The fact is, the slaveholder
feels the leprosy of slavery upon him. He is anxious to hide the
odious disease from the public eye, and the ballot box and the right
of petition, when used against him, he feels as sharp reproof; and
being unwilling to renounce his errors, he tries to escape from their
consequences, by making the world believe that HE is the persecuted,
and not the persecutor. Slaveholders have said here, during this very
session, "the fact is, slavery will not bear examination." It is the
Senator who denounces abolitionists for the exercise of their most
unquestionable rights, while abolitionists condemn that only which the
Senator himself will acknowledge to be wrong at all times and under
all circumstances. Because he admits that if it was an original
question whether slaves should be introduced among us, but few
citizens would be found to agree to it, and none more opposed to it
than himself. The argument is, that the evil of slavery is incurable;
that the attempt to eradicate it would commence a struggle which would
exterminate one race or the other. What a lamentable picture of our
government, so often pronounced the best upon earth! The seeds of
disease, which were interwoven into its first existence, have now
become so incorporated into its frame, that they cannot be extracted
without dissolving the whole fabric; that we must endure the evil
without hope and without complaint. Our very natures must be changed
before we can be brought tamely to submit to this doctrine. The evil
will be remedied: and to use the language of Jefferson again, "this
people will yet be free." The Senator finds consolation, however in
the midst of this existing evil, in color and caste. The black race
(says he) is the strong ground of slavery in our country. Yes, it is
_color_, not right and justice, that is to continue forever slavery in
our country. It is prejudice against color, which is the strong ground
of the slaveholder's hope. Is that prejudice founded in nature, or is
it the effect of base and sordid interest? Let the mixed race which we
see here, from black to almost perfect white, springing from white
fathers, answer the question. Slavery has no just foundation in color:
it rests exclusively upon usurpation, tyranny, oppressive fraud, and
force. These were its parents in every age and country of the world.

The Senator says, the next or greatest difficulty to emancipation is,
the amount of property it would take from the owners. All ideas of
right and wrong are confounded in these words: emancipate property,
emancipate a horse, or an ox, would not only be unmeaning, but a
ludicrous expression. To emancipate is to set free from slavery. To
emancipate, is to set free a man, not property. The Senator estimates
the number of slaves--_men_ now held in bondage--at three millions in
the United States. Is this statement made here by the same voice which
was heard in this Capitol in favor of the liberties of Greece, and for
the emancipation of our South American brethren from political
thralldom? It is; and has all its fervor in favor of liberty been
exhausted upon foreign countries, so as not to leave a single whisper
in favor of three millions of men in our own country, now groaning
under the most galling oppression the world ever saw? No, sir. Sordid
interest rules the hour. Men are made property, and paper is made
money, and the Senator, no doubt, sees in these two peculiar
institutions a power which, if united, will be able to accomplish all
his wishes. He informs us that some have computed the slaves to be
worth the average amount of five hundred dollars each. He will
estimate within bounds at four hundred dollars each. Making the amount
twelve hundred millions of dollars' worth of slave property. I heard
this statement, Mr. President, with emotions of the deepest feeling.
By what rule of political or commercial arithmetic does the Senator
calculate the amount of property in human beings? Can it be fancy or
fact, that I hear such calculation, that the people of the United
States own twelve hundred millions' (double the amount of all the
specie in the world) worth of property in human flesh! And this
property is owned, the gentleman informs us, by all classes of
society, forming part of all our contracts within our own country and
in Europe. I should have been glad, sir, to have been spared the
hearing of a declaration of this kind, especially from the high source
and the place from which it emanated. But the assertion has gone forth
that we have twelve hundred millions of slave property at the South;
and can any man so close his understanding here as not plainly to
perceive that the power of this vast amount of property at the South
is now uniting itself to the banking power of the North, in order to
govern the destinies of this country. Six hundred millions of banking
capital is to be brought into this coalition, and the slave power and
the bank power are thus to unite in order to break down the present
administration. There can be no mistake, as I believe, in this matter.
The aristocracy of the North, who, by the power of a corrupt banking
system, and the aristocracy of the South, by the power of the slave
system, both fattening upon the labor of others, are now about to
unite in order to make the reign of each perpetual. Is there an
independent American to be found, who will become the recreant slave
to such an unholy combination? Is this another compromise to barter
the liberties of the country for personal aggrandisement? "Resistance
to tyrants is obedience to God."

The Senator further insists, "that what the law makes property is
property." This is the predicate of the gentleman; he has neither
facts nor reason to prove it; yet upon this alone does he rest the
whole case that negroes are property. I deny the predicate and the
argument. Suppose the Legislature of the Senator's own State should
pass a law declaring his wife, his children, his friends, indeed, any
white citizen of Kentucky, _property_, and should they be sold and
transferred as such, would the gentleman fold his arms and say, "Yes,
they are property, for the law has made them such?" No, sir; he would
denounce such law with more vehemence than he now denounces
abolitionists, and would deny the authority of human legislation to
accomplish an object so clearly beyond its power.

Human laws, I contend, cannot make human beings property, if human
force can do it. If it is competent for our legislatures to make a
black man _property_, it is competent for them to make a white man the
same; and the same objection exists to the power of the people in an
organic law for their own government; they cannot make property of
each other; and, in the language of the Constitution of Indiana, such
an act "can only originate in usurpation and tyranny." Dreadful,
indeed, would be the condition of this country, if these principles
should not only be carried into the ballot box, but into the
presidential chair. The idea that abolitionists ought to pay for the
slaves if they are set free, and that they ought to think of this, is
addressed to their fears, and not to their judgment. There is no
principle of morality or justice that should require them or our
citizens generally to do so. To free a slave is to take from
usurpation that which it has made property and given to another, and
bestow it upon the rightful owner. It is not taking property from its
true owner for public use. Men can do with their own as they please,
to vary their peace if they wish, but cannot be compelled to do so.

The gentleman repeats the assertion that has been repeated a thousand
and one times: that abolitionists are retarding the emancipation of
the slave, and have thrown it back fifty or a hundred years; that they
have increased the rigors of slavery, and caused the master to treat
his slave with more severity. Slavery, then, is to cease at some
period; and because the abolitionists have said to the slaveholder,
"Now is the accepted time," and because he thinks this an improper
interference, and not having the abolitionists in his power, he
inflicts his vengeance on his unoffending slave! The moral of this
story is, the slaveholder will exercise more cruelty because he is
desired to show mercy. I do not envy the senator the full benefit of
his argument. It is no doubt a true picture of the feelings and
principles which slavery engenders in the breast of the master. It is
in perfect keeping with the threat we almost daily hear; that if
petitioners do not cease their efforts in the exercise of their
constitutional rights, others will dissolve the Union. These, however,
ought to be esteemed idle assertions and idle threats.

The Senator tells us that the consequences arising from the freedom of
slaves, would be to reduce the wages of the white laborer. He has
furnished us with neither data nor fact upon which this opinion can
rest. He, however, would draw a line, on one side of which he would
place the slave labor, and on the other side free white labor; and
looking over the whole, as a general system, both would appear on a
perfect equality. I have observed, for some years past, that the
southern slaveholder has insisted that his laborers are, in point of
integrity, morality, usefulness, and comfort, equal to the laboring
population of the North. Thus endeavoring to raise the slave in public
estimation, to an equality with the free white laborer of the North;
while, on the other hand, the northern aristocrat has, in the same
manner, viz.: by comparison, endeavored to reduce his laborers to the
moral and political condition of the slaves of the South. It is for
the free white American citizens to determine whether they will permit
such degrading comparisons longer to exist. Already has this spirit
broken forth in denunciation of the right of universal suffrage. Will
free white laboring citizens take warning before it is too late?

The last, the great, the crying sin of abolitionists, in the eyes of
the Senator, is that they are opposed to colonization, and in favor of
amalgamation. It is not necessary now to enter into any of the
benefits and advantages of colonization; the Senator has pronounced it
the noblest scheme ever devised by man; he says it is powerful but
harmless. I have no knowledge of any resulting benefits from the
scheme to either race. I have not a doubt as to the real object
intended by its founders; it did not arise from principles of humanity
and benevolence towards the colored race, but a desire to remove the
free of that race beyond the United States, in order to perpetuate and
make slavery more secure.

The Senator further makes the broad charge, that abolitionists wish to
_enforce_ the unnatural system of amalgamation. We deny the fact, and
call on the Senator for proof. The citizens of the free States, the
petitioners against slavery, the abolitionists of the free States in
favor of amalgamation! No, sir! If you want evidence of the fact, and
reasoning in support of amalgamation, you must look into the slave
States; it is there it spreads and flourishes from slave mothers, and
presents all possible colors and complexions, from the jet black
African to the scarcely to be distinguished white person. Does any one
need proof of this fact? let him take but a few turns through the
streets of your capital, and observe those whom he shall meet, and he
will be perfectly satisfied. Amalgamation, indeed! The charge is made
with a very bad grace on the present occasion. No, sir; it is not the
negro _woman_, it is the _slave_ and the contaminating influence of
slavery that is the mother of amalgamation. Does the gentleman want
facts on this subject? let him look at the colored race in the free
States; it is a rare occurrence there. A colony of blacks, some three
or four hundred, were settled, some fifteen or twenty years since, in
the county of Brown, a few miles distant from my former residence in
Ohio, and I was told by a person living near them, a country merchant
with whom they dealt, when conversing with him on this very subject,
he informed me he knew of but one instance of a mulatto child being
born amongst them for the last fifteen years; and I venture the
assertion, had this same colony been settled in a slave State, the
cases of a like kind would have been far more numerous. I repeat
again, in the words of Dr. Channing, it is a slave country that reeks
with licentiousness of this kind, and for proof I refer to the
opinions of Judge Harper, of North Carolina, in his defence of
southern slavery.

The Senator, as if fearing that he had made his charge too broad, and
might fail in proof to sustain it, seems to stop short, and make the
inquiry, where is the process of amalgamation to begin? He had heard
of no instance of the kind against abolitionists; they (the
abolitionists) would begin it with the laboring class; and if I
understand the Senator correctly, that abolitionism, by throwing
together the white and the black laborers, would naturally produce
this result. Sir, I regret, I deplore, that such a charge should be
made against the laboring class--that class which tills the ground;
and, in obedience to the decree of their Maker, eat their bread in
the sweat of their face--that class, as Mr. Jefferson says, if God has
a chosen people on earth, they are those who thus labor. This charge
is calculated for effect, to induce the laboring class to believe,
that if emancipation takes place, they will be, in the free States,
reduced to the same condition as the colored laborer. The reverse of
that is the truth of the case. It is the slaveholder NOW, he who looks
upon labor as only fit for a servile race, it is him and his kindred
spirits who live upon the labor of others, endeavoring to reduce the
white laborer to the condition of the slave. They do not yet claim him
as property, but they would exclude him from all participation in the
public affairs of the country. It is further said, that if the negroes
were free, the black would rival the white laborer in the free States.
I cannot believe it, while so many facts exist to prove the contrary.
Negroes, like the white race, but with stronger feelings, are attached
to the place of their birth, and the home of their youth; and the
climate of the South is congenial to their natures, more than that of
the North. If emancipation should take place at the South--and the
negro be freed from the fear of being made merchandize, they would
remove from the free States of the North and West, immediately return
to that country, because it is the home of their friends and fathers.
Already in Ohio, as far as my knowledge extends, has free white labor,
(emigrants,) from foreign countries, engrossed almost entirely all
situations in which male or female labor is found. But, sir, this plea
of necessity and convenience is the plea of tyrants. Has not the free
black person the same right to the use of his hands as the white
person: the same right to contract and labor for what price he
pleases? Would the gentleman extend the power of the government to the
regulation of the productive industry of the country? This was his
former theory, but put down effectually by the public voice. Taking
advantage of the prejudice against labor, the attempt is now being
made to begin this same system, by first operating on the poor black
laborer. For shame! let us cease from attempts of this kind.

The Senator informs us that the question was asked fifty years ago
that is now asked, Can the negro be continued forever in bondage? Yes;
and it will continue to be asked, in still louder and louder tones.
But, says the Senator, we are yet a prosperous and happy nation. Pray,
sir, in what part of your country do you find this prosperity and
happiness? In the slave States? No! no! There all is weakness gloom,
and despair; while, in the free States, all is light, business, and
activity. What has created the astonishing difference between the
gentleman's State and mine--between Kentucky and Ohio? Slavery, the
withering curse of slavery, is upon Kentucky, while Ohio is free.
Kentucky, the garden of the West, almost the land of promise,
possessing all the natural advantages, and more than is possessed by
Ohio, is vastly behind in population and wealth. Sir, I can see from
the windows of my upper chamber, in the city of Cincinnati, lands in
Kentucky, which, I am told, can be purchased from ten to fifty dollars
per acre; while lands of the same quality, under the same
improvements, and the same distance from me in Ohio, would probably
sell from one to five hundred dollars per acre. I was told by a
friend, a few days before I left home, who had formerly resided in the
county of Bourbon, Kentucky--a most excellent county of lands
adjoining, I believe, the county in which the Senator resides--that
the white population of that county was more than four hundred less
than it was five years since. Will the Senator contend, after a
knowledge of these facts, that slavery in this country has been the
cause of our prosperity and happiness? No, he cannot. It is because
slavery has been excluded and driven from a large proportion of our
country, that we are a prosperous and happy people. But its late
attempts to force its influence and power into the free States, and
deprive our citizens of their unquestionable rights, has been the
moving cause of all the riots, burnings, and murders that have taken
place on account of abolitionism; and it has, in some degree, even in
the free States, caused mourning, lamentation, and woe. Remove
slavery, and the country, the whole country, will recover its natural
vigor, and our peace and future prosperity will be placed on a more
extensive, safe, and sure foundation. It is a waste of time to answer
the allegations that the emancipation of the negro race would induce
them to make war on the white race. Every fact in the history of
emancipation proves the reverse; and he that will not believe those
facts, has darkened his own understanding, that the light of reason
can make no impression: he appeals to interest, not to truth, for
information on this subject. We do not fear his errors, while we are
left free to combat them. The Senator implores us to cease all
commotion on this subject. Are we to surrender all our rights and
privileges, all the official stations of the country, into the hands
of the slaveholding power, without a single struggle? Are we to cease
all exertions for our own safety, and submit in quiet to the rule of
this power? Is the calm of despotism to reign over this land, and the
voice of freemen to be no more heard! This sacrifice is required of
us, in order to sustain slavery. _Freemen_, will you make it? Will you
shut your ears and your sympathies, and withhold from the poor,
famished slave, a morsel of bread? Can you thus act, and expect the
blessings of heaven upon your country? I beseech you to consider for
yourselves.

Mr. President, I have been compelled to enter into this discussion
from the course pursued by the Senate on the resolutions I submitted a
few days since. The cry of abolitionist has been raised against me. If
those resolutions are abolitionism, then I am an abolitionist from the
sole of my feet to the crown of my head. If to maintain the rights of
the States, the security of the citizen from violence and outrage; if
to preserve the supremacy of the laws; if insisting on the right of
petition, a medium through which _every person_ subject to the laws
has an undoubted right to approach the constitutional authorities of
the country, be the doctrines of abolitionists, it finds a response in
every beating pulse in my veins. Neither power, nor favor, nor want,
nor misery, shall deter me from its support while the vital current
continues to flow.

Condemned at home for my opposition to slavery, alone and singlehanded
here, well may I feel tremor and emotion in bearding this lion of
slavery in his very _den_ and upon his own ground. I should shrink,
sir, at once, from this fearful and unequal contest, was I not
thoroughly convinced that I am sustained by the power of truth and the
best interests of the country.

I listened to the Senator of Kentucky with undivided attention. I was
disappointed, sadly disappointed. I had heard of the Senator's tact in
making compromises and agreements on this floor, and though opposed in
principle to all such proceedings, yet I hoped to hear something upon
which we could hang a hope that peace would be restored to the borders
of our own States, and all future aggression upon our citizens from
the free States be prevented. Now, sir, he offers us nothing but
unconditional submission to political death; and not political alone,
but absolute _death_. We have counted the cost in this matter, and are
determined to live or die free. Let the slaveholder hug his system to
his bosom in his own State, we will not go there to disturb him; but,
sir, within our own borders we claim to enjoy the same privileges.
Even, sir, here in this District, this ten miles square of common
property and common right, the slave power has the assurance to come
into this very Hall, and request that we--yes, Mr. President, that my
constituents--be denied the right of petition on the subject of
slavery in this District. This most extraordinary petition against the
right of others to petition on the same subject of theirs, is
graciously received and ordered to be printed; paeans sung to it by the
slave power, while the petitions I offer, from as honorable, free,
high-minded and patriotic American citizens as any in this District,
are spit upon, and turned out of doors as an _unclean thing_! Genius
of liberty! how long will you sleep under this iron power of
oppression? Not content with ruling over their own slaves, they claim
the power to instruct Congress on the question of receiving petitions;
and yet we are tauntingly and sneeringly told that we have nothing to
do with the existence of slavery in the country, a suggestion as
absurd as it is ridiculous. We are called upon to make laws in favor
of slavery in the District, but it is denied that we can make laws
against it; and at last the right of petition on the subject, by the
people of the free States, is complained of as an improper
interference. I leave it to the Senator to reconcile all these
difficulties, absurdities, claims and requests of the people of this
District, to the country at large; and I venture the opinion that he
will find as much difficulty in producing the belief that he is
correct now, that he has found in obtaining the same belief that he
was before correct in his views and political course on the subject of
banks, internal improvements, protective tariffs, &c., and the
regulation, by acts of Congress, of the productive industry of the
country, together with all the compromises and coalitions he has
entered into for the attainment of those objects. I rejoice, however,
that the Senator has made the display he has on this occasion. It is a
powerful shake to awaken the sleeping energies of liberty, and his
voice, like a trumpet, will call from their slumbers millions of
freemen to defend their rights; and the overthrow of his theory now,
is as sure and certain, by the force of public opinion, as was the
overthrow of all his former schemes, by the same mighty power.

I feel, Mr. President, as if I had wearied your patience, while I am
sure my own bodily powers admonish me to close; but I cannot do so
without again reminding my constituents of the greetings that have
taken place on the consummation and ratification of the treaty,
offensive and defensive, between the slaveholding and bank powers, in
order to carry on a war against the liberties of our country, and to
put down the present administration. Yes, there is no voice heard from
New England now. Boston and Faneuil Hall are silent as death. The free
day-laborer is, in prospect, reduced to the political, if not moral
condition of the slave; an ideal line is to divide them in their
labor; yes, the same principle is to govern on both sides. Even the
farmer, too, will soon be brought into the same fold. It will be again
said, with regard to the government of the country, "The farmer with
his huge paws upon the statute book, what can he do?" I have
endeavored to warn my fellow-citizens of the present and approaching
danger, but the dark cloud of slavery is before their eyes, and
prevents many of them from seeing the condition of things as they are.
That cloud, like the cloud of summer, will soon pass away, and its
thunders cease to be heard. Slavery will come to an end, and the
sunshine of prosperity warm, invigorate and bless our whole country.

I do not know, Mr. President, that my voice will ever again be heard
on this floor. I now willingly, yes, gladly, return to my
constituents, to the people of my own State. I have spent my life
amongst them, and the greater portion of it in their service, and they
have bestowed upon me their confidence in numerous instances. I feel
perfectly conscious that, in the discharge of every trust which they
have committed to me, I have, to the best of my abilities, acted
solely with a view to the general good, not suffering myself to be
influenced by any particular or private interest whatever; and I now
challenge those who think I have done otherwise, to lay their finger
upon any public act of mine, and prove to the country its injustice or
anti-republican tendency. That I have often erred in the selection of
means to accomplish important ends I have no doubt, but my belief in
the truth of the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence, the
political creed of President Jefferson, remains unshaken and
unsubdued. My greatest regret is that I have not been more zealous,
and done more for the cause of individual and political liberty than I
have done. I hope, on returning to my home and my friends, to join
them again in rekindling the beacon-fires of liberty upon every hill
in our State, until their broad glare shall enlighten every valley,
and the song of triumph will soon be heard, for the hearts of our
people are in the hands of a just and holy being, (who can not look
upon oppression but with abhorrence.) and he can turn them
whithersoever he will, as the rivers of water are turned. Though our
national sins are many and grievous, yet repentance, like that of
ancient Nineveh, may divert from us that impending danger which seems
to hang over our heads as by a single hair. That all may be safe, I
conclude that THE NEGRO WILL YET BE SET FREE.



THE

ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

No. 11.

       *     *     *     *     *

THE

CONSTITUTION


A PRO-SLAVERY COMPACT.


OR

SELECTIONS

FROM

THE MADISON PAPERS, &c.

       *     *     *     *     *

NEW YORK:

AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.

142 NASSAU STREET.


1844.



CONTENTS.


Introduction.
Debates in the Congress of the Confederation
Debates in the Federal Convention
List of Members of the Federal Convention
Speech of Luther Martin

  DEBATES IN STATE CONVENTIONS
Massachusetts
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Extracts from the Federalist
Debates in First Congress
Address of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society
Letter from Francis Jackson to Gov. Briggs
Extract from Mr. Webster's Speech
Extracts from J.Q. Adams's Address, November, 1844



INTRODUCTION.


Every one knows that the "Madison papers" contain a Report, from the
pen of James Madison, of the Debates in the Old Congress of the
Confederation and in the Convention which formed the Constitution of
the United States. We have extracted from them, in these pages, all
the Debates on those clauses of the Constitution which relate to
slavery. To these we have added all that is found, on the same topic,
in the Debates of the several State Conventions which ratified the
Constitution: together with so much of the Speech of Luther Martin
before the Legislature of Maryland, and of the Federalist, as relate
to our subject; with some extracts, also, from the Debates of the
first Federal Congress on Slavery. These are all printed without
alteration, except that, in some instances, we have inserted in
brackets, after the name of a speaker, the name of the State from
which he came. The notes and italics are those of the original, but
the editor has added one note on page 30th, which is marked as his,
and we have taken the liberty of printing in capitals one sentiment of
Rufus King's, and two of James Madison's--a distinction which the
importance of the statements seemed to demand--otherwise we have
reprinted exactly from the originals.

These extracts develope most clearly all the details of that
"compromise," which was made between freedom and slavery, in 1787;
granting to the slaveholder distinct privileges and protection for his
slave property, in return for certain commercial concessions on his
part toward the North. They prove also that the Nation at large were
fully aware of this bargain at the time, and entered into it willingly
and with open eyes.

We have added the late "Address of the American Anti-Slavery Society,"
and the letter of Francis Jackson to Governor Briggs, resigning his
commission of Justice of the Peace--as bold and honorable protests
against the guilt and infamy of this National bargain, and as proving
most clearly the duty of each individual to trample it under his feet.

The clauses of the Constitution to which we refer as of a pro-slavery
character are the following:--

Art. 1, Sect. 2. 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_.

Art. 1, Sect. 8. Congress shall have power . . . to suppress
insurrections.

Art. 1, Sect. 9. 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.

Art. 4. Sec. 2. 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.

Art. 4, Sect. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in
this Union a republican form of government; and shall protect each of
them against invasion; and, on application of the legislature, or of
the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) _against
domestic violence_.

The first of these clauses, relating to representation, confers on a
slaveholding community additional political power for every slave held
among them, and thus tempts them to continue to uphold the system: the
second and the last, relating to insurrection and domestic violence,
perfectly innocent in themselves--yet being made with the fact
directly in view that slavery exists among us, do deliberately pledge
the whole national force against the unhappy slave if he imitate our
fathers and resist oppression--thus making us partners in the guilt of
sustaining slavery: the third, relating to the slave trade, disgraces
the nation by a pledge not to abolish that traffic till after twenty
years, _without obliging Congress to do so even then_, and thus the
slave trade may be legalized to-morrow if Congress choose: the fourth
is a promise on the part of the whole Nation to return fugitive slaves
to their masters, a deed which God's law expressly condemns and which
every noble feeling of our nature repudiates with loathing and
contempt.

These are the articles of the "Compromise," so much talked of, between
the North and South.

We do not produce the extracts which make up these pages to show what
is the meaning of the clauses above cited. For no man or party, of any
authority in such matters, has ever pretended to doubt to what subject
they all relate. If indeed they were ambiguous in their terms, a
resort to the history of those times would set the matter at rest for
ever. A few persons, to be sure, of late years, to serve the purposes
of a party, have tried to prove that the Constitution makes no
compromise with slavery. Notwithstanding the clear light of
history;--the unanimous decision of all the courts in the land,
both State and Federal;--the action of Congress and the State
Legislature;--the constant practice of the Executive in all its
branches;--and the deliberate acquiescence of the whole people for
half a century, still they contend that the Nation does not know its
own meaning, and that the Constitution does not tolerate slavery!
Every candid mind however must acknowledge that the language of the
Constitution is clear and explicit.

Its terms are so broad, it is said, that they include many others
beside slaves, and hence it is wisely (!) inferred that they cannot
include the slaves themselves! Many persons beside slaves in this
country doubtless are "held to service and labor under the laws of the
States," but that does not at all show that slaves are not "held to
service;" many persons beside the slaves may take part "in
insurrections," but that does not prove that when the slaves rise, the
National government is not bound to put them down by force. Such a
thing has been heard of before as one description including a great
variety of persons,--and this is the case in the present instance.

But granting that the terms of the Constitution are ambiguous--that
they are susceptible of two meanings, if the unanimous, concurrent,
unbroken practice of every department of the Government, judicial,
legislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the whole people
for fifty years do not prove which is the true construction, then how
and where can such a question ever be settled? If the people and the
Courts of the land do not know what they themselves mean, who has
authority to settle their meaning for them?

If then the people and the Courts of a country are to be allowed to
determine what their own laws mean, it follows that at this time and
for the last half century, the Constitution of the United States, has
been, and still is, a pro-slavery instrument, and that any one who
swears to support it, swears to do pro-slavery acts, and violates his
duty both as a man and an abolitionist. What the Constitution may
become a century hence, we know not; we speak of it _as it is_, and
repudiate it _as it is_.

But the purpose, for which we have thrown these pages before the
community, is this. Some men, finding the nation unanimously deciding
that the Constitution tolerates slavery, have tried to prove that this
false construction, as they think it, has been foisted in upon the
instrument by the corrupting influence of slavery itself, tainting all
it touches. They assert that the known anti-slavery spirit of
revolutionary times never _could_ have consented to so infamous a
bargain as the Constitution is represented to be, and has in its
present hands become. Now these pages prove the melancholy fact that
willingly, with deliberate purpose, our fathers bartered honesty for
gain and became partners with tyrants that they might share in the
profits of their tyranny.

And in view of this fact, will it not require a very strong argument
to make any candid man believe, that the bargain which the fathers
tell us they meant to incorporate into the Constitution, and which the
sons have always thought they found there incorporated, does not exist
there after all? Forty of the shrewdest men and lawyers in the land
assemble to make a bargain, among other things, about slaves,--after
months of anxious deliberation they put it into writing and sign their
names to the instrument,--fifty years roll away, twenty millions at
least of their children pass over the stage of life,--courts sit and
pass judgment,--parties arise and struggle fiercely; still all concur
in finding in the Instrument just that meaning which the fathers tell
us they intended to express:--must not he be a desperate man, who,
after all this, sets out to prove that the fathers were bunglers and
the sons fools, and that slavery is not referred to at all?

Besides, the advocates of this new theory of the Anti-slavery
character of the Constitution, quote some portions of the Madison
Papers in support of their views,--and this makes it proper that the
community should hear all that these Debates have to say on the
subject. The further we explore them, the clearer becomes the fact
that the Constitution was meant to be, what it has always been
esteemed, a compromise between slavery and freedom.

If then the Constitution be, what these Debates show that our fathers
intended to make it, and what, too, their descendants, this nation,
say they did make it and agree to uphold,--then we affirm that it is a
"covenant with death and an agreement with hell," and ought to be
immediately annulled.

But if, on the contrary, our fathers failed in their purpose, and the
Constitution is all pure and untouched by slavery,--then, Union itself
is impossible, without guilt. For it is undeniable that the fifty
years passed under this (anti-slavery) Constitution, shew us the
slaves trebling in numbers;--slaveholders monopolizing the offices and
dictating the policy of the Government;--prostituting the strength and
influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and
elsewhere;--trampling on the rights of the free States and making the
courts of the country their tools. To continue this disastrous
alliance longer is madness. The trial of fifty years with the best of
men and the best of Constitutions, on this supposition, only proves
that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms,
without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the
sin of slavery. We dare not prolong the experiment, and with double
earnestness we repeat our demand upon every honest man to join in the
outcry of the American Anti-Slavery Society,

NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS.




THE CONSTITUTION

A PRO-SLAVERY COMPACT.

       *     *     *     *     *

_Extracts from Debates in the Congress of Confederation, preserved by
Thomas Jefferson, 1776_.

On Friday, the twelfth of July, 1776, the committee appointed to draw
the articles of Confederation reported them, and on the twenty-second,
the House resolved themselves into a committee to take them into
consideration. On the thirtieth and thirty-first of that month, and
the first of the ensuing, those articles were debated which determined
the proportion or quota of money which each State should furnish to
the common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress. The first
of these articles was expressed in the original draught in these
words:--

"Article 11. All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be
incurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and allowed by
the United States assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common
treasury, which shall be supplied by the several colonies in
proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex and quality,
except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony, a true account of
which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially
taken and transmitted to the assembly of the United States."

Mr. Chase (of Maryland) moved, that the quotas should be paid, not by
the number of inhabitants of every condition but by that of the "white
inhabitants." He admitted that taxation should be always in proportion
to property; that this was in theory the true rule, but that from a
variety of difficulties it was a rule which could never be adopted in
practice. The value of the property in every State could never be
estimated justly and equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the
State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would
be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably
good criterion of property, and that this might always be obtained. He
therefore thought it the best mode we could adopt, with one exception
only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be
distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States
where there are few slaves. That the surplus of profit which a
Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c.;
whereas, a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves. There
is no more reason therefore for taxing the Southern States on the
farmer's head and on his slave's head, than the Northern ones on their
farmer's heads and the heads of their cattle. That the method proposed
would therefore tax the Southern States according to their numbers and
their wealth conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers
only: that negroes in fact should not be considered as members of the
State, more than cattle, and that they have no more interest in it.

Mr. John Adams (of Massachusetts) observed, that the numbers of people
were taken by this article as an index of the wealth of the State, and
not as subjects of taxation. That as to this matter, it was of no
consequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of
freemen or of slaves. That in some countries the laboring poor were
called freemen, in others they were called slaves: but that the
difference as to the state was imaginary only. What matters it whether
a landlord employing ten laborers on his farm gives them annually as
much money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them
those necessaries at short hand? The ten laborers add as much wealth,
annually to the State, increase its exports as much, in the one case
as the other. Certainly five hundred freemen produce no more profits,
no greater surplus for the payment of taxes, than five hundred slaves.
Therefore the State in which are the laborers called freemen, should
be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves. Suppose,
by any extraordinary operation of nature or of law, one half the
laborers of a State could in the course of one night be transformed
into slaves,--would the State be made the poorer, or the less able to
pay taxes? That the condition of the laboring poor in most
countries,--that of the fishermen, particularly, of the Northern
States,--is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of laborers
which produces the surplus for taxation; and numbers, therefore,
indiscriminately, are the fair index of wealth. That it is the use of
the word "property" here, and its application to some of the people of
the State, which produces the fallacy. How does the Southern farmer
procure slaves? Either by importation or by purchase from his
neighbor. If he imports a slave, he adds one to the number of laborers
in his country, and proportionably to its profits and abilities to pay
taxes; if he buys from his neighbor, it is only a transfer of a
laborer from one firm to another, which does not change the annual
produce of the State, and therefore should not change its tax; that if
a Northern farmer works ten laborers on his farm, he can, it is true,
invest the surplus of ten men's labor in cattle; but so may the
Southern farmer working ten slaves. That a State of one hundred
thousand freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of one hundred
thousand slaves; therefore they have no more of that kind of property.
That a slave may, indeed, from the custom of speech, be more properly
called the wealth of his master, than the free laborer might be called
the wealth of his employer: but as to the State, both were equally its
wealth, and should therefore equally add to the quota of its tax.

Mr. Harrison (of Virginia) proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves
should be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do
as much work as freemen, and doubted if two affected more than one.
That this was proved by the price of labor, the hire of a laborer in
the Southern colonies being from £9 to £12, while in the Northern it
was generally £24.

Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) said, that if this amendment should take
place, the Southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves,
whilst the Northern ones would bear the burthen. That slaves increase
the profits of a State, which the Southern States mean to take to
themselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence, which
would of course fall so much the heavier on the Northern; that slaves
occupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your slaves,
and freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay every
discouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment would
give thee _jus trium liberorum_ to him who would import slaves. That
other kinds of property were pretty equally distributed through all
the colonies: there were as many cattle, horses, and sheep, in the
North as the South, and South as the North; but not so as to slaves:
that experience has shown that those colonies have been always able to
pay most, which have the most inhabitants, whether they be black or
white; and the practice of the Southern colonies has always been to
make every farmer pay poll taxes upon all his laborers, whether they
be black or white. He acknowledged indeed that freemen worked the
most; but they consume the most also. They do not produce a greater
surplus for taxation. The slave is neither fed nor clothed so
expensively as a freeman. Again, white women are exempted from labor
generally, which negro women are not. In this then the Southern States
have an advantage as the article now stands. It has sometimes been
said that slavery was necessary, because the commodities they raise
would be too dear for market if cultivated by freemen; but now it is
said that the labor of the slave is the dearest.

Mr. Payne (of Massachusetts) urged the original resolution of Congress,
to proportion the quotas of the States to the number of souls.

Mr. Witherspoon (of New-Jersey) was of opinion, that the value of
lands and houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and
that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true
barometer of wealth. The one now proposed is imperfect in itself, and
unequal between the States. It has been objected that negroes eat the
food of freemen, and therefore should be taxed. Horses also eat the
food of freemen; therefore they also should be taxed. It has been said
too, that in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes the State
is to pay, we do no more than those States themselves do, who always
take slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to pay.
But the cases are not parallel. In the Southern Colonies, slaves
pervade the whole colony; but they do not pervade the whole continent.
That as to the original resolution of Congress, it was temporary only,
and related to the moneys heretofore emitted: whereas we are now
entering into a new compact, and therefore stand on original ground.

AUGUST 1st. The question being put, the amendment proposed was
rejected by the votes of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island,
Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania, against those of
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North, and South Carolina. Georgia was
divided. _Vol. I. pp_. 27-8-9, 30-1-2.




_Extracts from Madison's Report of Debates in the Congress of the
Confederation._


TUESDAY, Feb. 11, 1783.

Mr. Wolcott declares his opinion that the Confederation ought to be
amended by substituting numbers of inhabitants as the rule; admits the
difference between freemen and blacks; and suggests a compromise, by
including in the numeration such blacks only as were within sixteen
and sixty years of age. _p_. 331.

TUESDAY, March 27, 1783.

The eleventh and twelfth paragraphs:

Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) was strenuous in their favor; said he was
in Congress when the Articles of Confederation directing a valuation
of land were agreed to; that it was the effect of the impossibility of
compromising the different ideas of the Eastern and Southern States,
as to the value of slaves compared with the whites, the alternative in
question.

Mr. Clark (of New Jersey) was in favor of them. He said that he was
also in Congress when this article was decided; that the Southern
States would have agreed to numbers in preference to the value of
land, if half their slaves only should be included; but that the
Eastern States would not concur in that proposition.

It was agreed, on all sides, that, instead of fixing the proportion by
ages, as the, report proposed, it would be best to fix the proportion
in absolute numbers. With this view, and that the blank might be
filled up, the clause was recommitted. _p._ 421-2.

FRIDAY, March 28, 1783.

The committee last mentioned, reported that two blacks be rated as one
freeman.

Mr. Wolcott (of Connecticut) was for rating them as four to three. Mr.
Carroll as four to one. Mr. Williamson (of North Carolina) said he was
principled against slavery; and that he thought slaves an incumbrance
to society, instead of increasing its ability to pay taxes. Mr.
Higginson (of Massachusetts) as four to three. Mr. Rutledge (of South
Carolina) said, for the sake of the object, he would agree to rate
slaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to one would he a
juster proportion. Mr. Holton as four to three.--Mr. Osgood said he
did not go beyond four to three. On a question for rating them as
three to two, the votes were. New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no;
Rhode Island, divided; Connecticut, aye; New Jersey, aye;
Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, aye; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; North
Carolina, no; South Carolina, no. The paragraph was then proposed, by
general consent, some wishing for further time to deliberate on it;
but it appearing to be the general opinion that no compromise would be
agreed to.

After some further discussions on the Report, in which the necessity
of some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came fully into
view, Mr. Madison (of Virginia) said that, in order to give a proof of
the sincerity of his professions of liberality, he would propose that
slaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. Rutledge (of South
Carolina) seconded the motion. Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) said he
would sacrifice his opinion on this compromise.

Mr. Lee was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion that
two slaves were not equal to one freeman.

On the question for five to three, it passed in the affirmative; New
Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no;
Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Maryland, aye;
Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye: South Carolina, aye.

A motion was then made by Mr. Bland, seconded by Mr. Lee, to strike
out the clause so amended, and, on the question "Shall it stand," it
passed in the negative; New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode
Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye;
Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South
Carolina, no; so the clause was struck out.

The arguments used by those who were for rating slaves high were, that
the expense of feeding and clothing them was as far below that
incident to freemen as their industry and ingenuity were below those
of freemen; and that the warm climate within which the States having
slaves lay, compared with the rigorous climate and inferior fertility
of the others, ought to have greater weight in the case; and that the
exports of the former States were greater than of the latter. On the
other side, it was said, that slaves were not put to labor as young as
the children of laboring families; that, having no interest in their
labor, they did as little as possible and omitted every exertion of
thought requisite to facilitate and expedite it: that if the exports
of the States having slaves exceeded those of the others, their
imports were in proportion, slaves being employed wholly in
agriculture, not in manufacturers; and that, in fact, the balance of
trade formerly was much more against the Southern States than the
others.

On the main question, New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode
Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York (Mr. Lloyd, aye); New Jersey,
aye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye;
South Carolina, no. _pp._ 423-4-5.

Tuesday, April 1, 1783.

Congress resumed the Report on Revenue, &c. Mr. Hamilton, who had been
absent when the last question was taken for substituting numbers in
place of the value of land, moved to reconsider that vote. He was
seconded by Mr. Osgood. Those who voted differently from their former
votes were influenced by the conviction of the necessity of the
change, and despair on both sides of a more favorable rate of the
slaves. The rate of three-fifths was agreed to without opposition.
_p_. 430.

Monday, May 26.

The Resolutions on the Journal, instructing the ministers in Europe to
remonstrate against the carrying off the negroes--also those for
furloughing the troops--passed _unanimously_. _p_. 456.

       *     *     *     *     *

_Extract from "Debates in the Federal Convention" of 1787, for the
formation of the Constitution of the United States_.

Monday, June 11, 1787.

It was then moved by Mr. Rutledge, seconded by Mr. Butler, to add to
the words, "equitable ratio of representation," at the end of the
motion just agreed to, the words, "according to the quotas of
contribution." On motion of Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Pinckney, this
was postponed, in order to add, after the words, "equitable rates of
representation," the words following: "In proportion to the whole
number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age,
sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of
years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the
foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each
State"--this being the rule in the act of Congress, agreed to by
eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and
requiring a census only every five, seven, or ten years.

Mr. Gerry (of Massachusetts) thought property not the rule of
representation. Why, then, should the blacks, who were property in the
South, be in the rule of representation more than, the cattle and
horses of the North?

On the question,--Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9;
New jersey, Delaware, no--2. _Vol. II. pp._ 842-3.

Saturday, June 30, 1787.

He (Mr. Madison) admitted that every peculiar interest, whether in any
class of citizens, or any description of states, ought to be secured
as far as possible. Wherever there is danger of attack, there ought to
be given a constitutional power of defence. But he contended that the
States were divided into different interests, not by their difference
of size, but by other circumstances; the most material of which
resulted partly from climate, but principally from the effects of
their having or not having slaves. These two causes concurred in
forming the great division of interests in the United States. It did
not lie between the large and small States. IT LAY BETWEEN THE
NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN; and if any defensive power were necessary, it
ought to be mutually given to these two interests. He was so strongly
impressed with this important truth, that he had been casting about in
his mind for some expedient that would answer the purpose. The one
which had occurred was, that instead of proportioning the votes of the
States in both branches to their respective numbers of inhabitants,
computing the slaves in the ratio of five to three, they should he
represented in one branch according to the number of free inhabitants
only; and in the other, according to the whole number, counting the
slaves us free. By this arrangement the Southern scale would have the
advantage in one House, and the Northern in the other. He had been
restrained from proposing this expedient by two considerations; one
was his unwillingness to urge any diversity of interests on an
occasion where it is but too apt to arise of itself; the other was,
the inequality of powers that must be vested in the two branches, and
which would destroy the equilibrium of interests. _pp._ 1006-7.

Monday, July 9, 1787.

Mr. Patterson considered the proposed estimate for the future
according to the combined rules of numbers and wealth, as too vague.
For this reason New Jersey was against it. He could regard negro
slaves in no light but as property. They are no free agents, have no
personal liberty, no faculty of acquiring property, but on the
contrary are themselves property, and like other property, entirely at
the will of the master. Has a man in Virginia a number of votes in
proportion to the number of his slaves? And if negroes are not
represented in the States to which they belong, why should they be
represented in the General Government. What is the true principle of
representation? It is an experiment by which an assembly of certain
individuals, chosen, by the people, is substituted in place of the
inconvenient meeting of the people themselves. If such a meeting of
the people was actually to take place, would the slaves vote? They
would not. Why then should they be represented? He was also against
such an indirect encouragement of the slave trade; observing that
Congress, in their act relating to the change of the eighth article of
Confederation, had been assigned to use the term "slaves," and had
substituted a description.

Mr. Madison reminded Mr. Patterson that his doctrine of
representation, which was in its principle the genuine one, must for
ever silence the pretensions of the small States to an equality of
votes with the large ones. They ought to vote in the same proportion
in which their citizens would do if the people of all the States were
collectively met. He suggested, as a proper ground of compromise, that
in the first branch the States should be represented according to
their number of free inhabitants; and in the second, which has for one
of its primary objects, the guardianship of property, according to the
whole number, including slaves.

Mr. Butler urged warmly the justice and necessity of regarding wealth
in the apportionment of representation.

Mr. King had always expected, that, as the Southern States are the
richest, they would not league themselves with the Northern, unless
some respect was paid to their superior wealth. If the latter expect
those preferential distinctions in commerce, and other advantages
which they will derive from the connexion, they must not expect to
receive them without allowing some advantages in return. Eleven out of
thirteen of the States had agreed to consider slaves in the
apportionment of taxation; and taxation and representation ought to go
together. _pp_. 1054-5-6.

Tuesday, July 10; 1787.

Mr. King remarked that the four Eastern States, having 800,000 souls,
have one-third fewer representatives than the four Southern States,
having not more than 700,000 souls, rating the blacks as five for
three. The Eastern people will advert to these circumstances, and be
dissatisfied. He believed them to be very desirous of uniting with
their Southern brethren, but did not think it prudent to rely so far
on that disposition, as to subject them to any gross inequality. He
was fully convinced that THE QUESTION CONCERNING A DIFFERENCE OF
INTERESTS DID NOT LIE WHERE IT HAD HITHERTO BEEN DISCUSSED, BETWEEN
THE GREAT AND SMALL STATES: BUT BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN. _p_.
1057.

Wednesday, July 11, 1787.

Mr. Butler and General Pinckney insisted that blacks be included in
rule of representation _equally_ with the whites; and for that purpose
moved that the words "three-fifths" be struck out.

Mr. Gerry thought that three fifths of them was, to say the least, the
full proportion that could be admitted.

Mr. Gorham. This ratio was fixed by Congress as a rule of taxation.
Then, it was urged, by the delegates representing the States having
slaves, that the blacks were still more inferior to freemen. At
present, when the ratio of representation is to be established, we are
assured that they are equal to freemen. The arguments on the former
occasion had convinced them that three fifths was pretty near the just
proportion, he should vote according to the same opinion now.

Mr. Butler insisted that the labor of a slave in South Carolina was as
productive and valuable as that of a freeman in Massachusetts; that as
wealth was the greatest means of defence and utility to the nation,
they were equally valuable to it with freemen; and that consequently
an equal representation ought to be allowed for them in a government
which was instituted principally, for the protection of property, and
was itself to be supported by property.

Mr. Mason could not agree to the motion, notwithstanding it was
favorable to Virginia, because he thought it unjust. It was certain
that the slaves were valuable, as they raised the value of land,
increased the exports and imports, and of course the revenue, would
supply the means of feeding and supporting an army, and might in cases
of emergency become themselves soldiers. As in these important
respects they were useful to the community at large, they ought not to
be excluded from the estimate of representation. He could not,
however, regard them as equal to freemen, and could not vote for them
as such. He added, as worthy of remark, that the Southern States have
this peculiar species of property, over and above the other species of
property common to all the States.

Mr. Williamson reminded Mr. Gorham, that if the Southern States
contended for the inferiority of blacks to whites, when taxation was
in view, the Eastern States, on the same occasion, contended for their
equality. He did not, however, either then or now, concur in either
extreme, but approved of the ratio of three-fifths.

On Mr. Butler's motion, for considering blacks as equal to whites in
the apportionment of representation,--Delaware, South Carolina,
Georgia, aye--3; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, no--7. New York not on the floor.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris said he had several objections to the
proposition of Mr. Williamson. In the first place it fettered the
Legislature too much. In the second place, it would exclude some
States altogether who would not have a sufficient number to entitle
them to a single representation. In the third place, it will not
consist with the resolution passed on Saturday last, authorizing the
Legislature to adjust the representation, from time to time on the
principles of population and wealth; nor with the principles of
equity. If slaves were to be considered as inhabitants, not as wealth,
then the said resolution would not be pursued; if as wealth, then why
is no other wealth but slaves included? These objections may perhaps
be removed by amendments.... Another objection with him, against
admitting the blacks into the census, was, that the people of
Pennsylvania would revolt at the idea of being put on a footing with
slaves. They would reject any plan that was to have such an effect.
pp. 1067-8-9 & 1072.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1787.

The next clause as to three-fifths of the negroes being considered:

Mr. King, being much opposed to fixing numbers as the rule of
representation, was particularly so on account of the blacks. He
thought the admission of them along with whites at all, would excite
great discontents among the States having no slaves. He had never
said, as to any particular point, that he would in no event acquiesce
in and support it; but he would say that if in any case such a
declaration was to be made by him, it would be in this.

He remarked that in the temporary allotment of representatives made by
the Committee, the Southern States had received more than the number
of their white and three-fifths of their black inhabitants entitled
them to.

Mr. Sherman. South Carolina had not more beyond her proportion than
New York and New Hampshire; nor either of them more than was necessary
in order to avoid fractions, or reducing them below their proportion.
Georgia had more; but the rapid growth of that State seemed to justify
it. In general the allotment might not be just, but considering all
circumstances he was satisfied with it.

Mr. Gorham was aware that there might be some weight in what had
fallen from his colleague, as to the umbrage which might be taken by
the people of the Eastern States. But he recollected that when the
proposition of Congress for changing the eighth Article of the
Confederation was before the Legislature of Massachusetts, the only
difficulty then was, to satisfy them that the negroes ought not to
have been counted equally with the whites, instead of being counted in
the ratio of three-fifths only.[1]

[Footnote 1: They were then to have been a rule of taxation only.]


Mr. Wilson did not well see, on what principle the admission of blacks
in the proportion of three fifths could be explained. Are they
admitted as citizens--then why are they not admitted on an equality
with white citizens? Are they admitted as property--then why is not
other property admitted into the computation? These were difficulties,
however, which he thought must be overruled by the necessity of
compromise. He had some apprehensions also, from the tendency of the
blending of the blacks with the whites, to give disgust to the people
of Pennsylvania, as had been intimated by his colleague (Mr.
Gouverneur Morris.)

Mr. Gouvemeur Morris was compelled to declare himself reduced to the
dilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States, or to human nature;
and he must therefore do it to the former. For he could never agree to
give such encouragement to the slave trade, as would be given by
allowing them a representation for their negroes; and he did not
believe those States would ever confederate on terms that would
deprive them of that trade.

On the question for agreeing to include three-fifths of the
blacks,--Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina. Georgia, aye--4;
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,[2] South
Carolina, no--6. pp. 1076-7-8.

[Footnote 2: Mr. Carroll said, in explanation of the vote of Maryland,
that he wished the _phraseology_ to be altered as to obviate, if
possible, the danger which had been expressed of giving umbrage to the
Eastern and Middle States.]


THURSDAY, July 12, 1787.

Mr. Butler contended that representation should be according to the
full number of inhabitants, including all the blacks.

General Pinckney was alarmed at what was said yesterday, [by
Gouverneur Morris,] concerning the negroes. He was now again alarmed
at what had been thrown out concerning the taxing of exports. South
Carolina has in one year exported to the amount of 600,000£. sterling,
all which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. Will she be
represented in proportion to this amount? She will not. Neither ought
she then be subject to a tax on it. He hoped a clause would be
inserted in the system, restraining the Legislature from taxing
exports.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris having so varied his motion by inserting the
word "direct," it passed, _nem. con._, as follows: "provided always
that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation."

Mr. Davie said it was high time now to speak out. He saw that it was
meant by some gentlemen to deprive the Southern States of any share of
representation for their blacks. He was sure that North Carolina would
never confederate on any terms that did not rate them at least as
three-fifths. If the Eastern States meant, therefore, to exclude them
altogether, the business was at an end.

Dr. Johnson thought that wealth and population were the true,
equitable rules of representation; but he conceived that these two
principles resolved themselves into one, population being the best
measure of wealth. He concluded, therefore, that the number of people
ought to be established as the rule, and that all descriptions,
including blacks _equally_ with the whites, ought to fall within the
computation. As various opinions had been expressed on the subject, he
would move that a committee might be appointed to take them into
consideration, and report them.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris. It had been said that it is high time to speak
out. As one member, he would candidly do so. He came here to form a
compact for the good of America. He was ready to do so with all the
States. He hoped, and believed, that all would enter into such
compact. If they would not, he was ready to join with any States that
would. But as the compact was to be voluntary, it is in vain for the
Eastern States to insist on what the Southern States will never agree
to. It is equally vain for the latter to require, what the other
States can never admit; and he verily believed the people of
Pennsylvania will never agree to a representation of negroes. What can
be desired by these States more then has been already proposed--that
the legislature shall from time to time regulate representation
according to population and wealth?

General Pinckney desired that the rule of wealth should be
ascertained, and not left to the pleasure of the legislature; and that
property in slaves should not be exposed to danger, under a government
instituted for the protection of property.

The first clause in the Report of the first Grand Committee was
postponed.

Mr. Ellsworth, in order to carry into effect the principle
established, moved to add to the last clause adopted by the House, the
words following, "and that the rule of contribution for direct
taxation, for the support of the government of the United States,
shall be the number of white inhabitants, and three-fifths of every
other description in the several States, until some other use rule
that shall more accurately ascertain the wealth of the several States,
can be devised and adopted by the Legislature."

Mr. Butler seconded the motion, in order that it might be committed.

Mr. Randolph was not satisfied with the motion. The danger will be
revived, that the ingenuity of the Legislature may evade or pervert
the rule, so as to perpetuate the power where it shall be lodged in
the first instance. He proposed, in lieu of Mr. Ellsworth's motion,
"that in order to ascertain the alterations in representation that may
be required, from time to time, by changes in the relative
circumstances of the States, a census shall be taken within two years
from the first meeting of the General Legislature of the United
States, and once within the term of every ---- years afterwards, of
all the inhabitants, in the manner and according to the ratio
recommended by Congress in their Resolution of the eighteenth day of
April, 1783, (rating the blacks at three-fifths of their number;) and
that the Legislature of the United States shall arrange the
representation accordingly." He urged strenuously that express
security ought to be provided for including slaves in the ratio of
representation. He lamented that such a species of property existed.
But as it did exist, the holders of it would require this security. It
was perceived that the design was entertained by some of excluding
slaves altogether; the Legislature therefore ought not to be left at
liberty.

Mr. Ellsworth withdraws his motion, and seconds that of Mr. Randolph.

Mr. Wilson observed, that less umbrage would perhaps be taken against
an admission of the slaves into the rule of representation, if it
should be so expressed as to make them indirectly only an ingredient
in the rule, by saying that they should enter into the rule of
taxation; and as representation was to be according to taxation, the
end would be equally attained.

Mr. Pinckney moved to amend Mr. Randolph's motion, so as to make
"blacks equal to the whites in the ratio of representation." This, he
urged, was nothing more than justice. The blacks are the laborers, the
peasants, of the Southern States. They are as productive of pecuniary
resources as those of the northern states. They add equally to the
wealth, and, considering money as the sinew of war, to the strength,
of the nation. It will also be politic with regard to the Northern
States, as taxation is to keep pace with representation.

On Mr. Pinckney's (of S. Carolina) motion, for rating blacks as equal
to whites, instead of as three-fifths,--South Carolina, Georgia, aye
--2; Massachusetts, Connecticut (Doctor Johnson, aye), New Jersey,
Pennsylvania (three against two), Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, no--8.

Mr. Randolph's (of Virginia) proposition, as varied by Mr. Wilson (of
Pennsylvania) being read for taking the question on the whole,--

Mr. Gerry (of Massachusetts) urged that the principle of it could not
be carried into execution, as the States were not to be taxed as
States. With regard to taxes on imposts, he conceived they would be
more productive when there were no slaves, than where there were; the
consumption being greater.

Mr. Ellsworth (of Connecticut.)  In the case of a poll-tax there would
be no difficulty. But there would probably be none. The sum allotted
to a State may be levied without difficulty, according to the plan
used by the State in raising its own supplies.

On the question on the whole proposition, as proportioning
representation to direct taxation, and both to the white and
three-fifths of the black inhabitants, and requiring a census within
six years, and within every ten years afterwards,--Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye--6;
New-Jersey, Delaware, no--2; Massachusetts, South Carolina, divided.
_pp._ 1079 to 1087.

Friday, July 13, 1787.

On the motion of Mr. Randolph (of Virginia), the vote of Monday last,
authorizing the Legislature to adjust, from time to time, the
representation upon the principles of _wealth_ and numbers of
inhabitants, was reconsidered by common consent, in order to strike
out _wealth_ and adjust the resolution to that requiring periodical
revisions according to the number of whites and three-fifths of the
blacks.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris (of Pennsylvania) opposed the alteration, as
leaving still an incoherence. If negroes were to be viewed as
inhabitants, and the revision was to proceed on the principle of
numbers of inhabitants, they ought to be added in their entire number,
and not in the proportion of three-fifths. If as property, the word
wealth was right; and striking it out would produce the very
inconsistency which it was meant to get rid of. The train of
business, and the late turn which it had taken, had led him, he said,
into deep meditation on it, and he would candidly state the result. A
distinction has been set up, and urged, between the Northern and
Southern States. He had hitherto considered this doctrine as
heretical. He still thought the distinction groundless. He sees,
however, that it is persisted in; and the Southern gentlemen will not
be satisfied unless they see the way open to their gaining a majority
in the public councils. The consequence of such a transfer of power
from the maritime to the interior and landed interest, will, he
foresees, be such an oppression to commerce, that he shall be obliged
to vote for the vicious principle of equality in the second branch, in
order to provide some defence for the Northern States against it. But
to come more to the point, either this distinction is fictitious or
real; if fictitious, let it be dismissed, and let us proceed with due
confidence. If it be real, instead of attempting to blend
incompatible things, let us at once take a friendly leave of each
other. There can be no end of demands for security, if every
particular interest is to be entitled to it. The Eastern States may
claim it for their fishery, and for other objects, as the Southern
States claim it for their peculiar objects. In this struggle between
the two ends of the Union, what part ought the Middle States, in point
of policy, to take?  To join their Eastern brethren, according to his
ideas. If the Southern States get the power into their hands, and be
joined, as they will be, with the interior country, they will
inevitably bring on a war with Spain for the Mississippi. This
language is already held. The interior country, leaving no property
nor interest exposed to the sea, will be little affected by such a
war. He wished to know what security the Northern and Middle States
will have against this danger. It has been said that North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia only, will in a little time have a
majority of the people of America. They must in that case include the
great interior country, and every thing was to be apprehended from
their getting the power into their hands.

Mr. Butler (of South Carolina). The security the Southern States want
is, that their negroes may not be taken from them, which some
gentlemen within or without doors have a very good mind to do. It was
not supposed that North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, would
have more people than all the other States, but many more relatively
to the other States, than they now have. The people and strength of
America are evidently bearing southwardly, and southwestwardly.

On the question to strike out _wealth_, and to make the change as
moved by Mr. Randoph (of Virginia), it passed in the affirmative,--
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9; Delaware,
divided. _pp_. 1090-1-2-3-4.

SATURDAY, July 14, 1787.

Mr. Madison (of Virginia). it seemed now pretty well understood, that
the real difference of interests lay, not between the large and small,
but between the Northern and Southern States. THE INSTITUTION OF
SLAVERY, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES, FORMED THE LINE OF DISCRIMINATION. _p_.
1104.

MONDAY, July 23, 1787.

General Pinckney reminded the Convention, that if the Committee should
fail to insert some security to the Southern States against an
emancipation of slaves, and taxes on exports, he should be bound by
duty to his State to vote against their report. _p_. 1187.

TUESDAY, July 24, 1787.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris hoped the Committee would strike out the whole
of the clause proportioning direct taxation to representation. He had
only meant it as a bridge[3] to assist us over a certain gulf; having
passed the gulf, the bridge may be removed. He thought the principle
laid down with so much strictness liable to strong objections. _p_.
1197.

[Footnote 3: The object was to lessen the eagerness, on one side, for,
and the opposition, on the other, to the share of representation
claimed by the Southern States on account of the negroes.]


WEDNESDAY, August 8, 1787.

Mr. King wished to know what influence the vote just passed was meant
to have on the succeeding part of the Report, concerning the admission
of slaves into the rule of representation. He could not reconcile his
mind to the Article, if it was to prevent objections to the latter
part. The admission of slaves was a most grating circumstance to his
mind, and he believed would be so to a great part of the people of
America. He had not made a strenuous opposition to it heretofore,
because he had hope that this concession would have produced a
readiness, which had not been manifested, to strengthen the General
Government, and to mark a full confidence in it. The Report under
consideration had, by the tenor of it, put an end to all those hopes.
In two great points the hands of the Legislature were absolutely tied.
The importation of slaves could not be prohibited. Exports could not
be taxed. Is this reasonable? What are the great objects of the
general system? First, defence against foreign invasion; secondly,
against internal sedition. Shall all the States, then, be bound to
defend each, and shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness
which will render defence more difficult? Shall one part of the United
States be bound to defend another part, and that other part be at
liberty, not only to increase its own danger, but to withhold the
compensation for the burden? If slaves are to be imported, shall not
the exports produced by their labor supply a revenue the better to
enable the General Government to defend their masters? There was so
much inequality and unreasonableness in all this, that the people of
the Northern States could never be reconciled to it. No candid man
could undertake to justify it to them. He had hoped that some
accommodation would have taken place on this subject; that at least a
time would have been limited for the importation of slaves. He never
could agree to let them be imported without limitation, and then be
represented in the National Legislature. Indeed, he could so little
persuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice, that he was not
sure he could assent to it under any circumstances. At all events,
either slaves should not be represented, or exports should be taxable.

Mr. Sherman regarded the slave trade as iniquitous; but the point of
representation having been settled after much difficulty and
deliberation, he did not think himself bound to make opposition;
especially as the present Article, as amended, did not preclude any
arrangement whatever on that point, in another place of the report.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris moved to insert "free" before the word
"inhabitants." Much, he said, would depend on this point. He never
would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious
institution. It was the curse of Heaven on the States where it
prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich
and noble cultivation marks the prosperity and happiness of the
people, with the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes
of Virginia, Maryland, and the other States having slaves. Travel
through the whole continent, and you behold the prospect continually
varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery. The moment
you leave the Eastern States, and enter New-York, the effects of the
institution become visible. Passing through the Jerseys and entering
Pennsylvania, every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the
change. Proceed southwardly, and every step you take, through the
great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with the
increasing proportion of these wretched beings. Upon what principle is
it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they
men? Then make them citizens, and let them vote. Are they property?
Why, then is no other property included? The houses in this city
(Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover
the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the
representation, when fairly explained, comes to this, that the
inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina, who goes to the coast of
Africa, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears
away his fellow-creatures from their dearest connections, and damns
them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes in a government
instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizen
of Pennsylvania or New-Jersey, who views with a laudable horror so
nefarious a practice. He would add, that domestic slavery is the most
prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed
Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite
offspring of aristocracy. And what is the proposed compensation to the
Northern States, for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every
impulse of humanity? They are to bind themselves to march their
militia for the defence of the Southern States, for their defence
against those very slaves of whom they complain. They must supply
vessels and seamen, in case of foreign attack. The Legislature will
have indefinite power to tax them by excises, and duties on imports;
both of which will fall heavier on them than on the Southern
inhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a Northern freeman will pay
more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which
consists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag
that covers his nakedness. On the other side, the Southern States are
not to be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched
Africans, at once to increase the danger of attack, and the difficulty
of defence; nay, they are to be encouraged to it, by an assurance of
having their votes in the National Government increased in proportion;
and are, at the same time, to have their exports and their slaves
exempt from all contributions for the public service. Let it not be
said, that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation.
It is idle to suppose that the General Government can stretch its hand
directly into the pockets of the people, scattered over so vast a
country. They can only do it through the medium of exports, imports
and excises. For what, then, are all the sacrifices to be made? He
would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the negroes in
the United States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.

Mr. Dayton seconded the motion. He did it, he said, that his
sentiments on the subject might appear, whatever might be the fate of
the amendment.

Mr. Sherman did not regard the admission of the negroes into the ratio
of representation, as liable to such insuperable objections. It was
the freemen of the Southern States who were, in fact, to be
represented according to the taxes paid by them, and the negroes are
only included in the estimate of the taxes. This was his idea of the
matter.

Mr. Pinckney considered the fisheries, and the western frontier, as
more burthensome to the United States than the slaves. He thought this
could be demonstrated, if the occasion were a proper one.

Mr. Wilson thought the motion premature. An agreement to the clause
would be no bar to the object of it.

On the question, on the motion to insert "free" before "inhabitants,"
New-Jersey, aye--1; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, no--10. pp. 1261-2-3-4-5-6.


TUESDAY, August 21, 1787.

Mr. L. Martin proposed to vary Article 7, Section 4, so as to allow a
prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. In the first place,
as five slaves are to be counted as three freemen, in the
apportionment of Representatives, such a clause would leave an
encouragement to this traffic. In the second place, slaves weakened
one part of the Union, which the other parts were bound to protect;
the privilege of importing them was therefore unreasonable. And in the
third place, it was inconsistent with the principles of the
Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a
feature in the Constitution.

Mr. Rutledge did not see how the importation of slaves could be
encouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections,
and would readily exempt the other states from the obligation to
protect the Southern against them. Religion and humanity had nothing
to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle
with nations. The true question at present is, whether the Southern
States shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern
States consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of
slaves, which will increase the commodities of which they will become
the carriers.

Mr. Ellsworth was for leaving the clause as it stands. Let every State
import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery are
considerations belonging to the States themselves. What enriches a
part enriches the whole, and the States are the best judges of their
particular interest. The Old Confederation had not meddled with this
point; and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within
the policy of the new one.

Mr. Pinckney. South Carolina can never receive the plan if it
prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers
of Congress, that State has expressly and watchfully excepted that of
meddling with the importation of negroes. If the States be all left at
liberty on this subject, South Carolina may perhaps, by degrees, do of
herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland already have done.
Adjourned. _pp_. 1388-9.


WEDNESDAY, August 22, 1787.

Article 7, Section 4, was resumed.

Mr. Sherman was for leaving the clause as it stands. He disapproved of
the slave trade; yet as the States were now possessed of the right to
import slaves, as the public good did not require it to be taken from
them, and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to
the proposed scheme of government, he thought it best to leave the
matter as we find it. He observed that the abolition of slavery seemed
to be going on in the United States, and that the good sense of the
several States would probably by degrees complete it. He urged on the
Convention the necessity of despatching its business.

Col. Mason. This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British
merchants. The British Government constantly checked the attempts of
Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the
importing States alone, but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves
was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they
might have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous
instruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it
did by the tories. He mentioned the dangerous insurrections of the
slaves in Greece and Sicily; and the instructions given by Cromwell to
the commissioners sent to Virginia, to arm the servants and slaves, in
case other means of obtaining its submission should fail. Maryland and
Virginia he said had already prohibited the importation of slaves
expressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this
would be in vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to
import. The Western people are already calling out for slaves for
their new lands; and will fill that country with slaves, if they can
be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts
and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves.
They prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and
strengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on
manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the
judgment of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or
punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable
chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by
national calamities. He lamented that some of our Eastern brethren
had, from a lust of gain, embarked in the nefarious traffic. As to the
States being in possession of the right to import, this was the case
with many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it
essential in every point of view, that the General Government should
have power to prevent the increase of slavery.

Mr. Ellsworth, as he had never owned a slave, could not judge of the
effects of slavery on character. He said, however, that if it was to
be considered in a moral light, we ought to go further and free those
already in the country. As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia
and Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them, whilst in
the sickly rice swamps foreign supplies are necessary, if we go no
further than is urged, we shall be unjust towards South Carolina and
Georgia. Let us not intermeddle. As population increases, poor
laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery, in
time, will not be a speck in our country. Provision is already made in
Connecticut for abolishing it. And the abolition has already taken
place in Massachusetts. As to the danger of insurrections from foreign
influence, that will become a motive to kind treatment of the slaves.

Mr. Pinckney. If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the example of
all the world. He cited the case of Greece, Rome and other ancient
States; the sanction given by France, England, Holland and other
modern States. In all ages, one half of mankind have been slaves. If
the Southern States were let alone, they will probably of themselves
stop importations. He would himself, as a citizen of South Carolina,
vote for it. An attempt to take away the right, as proposed, will
produce serious objections to the Constitution, which he wished to see
adopted.

Gen. Pinckney declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself and
all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution and use their
personal influence, it would be of no avail towards obtaining the
assent of their constituents. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do
without slaves. As to Virginia, she will gain by stopping the
importations. Her slaves will rise in value, and she has more than she
wants. It would be unequal, to require South Carolina and Georgia, to
confederate on such unequal terms. He said the Royal assent, before
the Revolution, had never been refused to South Carolina, as to
Virginia. He contended that the importation of slaves would be for the
interest of the whole Union. The more slaves, the more produce to
employ the carrying trade; the more consumption also; and the more of
this, the more revenue for the common treasury. He admitted it to be
reasonable that slaves should be dutied like other imports; but should
consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South Carolina
from the Union.

Mr. Baldwin had conceived national objects alone to be before the
Convention; not such as, like the present, were of a local nature.
Georgia was decided on this point. That State has always hitherto
supposed a General Government to be the pursuit of the central States,
who wished to have a vortex for every thing; that her distance would
preclude her, from equal advantage; and that she could not prudently
purchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might be
understood, in what light she would view an attempt to abridge one of
her favorite prerogatives. If left to herself, she may probably put a
stop to the evil. As one ground for this conjecture, he took notice of
the sect of ----; which he said was a respectable class of people,
who carried their ethics beyond the mere _equality of men_, extending
their humanity to the claims of the whole animal creation.

Mr. Wilson observed that if South Carolina and Georgia were themselves
disposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time, as
had been suggested, they would never refuse to unite because the
importation might be prohibited. As the section now stands, all
articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is in
fact a bounty on that article.

Mr. Gerry thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States
as to slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it.

Mr. Dickinson considered it as inadmissible, on every principle of
honor and safety, that the importation of slaves should be authorized
to the States by the Constitution. The true question was, whether the
national happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation;
and this question ought to be left to the National Government, not to
the States particularly interested. If England and France permit
slavery, slaves are, at the same time, excluded from both those
kingdoms. Greece and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves. He could
not believe that the Southern States would refuse to confederate on
the account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely to be
immediately exercised by the General Government.

Mr. Williamson stated the law of North Carolina on the subject, to
wit, that it did not directly prohibit the importation of slaves. It
imposed a duty of £5 on each slave imported from Africa; £10 on each
from elsewhere; and £50 on each from a State licensing manumission. He
thought the Southern States could not be members of the Union, if the
clause should be rejected; and that it was wrong to force any thing
down not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to.

Mr. King thought the subject should be considered in a political light
only. If two states will not agree to the Constitution, as stated on
one side, he could affirm with equal belief, on the other, that great
and equal opposition would be experienced from the other States. He
remarked on the exemption of slaves from duty, whilst every other
import was subjected to it, as an inequality that could not fail to
strike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and Middle States.

Mr. Langdon was strenuous for giving the power to the General
Government. He could not, with a good conscience, have it with the
States, who could then go on with the traffic, without being
restrained by the opinions here given, that they will themselves cease
to import slaves.

Gen. Pinckney thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did
not think South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves, in any
short time; but only stop them occasionally as she now does. He moved
to commit the clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax
with other imports; which he thought right, and which would remove one
difficulty that had been started.

Mr. Rutledge. If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia, will ever agree to the plan, unless their right
to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of
those States will never be such fools, as to give up so important an
interest. He was strenuous against striking out the section, and
seconded the motion of Gen. Pinckney for a commitment.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris wished the whole subject to be committed
including the clauses relating to taxes on exports and to a navigation
act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern and Southern
States.

Mr. Butler declared that he never would agree to the power of taxing
exports.

Mr. Sherman said it was better to let the Southern States import
slaves, than to part with them, if they made that a _sine qua non_. He
was opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse,
because it implied they were _property_. He acknowledged that if the
power of prohibiting the importation should be given to the General
Government, that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its
duty to exercise the power.

Mr. Read was for the commitment, provided the clause concerning taxes
on experts should also be committed.

Mr. Sherman observed that that clause had been agreed to, and
therefore could not be committed.

Mr. Randolph was for committing, in order that some middle ground
might, if possible, be found. He could never agree to the clause as it
stands. He would sooner risk the Constitution. He dwelt on the dilemma
to which the Convention was exposed. By agreeing to the clause, it
would revolt the Quakers, the Methodists, and many others in the
States having no slaves. On the other hand, two States might be lost
to the Union. Let us then, he said, try the chance of a commitment.

On the question for committing the remaining part of Sections 4 and 5,
of Article 7,--Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--7; New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, no--3; Massachusetts absent. p. 1390-97.
Friday, August 24, 1787.

_In Convention_,--Governor Livingston, from the committee of eleven,
to whom were referred the two remaining clauses of the fourth section,
and the fifth and sixth sections, of the seventh Article, delivered in
the following Report:

"Strike out so much of the fourth section as was referred to the
Committee, and insert, 'The migration or importation of such persons
as the several States, now existing, shall think proper to admit,
shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1800; but
a tax or duty may be imposed on such migration or importation, at a
rate not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports.'

"The fifth Section to remain as in the Report.

"The sixth Section[4] to be stricken out." p. 1415.

[Footnote 4: This sixth Section was, "No Navigation act shall be passed
without the assent of two-thirds of the members present in each
House."--EDITOR.]


Saturday, August 25, 1787.

The Report of the Committee of eleven (see Friday, the twenty-fourth)
being taken up,--

Gen. Pinckney moved to strike out the words, "the year eighteen
hundred," as the year limiting the importation of slaves; and to
insert the words, "the year eighteen hundred and eight."

Mr. Gorham seconded the motion.

Mr. Madison. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be
apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be
more dishonorable to the American character, than to say nothing about
it in the Constitution.

On the motion, which passed in the affirmative,--New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, aye--7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no--4.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris was for making the clause read at once, "the
importation of slaves in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia,
shall not be prohibited, &c." This he said, would be most fair, and
would avoid the ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to
naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated.
He wished it to be known, also, that this part of the Constitution was
a compliance with those States. If the change of language, however,
should be objected to, by the members from those States, he should not
urge it.

Col. Mason was not against using the term "slaves," but against naming
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, lest it should give
offence to the people of those States.

Mr. Sherman liked a description better than the terms proposed, which
had been declined by the old Congress, and were not pleasing to some
people.

M. Clymer concurred with Mr. Sherman.

Mr. Williamson said, that both in opinion and practice he was against
slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all
circumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia on those terms,
than to exclude them from the Union.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris withdrew his motion.

Mr. Dickinson wished the clause to be confined to the States which had
not themselves prohibited the importation of slaves; and for that
purpose moved to amend the clause, so as to read: "The importation of
slaves into such of the States as shall permit the same, shall not be
prohibited by the Legislature of the United States, until the year
1808;" which was disagreed to, _nem. con._[5]

[Footnote 5: In the printed Journals, Connecticut, Virginia, and
Georgia, voted in the affirmative.]


The first part of the Report was then agreed to, amended as follows:
"The migration or importation of such persons as the several States
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
the Legislature prior to the year 1808,"--

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, aye--7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Virginia, no--4.

Mr. Baldwin, in order to restrain and more explicitly define, "the
average duty," moved to strike out of the second part the words,
"average of the duties and on imports," and insert "common impost on
articles not enumerated;" which was agreed to, _nem. con._

Mr. Sherman was against this second part, as acknowledging men to be
property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.

Mr. King and Mr. Langdon considered this as the price of the first
part.

Gen. Pinckney admitted that it was so.

Col. Mason. Not to tax, will be equivalent to a bounty on, the
importation of slaves.

Mr. Gorham thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, not as
implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the
importation of them.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris remarked, that, as the clause now stands, it
implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.

Mr. Sherman, in answer to Mr. Gorham, observed, that the smallness of
the duty showed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of
the importation.

Mr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea
that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not
hold, as slaves are not, like merchandise, consumed, &c.

Col. Mason, in answer to Mr. Gouverneur Morris. The provision as it
stands, was necessary for the case of convicts; in order to prevent
the introduction of them.

It was finally agreed, _nem. con_., to make the clause read: "but a
tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten
dollars for each person;" and then the second part, as amended, was
agreed to. _pp_. 1427 to 30.

Tuesday, August 28, 1787.

Article 14, was then taken up.

General Pinckney was not satisfied with it. He seemed to wish some
provision should be included in favor of property in slaves.

On the question on Article 14,--

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, aye--9; South Carolina,
no--1; Georgia, divided.

Article 15, being then taken up, the words, "high misdemeanor," were
struck out, and the words, "other crime," inserted, in order to
comprehend all proper cases; it being doubtful whether "high
misdemeanor" had not a technical meaning too limited.

Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved to require "fugitive slaves and
servants to be delivered up like criminals."

Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it, at
the public expense.

Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety in the public seizing and
surrendering a slave or servant, than a horse.

Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular
provision might be made, apart from this article.

Article 15, as amended, was then agreed to, _nem. con_. _pp_. 1447-8.

Wednesday, August 29, 1787.

General Pinckney said it was the true interest of the Southern States
to have no regulation of commerce; but considering the loss brought on
the commerce of the Eastern States by the Revolution, their liberal
conduct towards the views[6] of South Carolina, and the interest the
weak Southern States had in being united with the strong Eastern
States, he thought it proper that no fetters should be imposed on the
power of making commercial regulations, and that his constituents,
though prejudiced against the Eastern States, would be reconciled to
this liberality. He had, himself, he said, prejudices against the
Eastern States before he came here, but would acknowledge that he had
found them as liberal and candid as any men whatever. _p_. 1451.

[Footnote 6: He meant the permission to import slaves. An understanding
on the two subjects of _navigation_ and _slavery_, had taken place
between those parts of the Union, which explains the vote on the
motion depending, as well as the language of General Pinckney and
others.]


Mr. Butler moved to insert after Article 15, "If any person bound to
service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into
another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or
labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to
which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly
claiming their service or labor,"--which was agreed to, _nem. con_.
_p_. 1456.

Monday, September 10, 1787.

Mr. Rutledge said he never could agree to give a power by which the
articles relating to slaves might be altered by the States not
interested in that property, and prejudiced against it. In order to
obviate this objection, these words were added to the proposition:
"provided that no amendments, which may be made prior to the year 1808
shall in any manner affect the fourth and fifth sections of the
seventh Article." _p_. 1536.

Thursday, September 13, 1787.

Article 1, Section 2. On motion of Mr. Randolph, the word "servitude"
was struck out, and "service" unanimously[7] inserted, the former
being thought to express the condition of slaves, and the latter the
obligations of free persons.

[Footnote 7: See page 372 of the printed journal.]


Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Wilson moved to strike out, "and direct taxes,"
from Article 1, Section 2, as improperly placed in a clause relating
merely to the Constitution of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris. The insertion here was in consequence of what
had passed on this point; in order to exclude the appearance of
counting the negroes in the _representation_. The including of them
may now be referred to the object of direct taxes, and incidentally
only to that representation.

On the motion to strike out, "and direct taxes," from this place,--New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, aye--3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, no--8. _pp_. 1569-70.

Saturday, September 15, 1787.

Article 4, Section 2, (the third paragraph,) the term "legally" was
struck out; and the words, "under the laws thereof," inserted after
the word "State," in compliance with the wish of some who thought the
term _legal_ equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal
in a moral view. _p_. 1589.

Mr. Gerry stated the objections which determined him to withhold his
name from the Constitution: 1--2--3--4--5--6, that three fifths of
the blacks are to be represented, as if they were freemen. _p_. 1595.

       *     *     *     *     *

LIST OF MEMBERS

OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION WHO FORMED THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES.


   From                                                 Attended.
New Hampshire,    1 John Langdon,                       July 23, 1787.
                    _John Pickering,_
                  2 Nicholas Gilman,                       " 23.
                    _Benjamin West_.
Massachusetts,      _Francis Dana_,
                    Elbridge Gerry,                      May 29.
                  3 Nath'l Gorham,                        "  25.
                  4 Rufus King,                           "  25.
                    Caleb Strong,                         "  28.
Rhode Island,       (No appointment.)
Connecticut,      5 W.S. Johnson,                        June 2.
                  6 Roger Sherman,                       May 30.
                    Oliver Ellsworth,                     "  29.
New York,           Robert Yates,                         "  25.
                  7 Alex'r Hamilton,                      "  25.
                    John Lansing,                        June 2.
New Jersey,       8 Wm. Livingston,                       "   5.
                  9 David Brearly,                       May  5.
                    Wm. C. Houston,                        do.
                 10 Wm. Patterson,                         do.
                    _John Nielson_,
                    _Abraham Clark_.
                 11 Jonathan Dayton,                    June 21.
Pennsylvania,    12 Benj. Franklin,                      May 28.
                 13 Thos. Miffin,                          do.
Pennsylvania.    14 Robert Morris,                       May 25.
                 15 Gen. Clymer,                          "  28.
                 16 Thos. Fitzsimmons,                    "  25.
                 17 Jared Ingersoll,                      "  28.
                 18 James Wilson,                         "  25.
                 19 Gouv'r Morris,                        "  25.
Delaware,        20 Geo. Reed,                            "  25.
                 21 G. Bedford, Jr.                       "  28.
                 22 John Dickinson,                       "  28.
                 23 Richard Bassett,                      "  25.
                 24 Jacob Broom,                          "  25.
Maryland,        25 James M'Henry,                        "  29.
                 26 Daniel of St. Tho. Jenifer,          June 2.
                 27 Daniel Carroll,                      July 9.
                    John F. Mercer,                      Aug. 6.
                    Luther Martin,                       June 9.
Virginia,        28 G. Washington,                       May 25.
                    _Patrick Henry_, (declined.)
                    Edmund Randolph,                      "  25.
                 29 John Blair,                           "  25.
                 30 Jas. Madison, Jr.                     "  25.
                    George Mason,                         "  25.
                    George Wythe,                         "  25.
                    James McClurg, (in
                      room P. Henry)                      "  25.
North Carolina,     _Rich'd Caswell_ (resigned).
                    Alex'r Martin,                       May 25.
                    Wm. R. Davie,                         "  25.
                 31 Wm. Blount (in room
                      of R. Caswell),                   June 20.
                    _Willie Jones_ (declined).
                 32 R. D. Spaight,                       May 25.
                 33 Hugh Williamson, (in
                      room of W. Jones,)                 May 25.
South Carolina,  34 John Rutledge,                        "  25.
                 35 Chas. C. Pinckney,                    "  25.
                 36 Chas. Pinckney,                       "  25.
                 37 Peirce Butler,                        "  25.
Georgia,         38 William Few,                          "  25.
                 39 Abr'm Baldwin,                       June 11.
                    William Pierce,                      May 31.
                    _George Walton_.
                    Wm. Houston,                         June 1.
                    _Nath'l Pendleton_.

Those with numbers before their names signed the Constitution. 39
Those in italics never attended.                               10
Members who attended, but did not sign the Constitution,       16
                                                               --
                                                               65


Extract from a Speech of Luther Martin, (delivered before the
Legislature of Maryland,) one of the delegates from Maryland to the
Convention that formed the Constitution of the United States.

With respect to that part of the _second_ section of the _first_
Article, which relates to the apportionment of representation and
direct taxation, there were considerable objections made to it,
besides the great objection of inequality--It was urged, that no
principle could justify taking _slaves_ into computation in
apportioning the number of _representatives_ a state should have in
the government--That it involved the absurdity of increasing the power
of a state in making laws for _free men_ in proportion as that State
violated the rights of freedom--That it might be proper to take
slaves into consideration, when _taxes_ were to be apportioned,
because it had a tendency to _discourage slavery_; but to take them
into account in giving representation tended to _encourage_ the _slave
trade_, and to make it the _interest_ of the states to _continue_ that
_infamous traffic_--That slaves could not be taken into account as
_men_, or _citizens_, because they were not admitted to the _rights of
citizens_, in the states which adopted or continued slavery--If they
were to be taken into account as _property_, it was asked, what
peculiar circumstance should render this property (of all others the
most odious in its nature) entitled to the high privilege of
conferring consequence and power in the government to its possessors,
rather than _any other_ property: and why _slaves_ should, as
property, be taken into account rather than horses, cattle, mules, or
any other species; and it was observed by an honorable member from
Massachusetts, that he considered it as dishonorable and humiliating
to enter into compact with the _slaves_ of the _southern states_, as
it would with the _horses_ and _mules_ of the _eastern_.

By the ninth section of this Article, the importation of such persons
as any of the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall
not be prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a duty may be imposed on
such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The design of this clause is to prevent the general government from
prohibiting the importation of slaves; but the same reasons which
caused them to strike out the word "national," and not admit the word
"stamps," influenced them here to guard against the word "_slaves_."
They anxiously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which
might be odious in the ears of Americans, although they were willing
to admit into their system those _things_ which the expression
signified; and hence it is that the clause is so worded as really to
authorize the general government to impose a duty of ten dollars on
every foreigner who comes into a State to become a citizen, whether he
comes absolutely free, or qualifiedly so as a servant; although this
is contrary to the design of the framers, and the duty was only meant
to extend to the importation of slaves.

This clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the
Convention. As the system was reported by the committee of detail, the
provision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited,
without confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by
eight States--Georgia, South Carolina, and, I think, North Carolina,
voting for it.

We were then told by the delegates of the two first of those states,
that their states would never agree to a system, which put it in the
power of the general government to prevent the importation of slaves,
and that they, as delegates from those states, must withhold their
assent from such a system.

A committee of one member from each State was chosen by ballot, to
take this part of the system under their consideration, and to
endeavor to agree upon some report, which should reconcile those
States. To this committee also was referred the following proposition,
which had been reported by the committee of detail, to wit: "No
navigation act shall be passed without the assent of two-thirds of the
members present in each house;" a proposition which the staple and
commercial States were solicitous to retain, lest their commerce
should be placed too much under the power of the Eastern States; but
which these last States were as anxious to reject. This committee, of
which also I had the honor to be a member, met and took under their
consideration the subjects committed to them. I found the _eastern_
States, notwithstanding their _aversion to 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
their turn 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 restricted clause relative to navigation acts was to be
omitted.

This report was adopted by a majority of the Convention, but not
without considerable opposition.

It was said, we had just assumed a place among 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 had 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
putting it 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 an insult to, that God whose
protection we had then 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, it ought to be considered 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 sanction, and encouragement,
ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and
vengeance of him who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal
eye the poor African slave and his American master!

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 rather 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 which are 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 us 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; from this
consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have a power
to restrain the importation of slaves, since, in proportion as the
number of slaves are increased in any State, in the same proportion
the State is weakened and exposed to foreign invasion or domestic
insurrection, and by so much less will it be able to protect itself
against either, and therefore will by so the much want aid from, and
be a burden to, the Union.

It was further said, that, as in this system we were giving the
general government a 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
should prohibit the government from interfering with the slave trade,
than which nothing could so materially affect both our national honor
and interest.

These reasons influenced me, both on the committee and in convention,
most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as it now makes
part of the system.

You will perceive, sir, not only that the general government is
prohibited from interfering in the slave-trade before the year
eighteen hundred and eight, but that there is no provision in the
Constitution that it shall afterwards be prohibited, nor any security
that such prohibition will ever take place; and I think there is great
reason to believe, that, if the importation of slaves is permitted
until the year eighteen hundred and eight, it will not be prohibited
afterwards. At this time, we do not generally hold this commerce in so
great abhorrence as we have done. When our liberties were at stake, we
warmly felt for the common rights of men. The danger being thought to
be past, which threatened ourselves, we are daily growing more
insensible to those rights. In those States which have restrained or
prohibited the importation of slaves, it is only done by legislative
acts, which may be repealed. When those States find that they must, in
their national character and connexion, suffer in the disgrace, and
share in the inconveniences attendant upon that detestable and
iniquitous traffic, they may be desirous also to share in the benefits
arising from it; and the odium attending it will be greatly effaced by
the sanction which is given to it in the general government.

By the next paragraph, the general government is to have a power of
suspending the _habeas corpus act_, in cases of _rebellion_ or
_invasion_.

As the State governments have a power of suspending the habeas corpus
act in those cases, it was said, there could be no reason for giving
such a power to the general government; since, whenever the State
which is invaded, or in which an insurrection takes place, finds its
safety requires it, it will make use of that power. And it was urged,
that if we gave this power to the general government, it would be an
engine of oppression in its hands; since whenever a State should
oppose its views, however arbitrary and unconstitutional, and refuse
submission to them, the general government may declare it to be an act
of rebellion, and, suspending the habeas corpus act, may seize upon
the persons of those advocates of freedom, who have had virtue and
resolution enough to excite the opposition, and may imprison them
during its pleasure in the remotest part of the Union; so that a
citizen of Georgia might be _bastiled_ in the furthest part of New
Hampshire; or a citizen of New Hampshire in the furthest extreme of
the South, cut off from their family, their friends, and their every
connexion. These considerations induced me, sir, to give my negative
also to this clause.

       *     *     *     *     *



EXTRACTS FROM DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION
OF THE UNITED STATES' CONSTITUTION.

       *     *     *     *     *

MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION.

The third paragraph of the 2d section being read,

Mr. King rose to explain it. There has, says he, been much
misconception of this section. It is a principle of this Constitution,
that representation and taxation should go hand in hand. This
paragraph states, that the numbers of free persons 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. These persons are the
slaves. By this rule is representation and taxation to be apportioned.
And it was adopted, because it was the language of all America.

Mr. Widgery asked, if a boy of six years of age was to be considered
as a free person?

Mr. King in answer said, all persons born free were to be considered
as freemen; and to make the idea of _taxation by numbers_ more
intelligible, said that five negro children of South Carolina, are to
pay as much tax as the three Governors of New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, and Connecticut.

Mr. Gorham thought the proposed section much in favor of Massachusetts;
and if it operated against any state, it was Pennsylvania, because
they have more white persons _bound_ than any other.

Judge Dana, in reply to the remark of some gentlemen, that the
southern States were favored in this mode of apportionment, by having
five of their negroes set against three persons in the eastern, the
honorable judge observed, that the negroes of the southern States work
no longer than when the eye of the driver is on them. Can, asked he,
that land flourish like this, which is cultivated by the hands of
freemen? Are not _three_ of these independent freemen of more real
advantage to a State, than _five_ of those poor slaves?

Mr. Nasson remarked on the statement of the honorable Mr. King, by
saying that the honorable gentleman should have gone further, and
shown us the other side of the question. It is a good rule that works
both ways--and the gentlemen should also have told us, that three of
our infants in the cradle, are to be rated as high as five of the
working negroes of Virginia. Mr. N. adverted to a statement of Mr.
King, who had said, that five negro children of South Carolina were
equally rateable as three governors of New England, and wished, he
said, the honorable gentleman had considered this question upon the
other side--as it would then appear that this State will pay as great
a tax for three children in the cradle, as any of the southern States
will for five hearty working negro men. He hoped, he said, while we
were making a new government, we should make it better than the old
one: for if we had made a bad bargain before, as had been hinted, it
was a reason why we should make a better one now.

Mr. Dawes said, he was sorry to hear so many objections raised against
the paragraph under consideration. He thought them wholly unfounded;
that the black inhabitants of the southern States must be considered
either as slaves, and as so much property, or in the character of so
many freemen; if the former, why should they not be wholly
represented? Our _own_ State laws and Constitution would lead us to
consider those blacks as _freemen_, and so indeed would our own ideas
of natural justice: if, then, they are freemen, they might form an
equal basis for representation as though they were all white
inhabitants. In either view, therefore, he could not see that the
northern States would suffer, but directly to the contrary. He
thought, however, that gentlemen would do well to connect the passage
in dispute with another article in the Constitution, that permits
Congress, in the year 1808, wholly to prohibit the importation of
slaves, and in the mean time to impose a duty of ten dollars a head on
such blacks as should be imported before that period. Besides, by the
new Constitution, every particular State is left to its own option
totally to prohibit the introduction of slaves into its own
territories. What could the convention do more?  The members of the
southern States, like ourselves, have _their_ prejudices. It would
not do to abolish slavery, by an act of Congress, in a moment, and so
destroy what our southern brethren consider as property. But we may
say, that although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet it has
received a mortal wound and will die of a consumption.

Mr. Neal (from Kittery,) went over the ground of objection to this
section on the idea that the slave trade was allowed to be continued
for 20 years. His profession, he said, obliged him to bear witness
against any thing that should favor the making merchandise of the
bodies of men, and unless his objection was removed, he could not put
his hand to the Constitution. Other gentlemen said, in addition to
this idea, that there was not even a proposition that the negroes ever
shall be free, and Gen. Thompson exclaimed:

Mr. President, shall it be said, that after we have established our
own independence and freedom, we make slaves of others?  Oh!
Washington, what a name has he had!  How he has immortalized himself!
but he holds those in slavery who have a good right to be free as he
has--he is still for self; and, in my opinion, his character has sunk
50 per cent.

On the other side, gentlemen said, that the step taken in this
article, towards the abolition of slavery, was one of the beauties of
the Constitution. They observed, that in the confederation there was
no provision whatever for its ever being abolished; but this
Constitution provides, that Congress may, after 20 years, totally
annihilate the slave trade; and that, as all the States, except two,
have passed laws to this effect, it might reasonably be expected, that
it would then be done. In the interim, all the States were at liberty
to prohibit it.

Saturday, January 26.--[The debate on the 9th section still continued
desultory--and consisted of similar objections, and answers thereto,
as had before been used. Both sides deprecated the slave trade in the
most pointed terms; on one side it was pathetically lamented, by Mr.
Nason, Major Lusk, Mr. Neal, and others, that this Constitution
provided for the continuation of the slave trade for 20 years. On the
other, the honorable Judge Dana, Mr. Adams and others, rejoiced that a
door was now to be opened for the annihilation of this odious,
abhorrent practice, in a certain time.]

Gen. Heath. Mr. President,--By my indisposition and absence, I have
lost several important opportunities: I have lost the opportunity of
expressing my sentiments with a candid freedom, on some of the
paragraphs of the system, which have lain heavy on my mind. I have
lost the opportunity of expressing my warm approbation on some of the
paragraphs. I have lost the opportunity of hearing those judicious,
enlightening and convincing arguments, which have been advanced during
the investigation of the system. This is my misfortune, and I must
bear it. The paragraph respecting the migration or importation of such
persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,
&c., is one of those considered during my absence, and I have heard
nothing on the subject, save what has been mentioned this morning; but
I think the gentlemen who have spoken, have carried the matter rather
too far on both sides. I apprehend that it is not in our power to do
any thing for or against those who are in slavery in the southern
States. No gentleman within these walls detests every idea of slavery
more than I do: it is generally detested by the people of this
Commonwealth; and I ardently hope that the time will soon come, when
our brethren in the southern States will view it as we do, and put a
stop to it; but to this we have no right to compel them. Two questions
naturally arise: if we ratify the Constitution, shall we do any thing
by our act to hold the blacks in slavery--or shall we become the
partakers of other men's sins? I think neither of them. Each State is
sovereign and independent to a certain degree, and they have a right,
and will regulate their own internal affairs, as to themselves appears
proper; and shall we refuse to eat, or to drink, or to be united, with
those who do not think, or act, just as we do? surely not. We are not
in this case partakers of other men's sins, for in nothing do we
voluntarily encourage the slavery of our fellow-men; a restriction is
laid on the Federal Government, which could not be avoided, and a
union take place. The federal Convention went as far as they could;
the migration or importation, &c., is confined to the States, now
_existing only_, new States cannot claim it. Congress, by their
ordinance for erecting new States, some time since, declared that the
new States shall be republican, and that there shall be no slavery in
them. But whether those in slavery in the southern States will be
emancipated after the year 1808, I do not pretend to determine: I
rather doubt it.

Mr. Neal rose and said, that as the Constitution at large, was now
under consideration, he would just remark, that the article which
respected the Africans, was the one which laid on his mind--and,
unless his objections to that were removed, it must, how much soever
he liked the other parts of the Constitution, be a sufficient reason
for him to give his negative to it.

Major Lusk concurred in the idea already thrown out in the debate,
that although the insertion of the amendments in the Constitution was
devoutly wished, yet he did not see any reason to suppose they ever
would be adopted. Turning from the subject of amendments, the Major
entered largely into the consideration of the 9th section, and in the
most pathetic and feeling manner, described the miseries of the poor
natives of Africa, who are kidnapped and sold for slaves. With the
brightest colors he painted their happiness and ease on their native
shores, and contrasted them with their wretched, miserable and unhappy
condition, in a state of slavery.

Rev. Mr. Buckus. Much, sir, has been said about the importation of
slaves into this country. I believe that, according to my capacity, no
man abhors that wicked practice more than I do, and would gladly make
use of all lawful means towards the abolishing of slavery in all parts
of the land. But let us consider where we are, and what we are doing.
In the articles of confederation, no provision was made to hinder the
importation of slaves into any of these States: but a door is now
opened hereafter to do it; and each State is at liberty now to abolish
slavery as soon as they please. And let us remember our former
connexion with Great Britain, from whom many in our land think we
ought not to have revolted. How did they carry on the slave trade! I
know that the Bishop of Gloucester, in an annual sermon in London, in
February, 1766, endeavored to justify their tyrannical claims of power
over us, by casting the reproach of the slave trade upon the
Americans. But at the close of the war, the Bishop of Chester, in an
annual sermon, in February, 1783, ingenuously owned, that their nation
is the most deeply involved in the guilt of that trade, of any nation
in the world; and also, that they have treated their slaves in the
West Indies worse than the French or Spaniards have done theirs. Thus
slavery grows more and more odious through the world; and, as an
honorable gentleman said some days ago, "Though we cannot say that
slavery is struck with an apoplexy, yet we may hope it will die with a
consumption." And a main source, sir, of that iniquity, hath been an
abuse of the covenant of circumcision, which gave the seed of Abraham
to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, and to take their houses,
vineyards, and all their estates, as their own; and also to buy and
hold others as servants. And as Christian privileges are greater than
those of the Hebrews were, many have imagined that they had a right to
seize upon the lands of the heathen, and to destroy or enslave them as
far as they could extend their power. And from thence the mystery of
iniquity, carried many into the practice of making merchandise of
slaves and souls of men. But all ought to remember, that when God
promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed, he let him know
that they were not to take possession of that land, until the iniquity
of the Amorites was full; and then they did it under the immediate
direction of Heaven; and they were as real executors of the judgment
of God upon those heathens, as any person ever was an executor of a
criminal justly condemned. And in doing it they were not allowed to
invade the lands of the Edomites, who sprang from Esau, who was not
only of the seed of Abraham, but was born at the same birth with
Israel; and yet they were not of that church. Neither were Israel
allowed to invade the lands of the Moabites, or of the children of
Ammon, who were of the seed of Lot. And no officer in Israel had any
legislative power, but such as were immediately inspired. Even David,
the man after God's own heart, had no legislative power, but only as
he was inspired from above: and he is expressly called a _prophet_ in
the New Testament. And we are to remember that Abraham and his seed,
for four hundred years, had no warrant to admit any strangers into
that church, but by buying of him as a servant, with money. And it was
a great privilege to be bought, and adopted into a religious family
for seven years, and then to have their freedom. And that covenant was
expressly repealed in various parts of the New Testament; and
particularly in the first epistle to the Corinthians, wherein it is
said--Ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body,
and in your spirit, which are God's. And again--Circumcision is
nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping of the
commandments of God. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the
servants of men. Thus the gospel sets all men upon a level, very
contrary to the declaration of an honorable gentleman in this house,
"that the Bible was contrived for the advantage of a particular order
of men."

       *     *     *     *     *

NEW YORK CONVENTION.

Mr. Smith. He would now proceed to state his objections to the clause
just read, (section 2, of article 1, clause 3.) His objections were
comprised under three heads: 1st, the rule of apportionment is unjust;
2d, there is no precise number fixed on, below which the house shall
not be reduced; 3d, it is inadequate. In the first place, the rule of
apportionment of the representatives is to be according to the whole
number of the white inhabitants, with three-fifths of all others; that
is, in plain English, each State is to send representatives in
proportion to the number of freemen, and three-fifths of the slaves it
contains. He could not see any rule by which slaves were to be
included in the ratio of representation;--the principle of a
representation being that every free agent should be concerned in
governing himself, it was absurd to give that power to a man who could
not exercise it--slaves have no will of their own: the very operation
of it was to give certain privileges to those people, who were so
wicked as to keep slaves. He knew it would be admitted, that this rule
of apportionment was founded on unjust principles, but that it was the
result of accommodation; which, he supposed, we should be under the
necessity of admitting, if we meant to be in union with the southern
States, though utterly repugnant to his feelings.

Mr. Hamilton. In order that the committee may understand clearly the
principles on which the General Convention acted, I think it necessary
to explain some preliminary circumstances.

Sir, the natural situation of this country seems to divide its
interests into different classes. There are navigating and
non-navigating States--the Northern are properly the navigating
States: the Southern appear to possess neither the means; nor the
spirit of navigation. This difference of situation naturally produces
a dissimilarity of interest and views respecting foreign commerce. It
was the interest of the Northern States that there should be no
restraints on their navigation, and that they should leave full power,
by a majority in Congress, to make commercial regulations in favor of
their own, and in restraint of the navigation of foreigners. The
Southern States wished to impose a restraint on the Northern, by
requiring that two-thirds in Congress should be requisite to pass an
act in regulation of commerce: they were apprehensive that the
restraints of a navigation law would discourage foreigners, and by
obliging them to employ the shipping of the Northern States would
probably enhance their freight. This being the case, they insisted
strenuously on having this provision engrafted in the constitution;
and the Northern States were as anxious in opposing it. On the other
hand, the small States seeing themselves embraced by the confederation
upon equal terms, wished to retain the advantages which they already
possessed: the large States, on the contrary, thought it improper that
Rhode Island and Delaware should enjoy an equal suffrage with
themselves: from these sources a delicate and difficult contest arose.
It became necessary, therefore, to compromise; or the Convention must
have dissolved without effecting any thing. Would it have been wise
and prudent in that body, in this critical situation, to have deserted
their country? No. Every man who hears me--every wise man in the
United States, would have condemned them. The Convention were obliged
to appoint a committee for accommodation. In this committee the
arrangement was formed as it now stands; and their report was
accepted. It was a delicate point; and it was necessary that all
parties should be indulged. Gentlemen will see, that if there had not
been a unanimity, nothing could have been done: for the Convention had
no power to establish, but only to recommend a government. Any other
system would have been impracticable. Let a Convention be called
to-morrow--let them meet twenty times; nay, twenty thousand times;
they will have the same difficulties to encounter; the same clashing
interests to reconcile.

But dismissing these reflections, let us consider how far the
arrangement is in itself entitled to the approbation of this body. We
will examine it upon its own merits.

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 be 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
regulations 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 derived 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 all the states. But the justice of this plan will
appear in another view. The best writers on government have held that
representation should be compounded of persons and property. This rule
has been adopted, as far as it could be, in the Constitution of
New-York. It will, however, by no means, be admitted, that the slaves
are considered altogether as property. They are men, though degraded
to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal
laws of the states which they inhabit as well as to the laws of
nature. But representation and taxation go together--and one uniform
rule ought to apply to both. Would it be just to compute these slaves
in the assessment of taxes, and discard them from the estimate in the
apportionment of representatives? Would it be just to impose a
singular burthen, without conferring some adequate advantage?

Another circumstance ought to be considered. The rule we have been
speaking of is a general rule, and applies to all the states. Now, you
have a great number of people in your state, which are not represented
at all; and have no voice in your government; these will be included
in the enumeration--not two-fifths--nor three-fifths, but the whole.
This proves that the advantages of the plan are not confined to the
southern states, but extend to other parts of the Union.

Mr. M. Smith. I shall make no reply to the arguments offered by the
hon. gentleman to justify the rule of apportionment fixed by this
clause: for though I am confident they might be easily refuted, yet I
am persuaded we must yield this point, in accommodation to the
southern states. The amendment therefore proposes no alteration to
the clause in this respect.

Mr. Harrison. Among the objections, that, which has been made to the
mode of apportionment of representatives, has been relinquished. I
think this concession does honor to the gentleman who had stated the
objection. He has candidly acknowledged, that this apportionment was
the result of accommodation; without which no union could have been
formed.

       *     *     *     *     *

PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION.

Mr. Wilson. Much fault has been found with the mode of expression,
used in the first clause of the ninth section of the first article. I
believe I can assign a reason, why that mode of expression was used,
and why the term slave was not admitted in this constitution--and as
to the manner of laying taxes, this is not the first time that the
subject has come into the view of the United States, and of the
legislatures of the several states. The gentleman, (Mr. Findley) will
recollect, that in the present congress, the quota of the federal
debt, and general expenses, was to be in proportion to the value of
land, and other enumerated property, within the states. After trying
this for a number of years, it was found on all hands, to be a mode
that could not be carried into execution. Congress were satisfied of
this, and in the year 1783 recommended, in conformity with the powers
they possessed under the articles of confederation, that the quota
should be according to the number of free people, including those
bound to servitude, and excluding Indians not taxed. These were the
expressions used in 1783, and the fate of this recommendation was
similar to all their other resolutions. It was not carried into
effect, but it was adopted by no fewer than eleven, out of thirteen
states; and it cannot but be matter of surprise, to hear gentlemen,
who agreed to this very mode of expression at that time, come forward
and state it as an objection on the present occasion. It was natural,
sir, for the late convention, to adopt the mode after it had been
agreed to by eleven states, and to use the expression, which they
found had been received as unexceptional before. With respect to the
clause, restricting congress from prohibiting the migration or
importation of such persons, as any of the states now existing, shall
think proper to admit, prior to the year 1808. The honorable gentleman
says, that this cause is not only dark, but intended to grant to
congress, for that time, the power to admit the importation of slaves.
No such thing was intended; but I will tell you what was done, and it
gives me high pleasure, that so much was done. Under the present
confederation, the states may admit the importation of slaves as long
as they please; but by this article, after the year 1808 the congress
will have power to prohibit such importation, notwithstanding the
disposition of any state to the contrary. I consider this as laying
the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country; and though
the period is more distant than I could wish, yet it will produce the
same kind, gradual change, which was pursued in Pennsylvania. It is
with much satisfaction I view this power in the general government,
whereby they may lay an interdiction on this reproachful trade; but an
immediate advantage is also obtained, for a tax or duty may be imposed
on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person; and
this, sir, operates as a partial prohibition; it was all that could be
obtained, I am sorry it was no more; but from this I think there is
reason to hope, that yet a few years, and it will be prohibited
altogether; and in the mean time, the new states which are to be
formed, will be under the control of congress in this particular; and
slaves will never be introduced amongst them. The gentleman says, that
it is unfortunate in another point of view; it means to prohibit the
introduction of white people from Europe, as this tax may deter them
from coming amongst us; a little impartiality and attention will
discover the care that the convention took in selecting their
language. The words are the _migration_ or IMPORTATION of such
persons, &c., shall not be prohibited by congress prior to the year
1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation; it is
observable here, that the term migration is dropped, when a tax or
duty is mentioned, so that congress have power to impose the tax only
on those imported.

I recollect, on a former day, the honorable gentleman from
Westmoreland (Mr. Findley) and the honorable gentleman from Cumberland
(Mr. Whitehill,) took exception against the first clause of the 9th
section, art. 1, arguing very unfairly, that because congress might
impose a tax or duty of ten dollars on the importation of slaves,
within any of the United States, congress might therefore permit
slaves to be imported within this state, contrary to its laws. I
confess I little thought that this part of the system would be
excepted to.

I am sorry that it could be extended no further; but so far as it
operates, it presents us with the pleasing prospect, that the rights
of mankind will be acknowledged and established throughout the union.

If there was no other lovely feature in the constitution but this one,
it would diffuse a beauty over its whole countenance. Yet the lapse of
a few years! and congress will have power to exterminate slavery from
within our borders.

How would such a delightful prospect expand the breast of a benevolent
and philanthropic European? Would he cavil at an expression? catch at
a phrase? No, sir, that is only reserved for the gentleman on the
other side of your chair to do.

Mr. McKean. The arguments against the constitution are, I think,
chiefly these: ...

That migration or importation of such persons, as any of the states
shall admit, shall not be prohibited prior to 1808, nor a tax or duty
imposed on such importation exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Provision is made that congress shall have power to prohibit the
importation of slaves after the year 1808, but the gentlemen in
opposition, accuse this system of a crime, because it has not
prohibited them at once. I suspect those gentlemen are not well
acquainted with the business of the diplomatic body, or they would
know that an agreement might be made, that did not perfectly accord
with the will and pleasure of any one person. Instead of finding fault
with what has been gained, I am happy to see a disposition in the
United States to do so much.

       *     *     *     *     *

VIRGINIA CONVENTION.


Gov Randolph said, we are told in strong language, of dangers to which
we will be exposed unless we adopt this Constitution. Among the rest,
domestic safety is said to be in danger. This government does not
attend to our domestic safety. It authorizes the importation of slaves
for twenty-odd years, and thus continues upon us that nefarious trade.
Instead of securing and protecting us, the continuation of this
detestable trade adds daily to our weakness. Though this evil is
increasing, there is no clause in the Constitution that will prevent
the northern and eastern States from meddling with our whole property
of that kind. There is a clause to prohibit the importation of slaves
after twenty years, but there is no provision made for securing to the
southern States those they now possess. It is far from being a
desirable property. But it will involve us in great difficulties and
infelicity to be now deprived of them. There ought to be a clause in
the Constitution to secure us that property, which we have acquired
under our former laws, and the loss of which would bring ruin on a
great many people.

Mr. Lee. The honorable gentleman abominates it, because it does not
prohibit the importation of slaves, and because it does not secure the
continuance of the existing slavery! Is it not obviously inconsistent
to criminate it for two contradictory reasons? I submit it to the
consideration of the gentleman, whether, if it be reprehensible in the
one case, it can be censurable in the other? Mr. Lee then concluded by
earnestly recommending to the committee to proceed regularly.

Mr. Henry. It says, that "no state shall engage in war, unless
actually invaded." If you give this clause a fair construction, what
is the true meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic
insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a state may go to
war; but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an
insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be
invaded.--They cannot therefore suppress it, without the interposition
of congress.

Mr. George Nicholas said, another worthy member says, there is no
power in the States to quell an insurrection of slaves. Have they it
now? If they have, does the Constitution take it away? If it does, it
must be in one of the three clauses which have been mentioned by the
worthy member. The first clause gives the general government power to
call them out when necessary. Does this take it away from the States?
No. But it gives an additional security: for, besides the power in the
State governments to use their own militia, it will be the duty of the
general government to aid them with the strength of the Union when
called for. No part of the Constitution can show that this power is
taken away.

Mr. George Mason. Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has
created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the
importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government,
this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts
were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants
prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place,
than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our
separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal
object of this State, and most of the States in the Union. The
augmentation of slaves weakens the States; and such a trade is
diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind. Yet, by this
Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value an
union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into
the Union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this
disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness and not strength to
the Union. And though this infamous traffic be continued, we have no
security for the property of that kind which we have already. There is
no clause in this Constitution to secure it; for they may lay such tax
as will amount to manumission. And should the government be amended,
still this detestable kind of commerce cannot be discontinued till
after the expiration of twenty years. For the fifth article, which
provides for amendments, expressly excepts this clause. I have ever
looked upon this as a most disgraceful thing to America. I cannot
express my detestation of it. Yet they have not secured us the
property of the slaves we have already. So that, "they have done what
they ought not to have done, and have left undone what they ought to
have done."

Mr. Madison. Mr. Chairman, I should conceive this clause to be
impolitic, if it were one of those things which could be excluded
without encountering greater evils. The Southern States would not have
entered into the Union of America, without the temporary permission of
that trade. And if they were excluded from the Union, the consequences
might be dreadful to them and to us. We are not in a worse situation
than before. That traffic is prohibited by our laws, and we may
continue the prohibition. The Union in general is not in a worse
situation. Under the articles of confederation, it might be continued
forever: but by this clause an end may be put to it after twenty
years. There is, therefore, an amelioration of our circumstances. A
tax may be laid in the mean time; but it is limited, otherwise
Congress might lay such a tax as would amount to a prohibition. From
the mode of representation and taxation, Congress cannot lay such a
tax on slaves as will amount to manumission. Another clause secures us
that property which we now possess. At present, if any slave elopes to
any of 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, 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."  This clause was
expressly inserted to enable 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 interpose with respect to the property in slaves
now held by the States. The taxation of this State being equal only to
its representation, such a tax cannot be laid as he supposes. They
cannot prevent the importation of slaves for twenty years; but after
that period, they can. The gentlemen from South Carolina and Georgia
argued in this manner: "We have now liberty to import this species of
property, and much of the property now possessed, has been purchased,
or otherwise acquired, in contemplation of improving it by the
assistance of imported slaves. What would be the consequence of
hindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia would rise in value, and
we would be obliged to go to your markets." I need not expatiate on
this subject. Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the Union would
be worse. If those States should disunite from the other States, for
not including them in the temporary continuance of this traffic, they
might solicit and obtain aid from foreign powers.

Mr. Tyler warmly enlarged on the impolicy, iniquity, and
disgracefulness of this wicked traffic. He thought the reasons urged
by gentlemen in defence of it were inconclusive, and ill founded. It
was one cause of the complaints against British tyranny, that this
trade was permitted. The Revolution had put a period to it; but now it
was to be revived. He thought nothing could justify it. This temporary
restriction on Congress militated, in his opinion, against the
arguments of gentlemen on the other side, that what was not given up,
was retained by the States; for that if this restriction had not been
inserted, Congress could have prohibited the African trade. The power
of prohibiting it was not expressly delegated to them; yet they would
have had it by implication, if this restraint had not been provided.
This seemed to him to demonstrate most clearly the necessity of
restraining them by a bill of rights, from infringing our unalienable
rights. It was immaterial whether the bill of rights was by itself, or
included in the Constitution. But he contended for it one way or the
other. It would be justified by our own example, and that of England.
His earnest desire was, that it should be handed down to posterity,
that he had opposed this wicked clause.

Mr. Madison. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration,
it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to
congress, namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.

Mr. Henry insisted, that the insertion of these restrictions on
Congress, was a plain demonstration that Congress could exercise
powers by implication. The gentleman had admitted that Congress could
have interdicted the African trade, were it not for this restriction.
If so, the power not having been expressly delegated, must be obtained
by implication. He demanded where, then, was their doctrine of
reserved rights? He wished for negative clauses to prevent them from
assuming any powers but those expressly given. He asked why it was
moited to secure us that property in slaves, which we held now? He
feared its omission was done with design. They might lay such heavy
taxes on slaves, as would amount to emancipation; and then the
Southern States would be the only sufferers. His opinion was confirmed
by the mode of levying money. Congress, he observed, had power to lay
and collect taxes, imposts, and excises. Imposts (or duties) and
excises, were to be uniform. But this uniformity did not extend to
taxes. This might compel the Southern States to liberate their
negroes. He wished this property therefore to be guarded. He
considered the clause which had been adduced by the gentleman as a
security for this property, as no security at all. It was no more than
this--that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New-York.
This could not prevent Congress from interfering with that property by
laying a grievous and enormous tax on it, so as to compel owners to
emancipate their slaves rather than pay the tax. He apprehended it
would be productive of much stock-jobbing, and that they would play
into one another's hands in such a manner as that this property would
be lost to the country.

Mr. George Nicholas wondered that gentlemen who were against slavery,
would be opposed to this clause; as after that period the slave trade
would be done away. He asked, if gentlemen did not see the
inconsistency of their arguments? They object, says he, to the
Constitution, because the slave trade is laid open for twenty-odd
years; and yet tell you, that by some latent operation of it, the
slaves who are so now, will be manumitted. At the same moment, it is
opposed for being promotive and destructive of slavery. He contended
that it was advantageous to Virginia, that it should be in the power
of Congress to prevent the importation of slaves after twenty years,
as it would then put a period to the evil complained of.

As the Southern States would not confederate without this clause, he
asked, if gentlemen would rather dissolve the confederacy than to
suffer this temporary inconvenience, admitting it to be such? Virginia
might continue the prohibition of such importation during the
intermediate period, and would be benefitted by it, as a tax of ten
dollars on each slave might be laid, of which she would receive a
share. He endeavored to obviate the objection of gentlemen, that the
restriction on Congress was a proof that they would have power not
given them, by remarking, that they would only have had a general
superintendency of trade, if the restriction had not been inserted.
But the Southern States insisted on this exception to that general
superintendency for twenty years. It could not therefore have been a
power by implication, as the restriction was an exception from a
delegated power. The taxes could not, as had been suggested, be laid
so high on negroes as to amount to emancipation; because taxation and
representation were fixed according to the census established in the
Constitution. The exception of taxes, from the uniformity annexed to
duties and excises, could not have the operation contended for by the
gentleman; because other clauses had clearly and positively fixed the
census. Had taxes been uniform, it would have been universally
objected to, for no one object could be selected without involving
great inconveniences and oppressions. But, says Mr. Nicholas, is it
from the general government we are to fear emancipation? Gentlemen
will recollect what I said in another house, and what other gentlemen
have said that advocated emancipation. Give me leave to say, that that
clause is a great security for our slave tax. I can tell the
committee, that the people of our country are reduced to beggary by
the taxes on negroes. Had this Constitution been adopted, it would not
have been the case. The taxes were laid on all our negroes. By this
system two-fifths are exempted. He then added, that he imagined
gentlemen would not support here what they had opposed in another
place.

Mr. Henry replied, that though the proportion of each was to be fixed
by the census, and three-fifths of the slaves only were included in
the enumeration, yet the proportion of Virginia being once fixed,
might be laid on blacks and blacks only. For the mode of raising the
proportion of each State being to be directed by Congress, they might
make slaves the sole object to raise it. Personalities he wished to
take leave of: they had nothing to do with the question, which was
solely whether that paper was wrong or not.

Mr. Nicholas replied, that negroes must he considered as persons, or
property. If as property, the proportion of taxes to be laid on them
was fixed in the Constitution. If he apprehended a poll tax on
negroes, the Constitution had prevented it. For, by the census, where
a white man paid ten shillings, a negro paid but six shillings. For
the exemption of two-fifths of them reduced it to that proportion.

The second, third, and fourth clauses, were then read as follows:


The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may
require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

No capitation or other direct tax shall be paid, unless in proportion
to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


Mr. George Mason said, that gentlemen might think themselves secured
by the restriction in the fourth clause, capitation or other direct
tax should he laid but in proportion to the census before directed to
be taken. But that when maturely considered it would be found to be no
security whatsoever. It was nothing but a direct assertion, or mere
confirmation of the clause which fixed the ratio of taxes and
representation. It only meant that the quantum to be raised of each
State should be in proportion to their numbers in the manner therein
directed. But the general government was not precluded from laying the
proportion of any particular State on any one species of property they
might think proper. For instance, if five hundred thousand dollars
were to be raised, they might lay the whole of the proportion of
Southern States on the blacks, or any one species of property: so that
by laying taxes too heavily on slaves, they might totally annihilate
that kind of property. No real security could arise from the clause
which provides, that persons held to labor in one State, escaping into
another, shall be delivered up. This only meant, that runaway slaves
should not be protected in other States. As to the exclusion of _ex
post facto_ laws, it could not be said to create any security in this
case. For laying a tax on slaves would not be _ex post facto_.

Mr. Madison replied, that even the Southern States, who were most
affected, were perfectly satisfied with this provision, and dreaded no
danger to the property they now hold. It appeared to him, that the
general government would not intermeddle with that property for twenty
years, but to lay a tax on every slave imported, not exceeding ten
dollars; and that after the expiration of that period they might
prohibit the traffic altogether. The census in the constitution was
intended to introduce equality in the burdens to be laid on the
community. No gentleman objected to laying duties, imposts, and
excises, uniformly. But uniformity of taxes would be subversive to the
principles of equality: for that it was not possible to select any
article which would be easy for one State, but what would be heavy for
another. That the proportion of each State being ascertained, it would
be raised by the general government in the most convenient manner for
the people, and not by the selection of any one particular object.
That there must be some decree of confidence put in agents, or else we
must reject a state of civil society altogether. Another great
security to this property, which he mentioned, was, that five States
were greatly interested in that species of property, and there were
other States which had some slaves, and had made no attempt, or taken
any step to take them from the people. There were a few slaves in New
York, New Jersey and Connecticut: these States could, probably, oppose
any attempts to annihilate this species of property. He concluded, by
observing, that he would be glad to leave the decision of this to the
committee.

The second section was then read as follows:

       *     *     *     *     *

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.


Mr. George Mason.--Mr. Chairman, on some former part of the
investigation of this subject, gentlemen were pleased to make some
observations on the security of property coming within this section.
It was then said, and I now say, that there is no security, nor have
gentlemen convinced me of this.

Mr. Henry. Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume,
they may, if we be engaged in war, liberate every one of your slaves
if they please. And this must and will be done by men, a majority of
whom have not a common interest with you. They will, therefore, have
no feeling for your interests. It has been repeatedly said here, that
the great object of a national government, was national defence. That
power which is said to be intended for security and safety, may be
rendered detestable and oppressive. If you give power to the general
government to provide for the general defence, the means must be
commensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people
must be given to the government which is entrusted with the public
defence. In this State there are 236,000 blacks, and there are many in
several other States. But there are few or none in the Northern
States, and yet if the Northern States shall be of opinion, that our
numbers are numberless, they may call forth every national resource.
May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see
a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed, as to make
emancipation general. But acts of assembly passed, that every slave
who would go to the army should be free. Another thing will contribute
to bring this event about--slavery is detested--we feel its fatal
effects--we deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these
considerations, at some future period, press with full force on the
minds of Congress. Let that urbanity, which I trust will distinguish
America, and the necessity of national defence, let all these things
operate on their minds, they will search that paper, and see if they
have power of manumission. And have they not, sir? Have they not power
to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think
that these call for the abolition of slavery? May not they pronounce
all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?  There
is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to
the point. They have the power in clear, unequivocal terms; and will
clearly and certainly exercise it. As much as I deplore slavery, I
see that prudence forbids its abolition. I deny that the general
government ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the
States have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those
whose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority
of Congress is to the North, and the slaves are to the South. In this
situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of
Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquillity gone away. I
repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul, that every one of
my fellow-beings was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to
admire that decree of Heaven, which has numbered us among the free, we
ought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellow-men in
bondage. But is it practicable by any human means, to liberate them,
without producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences? We ought
to possess them in the manner we have inherited them from our
ancestors, as their manumission is incompatible with the felicity of
the country. But we ought to soften, as much as possible, the rigor of
their unhappy fate. I know that in a variety of particular instances,
the legislature, listening to complaints, have admitted their
emancipation. Let me not dwell on this subject. I will only add, that
this, as well as every other property of the people of Virginia, is in
jeopardy, and put in the hands of those who have no similarity of
situation with us. This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety
in subjecting it to Congress.

Have we not a right to say, _hear our propositions_? Why, sir, your
slaves have a right to make their humble requests.--Those who are in
the meanest occupations of human life, have a right to complain.

Gov. Randolph said, that honorable gentleman, and some others, have
insisted that the abolition of slavery will result from it, and at the
same time have complained, that it encourages its continuation. The
inconsistency proves in some degree, the futility of their arguments.
But if it be not conclusive, to satisfy the committee that there is no
danger of enfranchisement taking place, I beg leave to refer them to
the paper itself. I hope that there is none here, who, considering the
subject in the calm light of philosophy, will advance an objection
dishonorable to Virginia; that at the moment they are securing the
rights of their citizens, an objection is started that there is a
spark of hope, that those unfortunate men now held in bondage, may, by
the operation of the general government, be made _free_. But if any
gentleman be terrified by this apprehension, let him read the system.
I ask, and I will ask again and again, till I be answered (not by
declamation) where is the part that has a tendency to the abolition of
slavery? Is it the clause which says, that "the migration or
importation of such persons as any of the States now existing, shall
think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to
the year 1808?" This is an exception from the power of regulating
commerce, and the restriction is only to continue till 1808. Then
Congress can, by the exercise of that power, prevent future
importations; but does it affect the existing state of slavery? Were
it right here to mention what passed in convention on the occasion, I
might tell you that the Southern States, even South Carolina herself,
conceived this property to be secure by these words. I believe,
whatever we may think here, that there was not a member of the
Virginia delegation who had the smallest suspicion of the abolition of
slavery. Go to their meaning. Point out the clause where this
formidable power of emancipation is inserted. But another clause of
the Constitution proves the absurdity of the supposition. The words of
the clause are, "No person held to service or labor in our 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."  Every one knows that slaves are held to
service and 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?

I observed that the honorable gentleman's proposition comes in a truly
questionable shape, and is still more extraordinary and unaccountable
for another consideration; that although we went article by article
through the Constitution, and although we did not expect a general
review of the subject, (as a most comprehensive view had been taken of
it before it was regularly debated,) yet we are carried back to the
clause giving that dreadful power, for the general welfare. Pardon me
if I remind you of the true state of that business. I appeal to the
candor of the honorable gentleman, and if he thinks it an improper
appeal, I ask the gentlemen here, whether there be a general
indefinite power of providing for the general welfare? The power is,
"to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the
debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare." So that
they can only raise money by these means, in order to provide for the
general welfare. No man who reads it can say it is general as the
honorable gentleman represents it. You must violate every rule of
construction and common sense, if you sever it from the power of
raising money and annex it to any thing else, in order to make it that
formidable power which it is represented to be.

Mr. George Mason. Mr. Chairman, with respect to commerce and
navigation, he has given it as his opinion, that their regulation, as
it now stands, was a _sine qua non_ of the Union, and that without it,
the States in convention would never concur. I differ from him. It
never was, nor in my opinion ever will be, a _sine qua non_ of the
Union. I will give you, to the best of my recollection, the history of
that affair. This business was discussed at Philadelphia for four
months, during which time the subject of commerce and navigation was
often under consideration; and I assert, that eight States out of
twelve, for more than three months, voted for requiring two-thirds of
the members present in each house to pass commercial and navigation
laws. True it is, that afterwards it was carried by a majority, as it
stands. If I am right, there was a great majority for requiring
two-thirds of the States in this business, till a compromise took
place between the Northern and Southern States; the Northern States
agreeing to the temporary importation of slaves, and the Southern
States conceding, in return, that navigation and commercial laws
should be on the footing on which they now stand. If I am mistaken,
let me be put right. These are my reasons for saying that this was
not a _sine qua non_ of their concurrence. The Newfoundland fisheries
will require that kind of security which we are now in want of. The
Eastern States therefore agreed at length, that treaties should
require the consent of two-thirds of the members present in the
senate.

Mr. Madison said--

I was struck with surprise when I heard him express himself alarmed
with respect to the emancipation of slaves. Let me ask, if they should
even attempt it, if it will not be an usurpation of power? There is no
power to warrant it, in that paper. If there be, I know it not. But
why should it be done? Says the honorable gentleman, for the general
welfare--it will infuse strength into our system. Can any member of
this committee suppose, that it will increase our strength? Can any
one believe, that the American councils will come into a measure which
will strip them of their property, discourage and alienate the
affections of five-thirteenths of the Union? Why was nothing of this
sort aimed at before? I believe such an idea never entered into an
American breast, nor do I believe it ever will, unless it will enter
into the heads of those gentlemen who substitute unsupported
suspicious for reasons.

Mr. Henry. He asked me where was the power of emancipating slaves? I
say it will be implied, unless implication be prohibited. He admits
that the power of granting passports will be in the new congress
without the insertion of this restriction--yet he can show me nothing
like such a power granted in that constitution. Notwithstanding he
admits their right to this power by implication, he says that I am
unfair and uncandid in my deduction, that they can emancipate our
slaves, though the word emancipation is not mentioned in it. They can
exercise power by implication in one instance, as well as in another.
Thus, by the gentleman's own argument, they can exercise the power
though it not be delegated.

Mr. Z. Johnson. They tell us that they see a progressive danger of
bringing about emancipation. The principle has begun since the
revolution. Let us do what we will, it will come round. Slavery has
been the foundation of that impiety and dissipation, which have been
so much disseminated among our countrymen. If it were totally
abolished, it would do much good.

       *     *     *     *     *

NORTH CAROLINA CONVENTION.

The first three clauses of the second section read.

Mr. Goudy. Mr. Chairman, this clause of taxation will give an
advantage to some States over others. It will be oppressive to the
Southern States. Taxes are equal to our representation. To augment
our taxes and increase our burthens, our negroes are to be
represented. If a State has fifty thousand negroes, she is to send one
representative for them. I wish not to be represented with negroes,
especially if it increases my burthens.

Mr. Davie. Mr. Chairman, I will endeavor to obviate what the
gentleman last up has said. I wonder to see gentlemen so precipitate
and hasty on the subject of such awful importance. It ought to be
considered, that _some_ of _us_ are slow of apprehension, not having
those quick conceptions, and luminous understandings, of which other
gentlemen may be possessed. The gentleman "does not wish to be
represented with negroes." This, sir, is an unhappy species of
population, but we cannot at present alter their situation. The
Eastern States had great jealousies on this subject. They insisted
that their cows and horses were equally entitled to representation;
that the one was property as well as the other. It became our duty on
the other hand, to acquire as much weight as possible in the
legislation of the Union; and as the Northern States were more
populous in whites, this only could be done by insisting that a
certain proportion of our slaves should make a part of the computed
population. It was attempted to form a rule of representation from a
compound ratio of wealth and population; but, on consideration, it was
found impracticable to determine the comparative value of lands, and
other property, in so extensive a territory, with any degree of
accuracy; and population alone was adopted as the only practicable
rule or criterion of representation. It was urged by the deputies of
the Eastern States, that a representation of two-fifths would be of
little utility, and that their entire representation would be unequal
and burthensome. That in a time of war, slaves rendered a country more
vulnerable, while its defence devolved upon its _free_ inhabitants. On
the other hand, we insisted, that in time of peace they contributed by
their labor to the general wealth as well as other members of the
community. That as rational beings they had a right of representation,
and in some instances might be highly useful in war. On these
principles, the Eastern States gave the matter up, and consented to
the regulation as it has been read. I hope these reasons will appear
satisfactory. It is the same rule or principle which was proposed some
years ago by Congress, and assented to by twelve of the States. It may
wound the delicacy of the gentleman from Guilford, [Mr. Goudy,] but I
hope he will endeavor to accommodate his feelings to the interests and
circumstances of his country.

Mr. James Galloway said, that he did not object to the representation
of negroes, so much as he did to the fewness of the number of
representatives. He was surprised how we came to have but five,
including those intended to represent negroes. That in his humble
opinion North Carolina was entitled to that number independent of the
negroes.

First clause of the 9th section read.

Mr. J. M'Dowall wished to hear the reasons of this restriction.

Mr. Spaight answered that there was a contest between the Northern and
Southern States--that the Southern States, whose principal support
depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of
the Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely.
That South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were
now in want of hands to cultivate their lands: That in the course of
twenty years they would be fully supplied: That the trade would be
abolished then, and that in the mean time some tax or duty might be
laid on.

Mr. M'Dowall replied, that the explanation was just such as he
expected, and by no means satisfactory to him and that he looked upon
it as a very objectionable part of the system.

Mr. Iredell. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express sentiments similar to
those of the gentleman from Craven. For my part, were it practicable
to put an end to the importation of slaves immediately, it would give
me the greatest pleasure, for it certainly is a trade utterly
inconsistent with the rights of humanity, and under which great
cruelties have been exercised. When the entire abolition of slavery
takes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing to every
generous mind, and every friend of human nature; but we often wish for
things which are not attainable. It was the wish of a great majority
of the Convention to put an end to the trade immediately, but the
States of South Carolina and Georgia would not agree to it. Consider
then what would be the difference between our present situation in
this respect, if we do not agree to the Constitution, and what it will
be if we do agree to it. If we do not agree to it, do we remedy the
evil? No, sir, we do not; for if the constitution be not adopted, it
will be in the power of every State to continue it forever. They may
or may not abolish it at their discretion. But if we adopt the
constitution, the trade must cease after twenty years, if congress
declare so, whether particular States please so or not: surely, then,
we gain by it. This was the utmost that could be obtained. I heartily
wish more could have been done. But as it is, this government is nobly
distinguished above others by that very provision. Where is there
another country in which such a restriction prevails? We, therefore,
sir, set an example of humanity by providing for the abolition of this
inhuman traffic, though at a distant period. I hope, therefore, that
this part of the constitution will not be condemned because it has not
stipulated for what it was impracticable to obtain.

Mr. Spaight further explained the clause. That the limitation of this
trade to the term of twenty years, was a compromise between the
Eastern States and the Southern States. South Carolina and Georgia
wished to extend the term. The Eastern States insisted on the entire
abolition of the trade. That the State of North Carolina had not
thought proper to pass any law prohibiting the importation of slaves,
and therefore its delegation in the convention did not think
themselves authorized to contend for an immediate prohibition of it.

Mr. Iredell added to what he had said before, that the States of
Georgia and South Carolina had lost a great many slaves during the
war, and that they wished to supply the loss.

Mr. Galloway. Mr. Chairman, the explanation given to this clause does
not satisfy my mind. I wish to see this abominable trade put an end to.
But in case it be thought proper to continue this abominable traffic
for twenty years, yet I do not wish to see the tax on the importation
extended to all persons whatsoever. Our situation is different from
the people to the North. We want citizens; they do not. Instead of
laying a tax, we ought to give a bounty, to encourage foreigners to
come among us. With respect to the abolition of slavery, it requires
the utmost consideration. The property of the Southern States consists
principally of slaves. If they mean to do away slavery altogether,
this property will be destroyed. I apprehend it means to bring forward
manumission. If we must manumit our slaves, what country shall we send
them to? It is impossible for us to be happy if, after manumission,
they are to stay among us.

Mr. Iredell. Mr. Chairman, the worthy gentleman, I believe, has
misunderstood this clause, which runs in the following words: "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 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on
_such importation_, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

Now, sir, observe that the Eastern States, who long ago have abolished
slavery, did not approve of the expression _slaves_; they therefore
used another that answered the same purpose. The committee will
observe the distinction between the two words migration and
importation. The first part of the clause will extend to persons who
come into the country as free people, or are brought as slaves, but
the last part extends to slaves only. The word _migration_ refers to
free persons; but the word _importation_ refers to slaves, because
free people cannot be said to be imported. The tax, therefore, is only
to be laid on slaves who are imported, and not on free persons who
migrate. I further beg leave to say, that this gentleman is mistaken
in another thing. He seems to say that this extends to the abolition
of slavery. Is there anything in this constitution which says that
Congress shall have it in their power to abolish the slavery of those
slaves who are now in the country? Is it not the plain meaning of it,
that after twenty years they may prevent the future importation of
slaves? It does not extend to those now in the country. There is
another circumstance to be observed. There is no authority vested in
congress to restrain the States in the interval of twenty years, from
doing what they please. If they wish to inhibit such importation, they
may do so. Our next assembly may put an entire end to the importation
of slaves.

Article fourth. The first section and two first clauses of the second
section read without observation.

The last clause read--

Mr. Iredell begged leave to explain the reason of this clause. In some
of the Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any
of our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain time, they
could, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that
their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely
prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States, and to prevent
it, this clause is inserted in the constitution. Though the word slave
be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The Northern delegates,
owing to their particular scruples on the subject of slavery, did not
choose the word _slave_ to be mentioned.

The rest of the fourth article read without any observation.

       *     *     *     *     *

It is however to be observed, (said Mr. Iredell,) that the first and
fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article, are
protected from any alteration till the year 1808; and in order that no
consolidation should take place, it is provided, that no State shall,
by any amendment or alteration, be ever deprived of an equal suffrage
in the Senate without its own consent. The two first prohibitions are
with respect to the census, according to which direct taxes are
imposed, and with respect to the importation of slaves. As to the
first, it must be observed, that there is a material difference
between the Northern and Southern States. The Northern States have
been much longer settled, and are much fuller of people than the
Southern, but have not land in equal proportion, nor scarcely any
slaves. The subject of this article was regulated with great
difficulty, and by a spirit of concession which it would not be
prudent to disturb for a good many years. In twenty years there will
probably be a great alteration, and then the subject may be considered
with less difficulty and greater coolness. In the mean time, the
compromise was upon the best footing that could be obtained. A
compromise likewise took place with regard to the importation of
slaves. It is probable that all the members reprobated this inhuman
traffic, but those of South Carolina and Georgia would not consent to
an immediate prohibition of it; one reason of which was, that during
the last war they lost a vast number of negroes, which loss they wish
to supply. In the mean time, it is left to the States to admit or
prohibit the importation, and Congress may impose a limited duty upon
it.

       *     *     *     *     *

SOUTH CAROLINA CONVENTION.

Hon. Rawlins Lowndes. In the first place, what cause was there for
jealousy of our importing negroes?  Why confine us to twenty years, or
rather why limit us at all?  For his part he thought this trade could
be justified on the principles of religion, humanity, and justice; for
certainly to translate a set of human beings from a bad country to a
better, was fulfilling every part of these principles. But they don't
like our slaves, because they have none themselves; and therefore want
to exclude us from this great advantage; why should the Southern
States allow of this, without the consent of nine States?

Judge Pendleton observed, that only three States, Georgia, South
Carolina, and North Carolina, allowed the importation of negroes.
Virginia had a clause in her constitution for this purpose, and
Maryland, he believed, even before the war, prohibited them.

Mr. Lowndes continued--that we had a law prohibiting the importation
of negroes for three years, a law he greatly approved of; but there
was no reason offered, why the Southern States might not find it
necessary to alter their conduct, and open their ports. Without
negroes this State would degenerate into one of the most contemptible
in the Union: and cited an expression that fell from Gen. Pinckney on
a former debate, that whilst there remained one acre of swamp land in
South Carolina he should raise his voice against restricting the
importation of negroes. Even in granting the importation for twenty
years, care had been taken to make us pay for this indulgence, each
negro being liable, on importation, to pay a duty not exceeding ten
dollars, and, in addition this, were liable to a capitation tax.
Negroes were our wealth, our only natural resource; yet behold how our
kind friends in the North were determined soon to tie up our hands,
and drain us of what we had. The Eastern States drew their means of
subsistence, in a great treasure, from their shipping; and on that
head, they had been particularly careful not to allow of any burdens:
they were not to pay tonnage, or duties; no, not even the form of
clearing out: all ports were free and open to them! Why, then, call
this a reciprocal bargain, which took all from one party, to bestow it
on the other?

Major Butler observed that they were to pay a five per cent impost.
This, Mr. Lowndes proved, must fall upon the consumer. They are to be
the carriers: and we, being the consumers, therefore all expenses
would fall upon us.

Hon. E. Rutledge. The gentleman had complained of the inequality of
the taxes between the Northern and Southern States--that ten dollars a
head was imposed on the importation of negroes, and that those negroes
were afterwards taxed. To this it was answered, that the ten dollars
per head was an equivalent to the five per cent on imported articles;
and as to their being afterwards taxed, the advantage is on our side;
or, at least, not against us.

In the Northern State, the labor is performed by white people; in the
Southern by black. All the free people (and there are few others) in
the Northern States, are to be taxed by the new constitution whereas,
only the free people, and two-fifths of the slaves in the Southern
States are to be rated in the apportioning of taxes.

But the principal objection is, that no duties are laid on
shipping--that in fact the carrying trade was to be vested in a great
measure in the Americans; that the ship-building business was
principally carried on in the Northern States. When this subject is
duly considered, the Southern States, should be the last to object to
it. Mr. Rutledge then went into a consideration of the subject; after
which the House adjourned.

Gen. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. We were at a loss for some time for
a rule to ascertain the proportionate wealth of the States, at last we
thought that the productive labor of the inhabitants was the best rule
for ascertaining their wealth; in conformity to this rule, joined to a
spirit of concession, we determined that representatives should be
apportioned among the several States, by adding to the whole number of
free persons three-fifths of the slaves. We thus obtained a
representation for our property, and I confess I did not expect that
we had conceded too much to the Eastern States, when they allowed us a
representation for a species of property which they have not among
them.

The honorable gentleman alleges, that the Southern States are weak, I
sincerely agree with him--we are so weak that by ourselves we could
not form an union strong enough for the purpose of effectually
protecting each other. Without union with the other States, South
Carolina must soon fall. Is there any one among us so much a Quixotte
as to suppose that this State could long maintain her independence if
she stood alone, or was only connected with the Southern States? I
scarcely believe there is. Let an invading power send a naval force
into the Chesapeake to keep Virginia in alarm, and attack South
Carolina with such a naval and military force as Sir Henry Clinton
brought here in 1780, and though they might not soon conquer us, they
would certainly do us an infinite deal of mischief; and if they
considerably increased their numbers, we should probably fall. As,
from the nature of our climate, and the fewness of our inhabitants, we
are undoubtedly weak, should we not endeavor to form a close union
with the Eastern States, who are strong?

For who have been the greatest sufferers in the Union, by our
obtaining, our independence? I answer, the Eastern States; they have
lost every thing but their country, and their freedom. It is notorious
that some ports to the Eastward, which used to fit out one hundred and
fifty sail of vessels, do not now fit out thirty; that their trade of
ship-building, which used to be very considerable, is now annihilated;
that their fisheries are trifling, and their mariners in want of
bread; surely we are called upon by every tie of justice, friendships,
and humanity, to relieve their distresses; and as by their exertions
they have assisted us in establishing our freedom, we should let them,
in some measure, partake of our prosperity. The General then said he
would make a few observations on the objections which the gentleman
had thrown out on the restrictions that might be laid on the African
trade after the year 1808. On this point your delegates had to contend
with the religious and political prejudices of the Eastern and Middle
States, and with the interested and inconsistent opinion of Virginia,
who was warmly opposed to our importing more slaves. I am of the same
opinion now as I was two years ago, when I used the expressions that
the gentleman has quoted, that while there remained one acre of swamp
land uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice against
restricting the importation of negroes. I am as thoroughly convinced
as that gentleman is, that the nature of our climate, and the flat
swampy situation of our country, obliges us to cultivate our land with
negroes, and that without them South Carolina would soon be a desert
waste.

You have so frequently heard my sentiments on this subject that I need
not now repeat them. It was alleged, by some of the members who
opposed an unlimited importation, that slaves increased the weakness
of any State who admitted them; that they were a dangerous species of
property, which an invading enemy could easily turn against ourselves
and the neighboring States, and that as we were allowed a
representation for them in the House of Representatives, our influence
in government would be increased in proportion as we were less able to
defend ourselves. "Show some period," said the members from the
Eastern States, "when it may be in our power to put a stop, if we
please, to the importation of this weakness, and we will endeavor, for
your convenience, to restrain the religious and political prejudices
of our people on this subject."

The Middle States and Virginia made us no such proposition; they were
for an immediate and total prohibition. We endeavored to obviate the
objections that were made, in the best manner we could, and assigned
reasons for our insisting on the importation, which there is no
occasion to repeat, as they must occur to every gentleman in the
House: a committee of the States was appointed in order to accommodate
this matter, and after a great deal of difficulty, it was settled on
the footing recited in the Constitution.

By this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of negroes
for twenty years; nor is it declared that the importation shall be
then stopped; it may be continued--we have a security that the general
government can never emancipate them, for no such authority is
granted, and it is admitted on all hands, that the general government
has no powers but what are expressly granted by the constitution; and
that all rights not expressed were reserved by the several States. We
have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of
America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In
short, considering all circumstances, we have made the best terms, for
the security of this species of property, it was in our power to make.
We would have made better if we could, but on the whole I do not think
them bad.

Hon. Robert Barnwell. Mr. Barnwell continued to say, I now come to the
last point for consideration, I mean the clause relative to the
negroes; and here I am particularly pleased with the Constitution; it
has not left this matter of so much importance to us open to immediate
investigation; no, it has declared that the United States shall not,
at any rate, consider this matter for twenty-one years, and yet
gentlemen are displeased with it.

Congress has guaranteed this right for that space of time, and at its
expiration may continue it as long as they please. This question then
arises, what will their interest lead them to do? The Eastern States,
as the honorable gentleman says, will become the carriers of America,
it will, therefore certainly be their interest to encourage
exportation to as great an extent as possible; and if the quantum of
our products will be diminished by the prohibition of negroes, I
appeal to the belief of every man, whether he thinks those very
carriers will themselves dam up the resources from whence their profit
is derived? To think so is so contradictory to the general conduct of
mankind, that I am of opinion, that without we ourselves put a stop to
them, the traffic for negroes will continue forever.

       *     *     *     *     *

FEDERALIST, No. 42.

BY JAMES MADISON

It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the
importation of slaves, had not been postponed until the year 1808, or
rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it
is not difficult to account either for this restriction on the general
government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed.

It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of
humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate for ever within
these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the
barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a
considerable discouragement from the Federal government, and may be
totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue
the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given
by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the
unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them, of being
redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethern! Attempts
have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the
Constitution, by representing it on one side, as a criminal toleration
of an illicit practice; and on another, as calculated to prevent
voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention
these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for
they deserve none; but as specimens of the manner and spirit, in which
some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed
government.

       *     *     *     *     *

FEDERALIST, No. 54.

BY JAMES MADISON.

All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said: but does it follow from
an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of
slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves
ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation?

Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought
therefore, to be comprehended in estimates of taxation, which are
founded on property, and to be excluded from representation, which is
regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection as I
understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in
stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. We
subscribe to the doctrine, might one of our Southern brethern observe,
that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation
more immediately to property; and we join in the application of this
distinction to the case of our slaves.

But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as
property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the
case is, that they partake of both these qualities, being considered
by our laws, in some respects as persons, and in other respects as
property.

In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in
being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject
at all times to be restrained in his liberty: and chastised in his
body by the capricious will of another; the slave may appear to be
degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational
animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being
protected, on the other hand, in his life, and in his limbs, against
the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his
liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed
against others; the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as
a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as
a moral person, not as a mere article of property. The Federal
constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of
our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and
property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character
bestowed on them by the laws under which they live, and it will not be
denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under
the pretext, that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects
of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of
numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the
rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be
refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants.

This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all
sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they
are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have
been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the
list of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be
calculated; and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of
contributions was to be adjusted?

Could it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would concur
in a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as men, when
burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same
light, when advantages were to be conferred?

Might not some surprise also be expressed, that those who reproach the
Southern States with the, barbarous policy of considering as property
a part of their human brethern, should themselves contend, that the
government to which all the States are to be parties, ought to
consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light
of property, than the very laws of which they complain?

It may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the
estimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They
neither vote themselves, nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon
what principle, then, ought they to be taken into the Federal estimate
of representation? In rejecting them altogether, the constitution
would, in this respect, have followed the very laws which have been
appealed to as the proper guide.

This objection is repelled by a single observation. It is a
fundamental principle of the proposed constitution, that as the
aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is
to be determined by a Federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of
inhabitants; so, the right of choosing this allotted number in each
State, is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants, as the
State itself may designate. The qualifications of which the right of
suffrage depends, are not perhaps the same in any two States. In some
of the States the difference is very material. In every State, a
certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the
constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which
the Federal constitution apportions the representatives. In this point
of view, the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting,
that the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard
should be had to the policy of particular States towards their own
inhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should
have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in
like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other
States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous
adherence, however, to this principle is waived by those who would be
gainers by it. All that they ask, is that equal moderation be shown on
the other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in
truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the
constitution be annually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants,
but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants,
which regards the _slave_ as divested of two-fifths of the _man_.


DEBATES IN FIRST CONGRESS,

MAY 13, 1789.

Mr. Parker (of Va.) moved to insert a clause in the bill, imposing a
duty on the importation of slaves of ten dollars each person. He was
sorry that the constitution prevented Congress from prohibiting the
importation altogether; he thought it a defect in that instrument that
it allowed of such actions, it was contrary to the revolution
principles, and ought not to be permitted; but as he could not do all
the good he desired, he was willing to do what lay in his power. He
hoped such a duty as he moved for would prevent, in some degree, this
irrational and inhuman traffic; if so, he should feel happy from the
success of his motion.

Mr. Smith (of South Carolina,) hoped that such an important and
serious proposition as this would not be hastily adopted; it was a
very late moment for the introduction of new subjects. He expected the
committee had got through the business, and would rise without
discussing any thing further; at least, if gentlemen were determined
on considering the present motion, he hoped they would delay for a few
days, in order to give time for an examination of the subject. It was
certainly a matter big with the most serious consequences to the State
he represented; he did not think any one thing that had been discussed
was so important to them, and the welfare of the Union, as the
question now brought forward, but he was not prepared to enter on any
argument, and therefore requested the motion might either be withdrawn
or laid on the table.

Mr. Sherman (of Ct.) approved of the object of the motion, but he did
not think this bill was proper to embrace the subject. He could not
reconcile himself to the insertion of human beings as an article of
duty, among goods, wares and merchandise. He hoped it would be
withdrawn for the present, and taken up hereafter as an independent
subject.

Mr. Jackson, (of Geo.) observing the quarter from which this motion
came, said it did not surprise him, though it might have that effect
on others. He recollected that Virginia was an old settled State, and
had her complement of slaves, so she was careless of recruiting her
numbers by this means; the natural increase of her imported blacks
were sufficient for their purpose; but he thought gentlemen ought to
let their neighbors get supplied before they imposed such a burthen
upon the importation. He knew this business was viewed in an odious
light to the Eastward, because the people were capable of doing their
own work, and had no occasion for slaves; but gentlemen will have some
feeling for others; they will not try to throw all the weight upon
others, who have assisted in lightening their burdens; they do not
wish to charge us for every comfort and enjoyment of life, and at the
same time take away the means of procuring them; they do not wish to
break us down at once.

He was convinced, from the inaptitude of the motion, and the want of
time to consider it, that the candor of the gentleman would induce him
to withdraw it for the present; and if ever it came forward again, he
hoped it would comprehend the white slaves as well as black, who were
imported from all the goals of Europe; wretches, convicted of the most
flagrant crimes, were brought in and sold without any duty whatever.
He thought that they ought to be taxed equal to the Africans, and had
no doubt but the constitutionality and propriety of such a measure was
equally apparent as the one proposed.

Mr. Tucker (of S.C.) thought it unfair to bring in such an important
subject at the time when debate was almost precluded. The committee
had gone through the impost bill, and the whole Union were impatiently
expecting the result of their deliberations, the public must be
disappointed and much revenue lost, or this question cannot undergo
that full discussion which it deserves.

We have no right, said he, to consider whether the importation of
slaves is proper or not; the Constitution gives us no power on that
point, it is left to the States to judge of that matter as they see
fit. But if it was a business the gentleman was determined to
discourage, he ought to have brought his motion forward sooner, and
even then not have introduced it without previous notice. He hoped the
committee would reject the motion, if it was not withdrawn; he was not
speaking so much for the State he represented, as for Georgia, because
the State of South Carolina had a prohibitory law, which could be
renewed when its limitation expired.

Mr. Parker (of Va.,) had ventured to introduce the subject after full
deliberation, and did not like to withdraw it. Although the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Sherman) had said, that they ought not to be
enumerated with goods, wares, and merchandise, he believed they were
looked upon by the African traders in this light, he knew it was
degrading the human species to annex that character to them; but he
would rather do this than continue the actual evil of importing slaves
a moment longer. He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their
power to restore to human nature its inherent privileges, and if
possible wipe off the stigma which America laboured under. The
inconsistency in our principles, with which we are justly charged,
should be done away; that we may shew by our actions the pure
beneficence of the doctrine we held out to the world in our
declaration of independence.

Mr. Sherman (of Ct.,) thought the principles of the motion and the
principles of the bill were inconsistent; the principle of the bill
was to raise revenue, the principle of the motion to correct a moral
evil. Now, considering it as an object of revenue, it would be unjust,
because two or three States would bear the whole burthen, while he
believed they bore their full proportion of all the rest. He was
against receiving the motion into this bill, though he had no
objection to taking it up by itself, on the principles of humanity and
policy; and therefore would vote against it if it was not withdrawn.

Mr. Ames (of Mass.,) joined the gentleman last up. No one could
suppose him favorable to slavery, he detested it from his soul, but he
had some doubts whether imposing a duty on the importation, would not
have the appearance of countenancing the practice; it was certainly a
subject of some delicacy, and no one appeared to be prepared for the
discussion, he therefore hoped the motion would be withdrawn.

Mr. Livermore. Was not against the principle of the motion, but in the
present case he conceived it improper. If negroes were goods, wares,
or merchandise, they came within the title of the bill; if they were
not, the bill would be inconsistent: but if they are goods, wares or
merchandise, the 5 per cent ad valorum, will embrace the importation;
and the duty of 5 per cent is nearly equal to 10 dollars per head, so
there is no occasion to add it even on the score of revenue.

Mr. Jackson (of Ga.,) said it was the fashion of the day, to favor the
liberty of slaves; he would not go into a discussion of the subject,
but he believed it was capable of demonstration that they were better
off in their present situation, than they would be if they were
manumitted; what are they to do if they are discharged? Work for a
living? Experience has shewn us they will not. Examine what is become
of those in Maryland, many of them have been set free in that State;
did they turn themselves to industry and useful pursuits? No, they
turn out common pickpockets, petty larceny villains; and is this
mercy, forsooth, to turn them into a way in which they must lose their
lives,--for where they are thrown upon the world, void of property and
connections, they cannot get their living but by pilfering. What is to
be done for compensation? Will Virginia set all her negroes free? Will
they give up the money they cost them, and to whom? When this practice
comes to be tried there, the sound of liberty will lose those charms
which make it grateful to the ravished ear.

But our slaves are not in a worse situation than they were on the
coast of Africa; it is not uncommon there for the parents to sell
their children in peace; and in war the whole are taken and made
slaves together. In these cases it is only a change of one slavery for
another; and are they not better here, where they have a master bound
by the ties of interest and law to provide for their support and
comfort in old age, or infirmity, in which, if they were free, they
would sink under the pressure of woe for want of assistance.

He would say nothing of the partiality of such a tax, it was admitted
by the avowed friends of the measure; Georgia in particular would be
oppressed. On this account it would be the most odious tax Congress
could impose.

Mr. Schureman (of N.J.) hoped the gentleman would withdraw his motion,
because the present was not the time or place for introducing the
business; he thought it had better be brought forward in the House, as
a distinct proposition. If the gentleman persisted in having the
question determined, he would move the previous question if he was
supported.

Mr. Madison, (of Va.) I cannot concur with gentlemen who think the
present an improper time or place to enter into a discussion of the
proposed motion; if it is taken up in a separate view, we shall do the
same thing at a greater expense of time. But the gentlemen say that it
is improper to connect the two objects, because they do not come
within the title of the bill. But this objection may be obviated by
accommodating the title to the contents; there may be some
inconsistency in combining the ideas which gentlemen have expressed,
that is, considering the human race as a species of property; but the
evil does not arise from adopting the clause now proposed, it is from
the importation to which it relates. Our object in enumerating persons
on paper with merchandise, is to prevent the practice of actually
treating them as such, by having them, in future, forming part of the
cargoes of goods, wares, and merchandise to be imported into the
United States. The motion is calculated to avoid the very evil
intimated by the gentleman. It has been said that this tax will be
partial and oppressive; but suppose a fair view is taken of this
subject, I think we may form a different conclusion. But if it be
partial or oppressive, are there not many instances in which we have
laid taxes of this nature? Yet are they not thought to be justified by
national policy? If any article is warranted on this account, how much
more are we authorized to proceed on this occasion? The dictates of
humanity, the principles of the people, the national safety and
happiness, and prudent policy requires it of us; the constitution has
particularly called our attention to it--and of all the articles
contained in the bill before us, this is one of the last I should be
willing to make a concession upon so far as I was at liberty to go,
according to the terms of the constitution or principles of justice--I
would not have it understood that my zeal would carry me to disobey
the inviolable commands of either.

I understood it had been intimated, that the motion was inconsistent
or unconstitutional. I believe, sir, my worthy colleague has formed
the words with a particular reference to the constitution; any how, so
far as the duty is expressed, it perfectly accords with that
instrument; if there are any inconsistencies in it, they may be
rectified; I believe the intention is well understood, but I am far
from supposing the diction improper. If the description of the persons
does not accord with the ideas of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr.
Jackson,) and his idea is a proper one for the committee to adopt, I
see no difficulty in changing the phraseology.

I conceive the constitution, in this particular, was formed in order
that the government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total
prohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the sense of
America, with respect to the African trade. We have liberty to impose
a tax or duty upon the importation of such persons as any of the
States now existing shall think proper to admit; and this liberty was
granted, I presume, upon two considerations--the first was, that until
the time arrived when they might abolish the importation of slaves,
they might have an opportunity of evidencing their sentiments, on the
policy and humanity of such a trade; the other was that they might be
taxed in due proportion with other articles imported; for if the
possessor will consider them as property, of course they are of value
and ought to be paid for. If gentlemen are apprehensive of oppression
from the weight of the tax, let them make an estimate of its
proportion, and they will find that it very little exceeds five per
cent, ad valorem, so that they will gain very little by having them
thrown into that mass of articles, whilst by selecting them in the
manner proposed, we shall fulfil the prevailing expectation of our
fellow citizens, and perform our duty in executing the purposes of the
constitution. It is to be hoped that by expressing a national
disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves
from reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility ever attendant on a
country filled with slaves.

I do not wish to say any thing harsh, to the hearing of gentlemen who
entertain different sentiments from me, or different sentiments from
those I represent; but if there is any one point in which it is
clearly the policy of this nation, so far as we constitutionally can,
to vary the practice obtaining under some of the State governments, it
is this; but it is certain a majority of the States are opposed to
this practice, therefore, upon principle, we ought to discountenance
it as far as is in our power.

If I was not afraid of being told that the representatives of the
several States, are the best able to judge of what is proper and
conducive to their particular prosperity, I should venture to say that
it is as much the interest of Georgia and South Carolina, as of any in
the Union. Every addition they receive to their number of slaves,
tends to weaken them and renders them less capable of self defence. In
case of hostilities with foreign nations, they will be the means of
inviting attack instead of repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty
of the general government to protect every part of the empire against
danger, as well internal as external; every thing therefore which
tends to increase this danger, though it may be a local affair, yet if
it involves national expense or safety, becomes of concern to every
part of the Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of
those charged with the general administration of the government. I
hope, in making these observations, I shall not be understood to mean
that a proper attention ought not to be paid to the local opinions and
circumstances of any part of the United States, or that the particular
representatives are not best able to judge of the sense of their
immediate constituents.

If we examine the proposal measure by the agreement there is between
it, and the existing State laws, it will show us that it is patronized
by a very respectable part of the Union. I am informed that South
Carolina has prohibited the importation of slaves for several years
yet to come; we have the satisfaction then of reflecting that we do
nothing more than their own laws do at this moment. This is not the
case with one State. I am sorry that her situation is such as to seem
to require a population of this nature, but it is impossible in the
nature of things, to consult the national good without doing what we
do not wish to do, to some particular part. Perhaps gentlemen contend
against the introduction of the clause, on too slight grounds. If it
does not conform with the title of the bill, alter the latter; if it
does not conform to the precise terms of the constitution, amend it.
But if it will tend to delay the whole bill, that perhaps will be the
best reason for making it the object of a separate one. If this is the
sense of the committee I shall submit.

Mr. Gerry (of Mass.) thought all duties ought to be laid as equal as
possible. He had endeavored to enforce this principle yesterday, but
without the success he wished for, he was bound by the principles of
justice therefore to vote for the proposition; but if the committee
were desirous of considering the subject fully by itself, he had no
objection, but he thought when gentlemen laid down a principle, they
ought to support it generally.

Mr. Burke (of S.C.) said, gentlemen were contending for nothing; that
the value of a slave averaged about £80, and the duty on that sum at
five per cent, would be ten dollars, as congress could go no farther
than that sum, he conceived it made not difference whether they were
enumerated or left in the common mass.

Mr. Madison, (of Va.) If we contend for nothing, the gentlemen who are
opposed to us do not contend for a great deal; but the question is,
whether the five percent ad valorem, on all articles imported, will
have any operation at all upon the introduction of slaves, unless we
make a particular enumeration on this account; the collector may
mistake, for he would not presume to apply the term goods, wares, and
merchandise to any person whatsoever. But if that general definition
of goods, wares, and merchandise are supposed to include African
Slaves, why may we not particularly enumerate them, and lay the duty
pointed out by the Constitution, which, as gentlemen tell us, is no
more than five per cent upon their value; this will not increase the
burden upon any, but it will be that manifestation of our sense,
expected by our constituents, and demanded by justice and humanity.

Mr. Bland (of Va.) had no doubt of the propriety or good policy of
this measure. He had made up his mind upon it, he wished slaves had
never been introduced into America; but if it was impossible at this
time to cure the evil, he was very willing to join in any measures
that would prevent its extending farther. He had some doubts whether
the prohibitory laws of the States were not in part repealed. Those
who had endeavored to discountenance this trade, by laying a duty on
the importation, were prevented by the Constitution from continuing
such regulation, which declares, that no State shall lay any impost or
duties on imports. If this was the case, and he suspected pretty
strongly that it was, the necessity of adopting the proposition of his
colleague was not apparent.

Mr. Sherman (of Ct.) said, the Constitution does not consider these
persons as a species of property; it speaks of them as persons, and
says, that a tax or duty may be imposed on the importation of them
into any State which shall permit the same, but they have no power to
prohibit such importation for twenty years. But Congress have power to
declare upon what terms persons coming into the United States shall be
entitled to citizenship; the rule of naturalization must however be
uniform. He was convinced there were others ought to be regulated in
this particular, the importation of whom was of an evil tendency, he
meant convicts particularly. He thought that some regulation
respecting them was also proper; but it being a different subject, it
ought to be taken up in a different manner.

Mr. Madison (of Va.) was led to believe, from the observation that had
fell from the gentlemen, that it would be best to make this the
subject of a distinct bill: he therefore wished his colleague would
withdraw his motion, and move in the house for leave to bring in a
bill on the same principles.

Mr. Parker (of Va.) consented to withdraw his motion, under a
conviction that the house was fully satisfied of its propriety. He
knew very well that these persons were neither goods, nor wares, but
they were treated as articles of merchandise. Although he wished to
get rid of this part of his property, yet he should not consent to
deprive other people of theirs by any act of his without their
consent.

The committee rose, reported progress, and the house adjourned.

FEBRUARY 11th, 1790.

Mr. Lawrance (of New York,) presented an address from the society of
Friends, in the City of New York; in which they set forth their desire
of co-operating with their Southern brethren.

Mr. Hartley (of Penn.) then moved to refer the address of the annual
assembly of Friends, held at Philadelphia, to a committee; he thought
it a mark of respect due so numerous and respectable a part of the
community.

Mr. White (of Va.) seconded the motion.

Mr. Smith, (of S.C.) However respectable the petitioners may be, I
hope gentlemen will consider that others equally respectable are
opposed to the object which is aimed at, and are entitled to an
opportunity of being heard before the question is determined. I
flatter myself gentlemen will not press the point of commitment
to-day, it being contrary to our usual mode of procedure.

Mr. Fitzsimons, (of Penn.) If we were now about to determine the final
question, the observation of the gentleman from South Carolina would
apply; but, sir, the present question does not touch upon the merits
of the case; it is merely to refer the memorial to a committee, to
consider what is proper to be done; gentlemen, therefore, who do not
mean to oppose the commitment to-morrow, may as well agree to it
to-day, because it will tend to save the time of the house.

Mr. Jackson (of Geo.) wished to know why the second reading was to be
contended for to-day, when it was diverting the attention of the
members from the great object that was before the committee of the
whole? Is it because the feelings of the Friends will be hurt, to have
their affair conducted in the usual course of business? Gentlemen who
advocate the second reading to-day, should respect the feelings of the
members who represent that part of the Union which is principally to
be affected by the measure. I believe, sir, that the latter class
consists of as useful and as good citizens as the petitioners, men
equally friends to the revolution, and equally susceptible of the
refined sensations of humanity and benevolence. Why then should such
particular attention be paid to them, for bringing forward a business
of questionable policy? If Congress are disposed to interfere in the
importation of slaves, they can take the subject up without advisers,
because the Constitution expressly mentions all the power they can
exercise on the subject.

Mr. Sherman (of Conn.) suggested the idea of referring it to a
committee, to consist of a member from each State, because several
States had already made some regulations on this subject. The sooner
the subject was taken up he thought it would be the better.

Mr. Parker, (of Va.) I hope, Mr. Speaker, the petition of these
respectable people, will be attended to with all the readiness the
importance of its object demands: and I cannot help expressing the
pleasure I feel in finding so considerable a part of the community
attending to matters of such momentous concern to the future
prosperity and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty,
as a citizen of the Union, to espouse their cause; and it is incumbent
upon every member of this house to sift the subject well, and
ascertain what can be done to restrain a practice so nefarious. The
Constitution has authorized as to levy a tax upon the importation of
such persons as the States shall authorize to be admitted. I would
willingly go to that extent; and if any thing further can be devised
to discountenance the trade, consistent with the terms of the
Constitution, I shall cheerfully give it my assent and support.

Mr. Madison, (of Va.) The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr.
Fitzsimons) has put this question on its proper ground. If gentlemen
do not mean to oppose the commitment to-morrow, they may as well
acquiesce in it to-day; and I apprehend gentlemen need not be alarmed
at any measure it is likely Congress should take; because they will
recollect, that the Constitution secures to the individual States the
right of admitting, if they think proper, the importation of slaves
into their own territory, for eighteen years yet unexpired; subject,
however, to a tax, if Congress are disposed to impose it, of not more
than ten dollars on each person.

The petition, if I mistake not, speaks of artifices used by
self-interested persons to carry on this trade; and the petition from
New York states a case, that may require the consideration of
Congress. If anything is within the Federal authority to restrain such
violation of the rights of nations, and of mankind, as is supposed to
be practised in some parts of the United States it will certainly tend
to the interest and honor of the community to attempt a remedy, and is
a proper subject for our discussion. It may be, that foreigners take
the advantage of the liberty afforded them by the American trade, to
employ our shipping in the slave trade between Africa and the West
Indies, when they are restrained from employing their own by
restrictive laws of their nation. If this is the case, is there any
person of humanity that would not wish to prevent them? Another
consideration why we should commit the petition is, that we may give
no ground of alarm by a serious opposition, as if we were about to
take measures that were unconstitutional.

Mr. Stone (of Md.) feared that if Congress took any measures,
indicative of an intention to interfere with the kind of property
alluded to, it would sink it in value very considerably, and might be
injurious to a great number of the citizens, particularly in the
Southern States.

He thought the subject was of general concern, and that the
petitioners had no more right to interfere with it than any other
members of the community. It was an unfortunate circumstance, that it
was the property of sects to imagine they understood the rights of
human nature letter than all the world beside; and that they would, in
consequence, be meddling with concerns in which they had nothing to
do.

As the petition relates to a subject of a general nature, it ought to
lie on the table, as information; he would never consent to refer
petitions, unless the petitioners were exclusively interested. Suppose
there was a petition to come before us from a society, praying us to
be honest in our transactions, or that we should administer the
Constitution according to its intention--what would you do with a
petition of this kind? Certainly it would remain on your table. He
would, nevertheless, not have it supposed, that the people had not a
right to advise and give their opinion upon public measures; but he
would not be influenced by that advice or opinion, to take up a
subject sooner than the convenience of other business would admit.
Unless he changed his sentiments, he would oppose the commitment.

Mr. Burke (of S.C.) thought gentlemen were paying attention to what
did not deserve it. The men in the gallery had come here to meddle in
a business with which they have nothing to do; they were volunteering
it in the cause of others, who neither expected nor desired it. He had
a respect for the body of Quakers, but, nevertheless, he did not
believe they had more virtue, or religion, than other people, nor
perhaps so much, if they were examined to the bottom, notwithstanding
their outward pretences. If their petition is to be noticed, Congress
ought to wait till counter applications were made, and then they might
have the subject more fairly before them. The rights of the Southern
States ought not to be threatened, and their property endangered, to
please people who were to be unaffected by the consequences.

Mr. Hartley (of Penn.) thought the memorialists did not deserve to be
aspersed for their conduct, if influenced by motives of benignity,
they solicited the Legislature of the Union to repel, as far as in
their power, the increase of a licentious traffic. Nor do they merit
censure, because their behavior has the appearance of more morality
than other people's. But it is not for Congress to refuse to hear the
applications of their fellow-citizens, while those applications
contain nothing unconstitutional or offensive. What is the object of
the address before us? It is intended to bring before this House a
subject of great importance to the cause of humanity; there are
certain facts to be enquired into, and the memorialists are ready to
give all the information in their power; they are waiting, at a great
distance from their homes, and wish to return; if, then, it will be
proper to commit the petition to-morrow, it will be equally proper
to-day, for it is conformable to our practice, beside, it will tend to
their conveniency.

Mr. Lawrance, (of N.Y.) The Gentleman from South Carolina says, the
petitioners are of a society not known in the laws or Constitution.
Sir, in all our acts, as well as in the Constitution, we have noticed
this Society; or why is it that we admit them to affirm, in cases
where others are called upon to swear? If we pay this attention to
them, in one instance, what good reason is there for condemning them
in another? I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Stone,) carries
his apprehensions too far, when he fears that negro-property will fall
in value, by the suppression of the slave-trade: not that I suppose it
immediately in the power of Congress to abolish a traffic which is a
disgrace to human nature; but it appears to me, that, if the
importation was crushed, the value of a slave would be increased
instead of diminished; however, considerations of this kind have
nothing to do with the present question; gentlemen may acquiesce in
the commitment of the memorial, without pledging themselves to support
its object.

Mr. Jackson, (of Ga.) I differ much in opinion with the gentleman last
up. I apprehend if, through the interference of the general
government, the slave-trade was abolished, it would evince to the
people a disposition toward a total emancipation, and they would hold
their property in jeopardy. Any extraordinary attention of Congress to
this petition may have, in some degree, a similar effect. I would beg
to ask those, then, who are so desirous of freeing the negroes, if
they have funds sufficient to pay for them? If they have, they may
come forward on that business with some propriety; but, if they have
not, they should keep themselves quiet, and not interfere with a
business in which they are not interested. They may as well come
forward, and solicit Congress to interdict the West-India trade,
because it is injurious to the morals of mankind; from thence we
import rum, which has a debasing influence upon the consumer. But,
sir, is the whole morality of the United States confined to the
Quakers? Are they the only people whose feelings are to be consulted
on this occasion? Is it to them we owe our present happiness? Was it
they who formed the Constitution? Did they, by their arms, or
contributions, establish our independence? I believe they were
generally opposed to that measure. Why, then, on their application,
shall we injure men, who, at the risk of their lives and fortunes,
secured to the community their liberty and property? If Congress pay
any uncommon degree of attention to their petition, it will furnish
just ground of alarm to the Southern States. But, why do these men set
themselves up, in such a particular manner, against slavery? Do they
understand the rights of mankind, and the disposition of Providence
better than others? If they were to consult that Book which claims our
regard, they will find that slavery is not only allowed, but
commended. Their Saviour, who possessed more benevolence and
commiseration than they pretend to, has allowed of it. And if they
fully examine the subject, they will find that slavery has been no
novel doctrine since the days of Cain. But be these things as they
may, I hope the house will order the petition to lie on the table, in
order to prevent alarming our Southern brethren.

Mr. Sedgwick, (of Mass.) If it was a serious question, whether the
Memorial should be committed or not, I would not urge it at this time;
but that cannot be a question for a moment, if we consider our
relative situation with the people. A number of men,--who are
certainly very respectable, and of whom, as a society, it may be said
with truth, that they conform their moral conduct to their religious
tenets, as much as any people in the whole community,--come forward
and tell you, that you may effect two objects by the exercise of a
Constitutional authority which will give great satisfaction; on the
one hand you may acquire revenue, and on the other, restrain a
practice productive of great evil. Now, setting aside the religious
motives which influenced their application, have they not a right, as
citizens, to give their opinion of public measures? For my part I do
not apprehend that any State, or any considerable number of
individuals in any State, will be seriously alarmed at the commitment
of the petition, from a fear that Congress intend to exercise an
unconstitutional authority, in order to violate their rights; I
believe there is not a wish of the kind entertained by any member of
this body. How can gentlemen hesitate then to pay that respect to a
memorial which it is entitled to, according to the ordinary mode of
procedure in business? Why shall we defer doing that till to-morrow,
which we can do to-day? for the result, I apprehend, will be the same
in either case.

Mr. Smith, (of S.C.) The question, I apprehend, is, whether we will
take the petition up for a second reading, and not whether it shall be
committed? Now, I oppose this, because it is contrary to our usual
practice, and does not allow gentlemen time to consider of the merits
of the prayer; perhaps some gentlemen may think it improper to commit
it to so large a committee as has been mentioned; a variety of causes
may be supposed to show that such a hasty decision is improper;
perhaps the prayer of it is improper. If I understood it right, on its
first reading, though, to be sure, I did not comprehend perfectly all
that the petition contained, it prays that we should take measures for
the abolition of the slave trade; this is desiring an unconstitutional
act, because the constitution secures that trade to the States,
independent of congressional restrictions, for the term of twenty-one
years. If, therefore, it prays for a violation of constitutional
rights, it ought to be rejected, as an attempt upon the virtue and
patriotism of the house.

Mr. Boudinot, (of N.J.) It has been said that the Quakers have no
right to interfere in this business; I am surprised to hear this
doctrine advanced, after it has been so lately contended, and settled,
that the people have a right to assemble and petition for redress of
grievances; it is not because the petition comes from the society of
Quakers that I am in favor of the commitment, but because it comes
from citizens of the United States, who are as equally concerned in
the welfare and happiness of their country as others. There certainly
is no foundation for the apprehensions which seem to prevail in
gentlemen's minds. If the petitioners were so uninformed as to suppose
that congress could be guilty of a violation of the constitution, yet,
I trust we know our duty better than to be led astray by an
application from any man, or set of men whatever. I do not consider
the merits of the main question to be before us; it will be time
enough to give our opinions upon that, when the committee have
reported. If it is in our power, by recommendation, or any other way,
to put a stop to the slave-trade in America, I do not doubt of its
policy; but how far the constitution will authorize us to attempt to
depress it, will be a question well worthy of our consideration.

Mr. Sherman (of Conn.) observed, that the petitioners from New York,
stated that they had applied to the legislature of that State, to
prohibit certain practices which they conceived to be improper, and
which tended to injure the well-being of the community; that the
legislature had considered the application, but had applied no remedy,
because they supposed that power was exclusively vested in the general
government, under the constitution of the United States; it would,
therefore, be proper to commit that petition, in order to ascertain
what were the powers of the general government, in the case doubted by
the legislature of New York.

Mr. Gerry (of Mass.) thought gentlemen were out of order in entering
upon the merits of the main question at this time, when they were
considering the expediency of committing the petition; he should,
therefore, now follow them further in that track than barely to
observe, that it was the right of the citizens to apply for redress,
in every case they conceived themselves aggrieved in; and it was the
duty of congress to afford redress as far as in their power. That
their Southern brethren had been betrayed into the slave-trade by the
first settlers, was to be lamented; they were not to be reflected on
for not viewing this subject in a different light, the prejudice of
education is eradicated with difficulty; but he thought nothing would
excuse the general government for not exerting itself to prevent, as
far as they constitutionally could, the evils resulting from such
enormities as were alluded to by the petitioners; and the same
considerations induced him highly to commend the part the society of
Friends had taken; it was the cause of humanity they had interested
themselves in, and he wished, with them, to see measures pursued by
every nation, to wipe off the indelible stain which the slave-trade
had brought upon all who were concerned in it.

Mr. Madison (of Va.) thought the question before the committee was no
otherwise important than as gentlemen made it so by their serious
opposition. Did they permit the commitment of the Memorial, as a
matter of course, no notice would be taken of it out of doors; it
could never be blown up into a decision of the question respecting the
discouragement of the African slave-trade, nor alarm the owners with
an apprehension that the general government were about to abolish
slavery in all the States; such things are not contemplated by any
gentleman; but, to appearance, they decide the question more against
themselves than would be the case if it was determined on its real
merits, because gentlemen may be disposed to vote for the commitment
of a petition, without any intention of supporting the prayer of it.

Mr. White (of Va.) would not have seconded the motion, if he had
thought it would have brought on a lengthy debate. He conceived that a
business of this kind ought to be decided without much discussion; it
had constantly been the practice of the house, and he did not suppose
there was any reason for a deviation.

Mr. Page (of Va.) said, if the memorial had been presented by any
individual, instead of the respectable body it was, he should have
voted in favor of a commitment, because it was the duty of the
legislature to attend to subjects brought before them by their
constituents; if, upon inquiry, it was discovered to be improper to
comply with the prayer of the petitioners, he would say so, and they
would be satisfied.

Mr. Stone (of Md.) thought the business ought to be left to take its
usual course; by the rules of the house, it was expressly declared,
that petitions, memorials, and other papers, addressed to the house,
should not be debated or decided on the day they were first read.

Mr. Baldwin (of Ga.) felt at a loss to account why precipitation was
used on this occasion, contrary to the customary usage of the house;
he had not heard a single reason advanced in favor of it. To be sure
it was said the petitioners are a respectable body of men--he did not
deny it--but, certainly, gentlemen did not suppose they were paying
respect to them, or to the house, when they urged such a hasty
procedure; anyhow it was contrary to his idea of respect, and the idea
the house had always expressed, when they had important subjects under
consideration; and, therefore, he should be against the motion. He was
afraid that there was really a little volunteering in this business,
as it had been termed by the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Huntington (of Conn.) considered the petitioners as much
disinterested as any person in the United States; he was persuaded
they had an aversion to slavery; yet they were not singular in this,
others had the same; and he hoped when congress took up the subject,
they would go as far as possible to prohibit the evil complained of.
But he thought that would better be done by considering it in the
light of revenue. When the committee of the whole, on the finance
business, came to the ways and means, it might properly be taken into
consideration, without giving any ground for alarm.

Mr. Tucker, (of S.C.) I have no doubt on my mind respecting what ought
to be done on this occasion; so far from committing the memorial, we
ought to dismiss it without further notice. What is the purport of the
memorial? It is plainly this; to reprobate a particular kind of
commerce, in a moral view, and to request the interposition of
congress to effect its abrogation. But congress have no authority,
under the constitution, to do more than lay a duty of ten dollars upon
each person imported; and this is a political consideration, not
arising from either religion or morality, and is the only principle
upon which we can proceed to take it up. But what effect do these men
suppose will arise from their exertions? Will a duty of ten dollars
diminish the importation? Will the treatment be better than usual? I
apprehend it will not, nay, it may be worse. Because an interference
with the subject may excite a great degree of restlessness in the
minds of those it is intended to serve, and that may be a cause for
the masters to use more rigor towards them, than they would otherwise
exert; so that these men seem to overshoot their object. But if they
will endeavor to procure the abolition of the slave-trade, let them
prefer their petitions to the State legislatures, who alone have the
power of forbidding the importation; I believe their applications
there would be improper; but if they are any where proper, it is
there. I look upon the address then to be ill-judged, however good the
intention of the framers.

Mr. Smith (of S.C.) claimed it as a right, that the petition should
lay over till to-morrow.

Mr. Boudinor (of N.J.) said it was not unusual to commit petitions on
the day they were presented; and the rules of the house admitted the
practice, by the qualification which followed the positive order, that
petitions should not be decided on the day they were first read,
"unless where the house shall direct otherwise."

Mr. Smith (of S.C.) declared his intention of calling the yeas and
nays, if gentlemen persisted in pressing the question.

Mr. Clymer (of Penn.) hoped the motion would be withdrawn for the
present, and the business taken up in course to-morrow; because,
though he respected the memorialists, he also respected order and the
situation of the members.

Mr. Fitzsimons (of Penn.) did not recollect whether he moved or
seconded the motion, but if he had, he should not withdraw it on
account of the threat of calling the yeas and nays.

Mr. Baldwin (of Ga.) hoped the business would be conducted with temper
and moderation, and that gentlemen would concede and pass the subject
over a day at least.

Mr. Smith (of S.C.) had no idea of holding out a threat to any
gentleman. If the declaration of an intention to call the yeas and
nays was viewed by gentlemen in that light, he would withdraw that
call.

Mr. White (of Va.) hereupon withdrew his motion. And the address was
ordered to lie on the table.


FEBRUARY 12th, 1790.

The following memorial was presented and read:

"To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: The
Memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting the abolition of
slavery, the relief of free negroes unlawfully held in bondage, and
the improvement of the condition of the African race, respectfully
showeth: That from a regard for the happiness of mankind, an
association was formed several years since in this State, by a number
of her citizens, of various religious denominations, for promoting the
abolition of slavery, and for the relief of those unlawfully held in
bondage. A just and acute conception of the true principles of
liberty, as it spread through the land, produced accessions to their
numbers, many friends to their cause, and a legislative co-operation
with their views, which, by the blessing of Divine Providence, have
been successfully directed to the relieving from bondage a large
number of their fellow creatures of the African race. They have also
the satisfaction to observe, that, in consequence of that spirit of
philanthropy and genuine liberty which is generally diffusing its
beneficial influence, similar institutions are forming at home and
abroad. That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike
objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of
happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the
political creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. Your
memorialists, particularly engaged in attending to the distresses
arising from slavery, believe it their indispensable duty to present
this subject to your notice. They have observed with real
satisfaction, that many important and salutary powers are vested in
you for 'promoting the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty
to the people of the United States;' and as they conceive, that these
blessings ought rightfully to be administered, without distinction of
color, to all descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves in
the pleasing expectation, that nothing which can be done for the
relief of the unhappy objects of their care, will be either omitted or
delayed. From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the
portion, and is still the birth-right of all men, and influenced by
the strong ties of humanity and the principles of their institution,
your memorialists conceived themselves bound to use all justifiable
endeavors to loosen the bands of slavery, and promote a general
enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. Under these impressions, they
earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery;
that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to
those unhappy men, who alone, in this land of freedom, are degraded
into perpetual bondage, and who, amidst the general joy of surrounding
freemen, are groaning in servile subjection; that you will devise
means for removing this inconsistency from the character of the
American people; that you will promote mercy and justice towards this
distressed race, and that you will step to the very verge of the power
vested in you, for discouraging every species of traffic in the
persons of our fellow-men.

"BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, _President_.

"PHILADELPHIA, _February_ 3, 1790."

Mr. Hartley (of Penn.) then called up the memorial presented
yesterday, from the annual meeting of Friends at Philadelphia, for a
second reading; whereupon the same was read a second time, and moved
to be committed.

Mr. Tucker (of S.C.) was sorry the petition had a second reading as he
conceived it contained an unconstitutional request, and from that
consideration he wished it thrown aside. He feared the commitment of
it would be a very alarming circumstance to the Southern States; for
if the object was to engage Congress in an unconstitutional measure,
it would be considered as an interference with their rights, the
people would become very uneasy under the government, and lament that
they ever put additional powers into their hands. He was surprised to
see another memorial on the same subject and that signed by a man who
ought to have known the constitution better. He thought it a
mischievous attempt, as it respected the persons in whose favor it was
intended. It would buoy them up with hopes, without a foundation, and
as they could not reason on the subject, as more enlightened men
would, they might be led to do what they would be punished for, and
the owners of them, in their own defence, would be compelled to
exercise over them a severity they were not accustomed to. Do these
men expect a general emancipation of slaves by law? This would never
be submitted to by the Southern States without a civil war. Do they
mean to purchase their freedom? He believed their money would fall
short of the price. But how is it they are more concerned in this
business than others? Are they the only persons who possess religion
and morality? If the people are not so exemplary, certainly they will
admit the clergy are; why then do we not find them uniting in a body,
praying us to adopt measures for the promotion of religion and piety,
or any moral object? They know it would be an improper interference;
and to say the best of this memorial, it is an act of imprudence,
which he hoped would receive no countenance from the house.

Mr. Seney (of Md.) denied that there was anything unconstitutional in
the memorial, at least, if there was, it had escaped his attention,
and he should be obliged to the gentleman to point it out. Its only
object was, that congress should exercise their constitutional
authority, to abate the horrors of slavery, as far as they could:
Indeed, he considered that all altercation on the subject of
commitment was at an end, as the house had impliedly determined
yesterday that it should be committed.

Mr. Burke (of S.C.) saw the disposition of the house, and he feared it
would be refered to a committee, maugre all their opposition; but he
must insist that it prayed for an unconstitutional measure. Did it not
desire congress to interfere and abolish the slave-trade, while the
constitution expressly stipulated that congress should exercise no
such power? He was certain the commitment would sound in alarm, and
blow the trumpet of sedition in the Southern States. He was sorry to
see the petitioners paid more attention to than the constitution;
however, he would do his duty, and oppose the business totally; and if
it was referred to a committee, as mentioned yesterday, consisting of
a member from each State, and he was appointed, he would decline
serving.

Mr. Scott, (of Penn.) I can't entertain a doubt but the memorial duty
particularly assigned to us by that instrument, and I hope we may be
inclined to take it into consideration. We can, at present, lay our
hands upon a small duty of ten dollars. I would take this, and if it
is all we can do, we must be content. But I am sorry that the framers
of the constitution did not go farther and enable us to interdict it
for good and all; for I look upon the slave-trade to be one of the
most abominable things on earth; and if there was neither God nor
devil, I should oppose it upon the principles of humanity and the law
of nature. I cannot, for my part, conceive how any person can be said
to acquire a property in another; is it by virtue of conquest? What
are the rights of conquest? Some have dared to advance this monstrous
principle, that the conqueror is absolute master of his conquest; that
he may dispose of it as his property, and treat it as he pleases; but
enough of those who reduce men to the state of transferable goods, or
use them like beasts of burden; who deliver them up as the property or
patrimony of another man. Let us argue on principles countenanced by
reason and becoming humanity; the petitioners view the subject in a
religious light, but I do not stand in need of religious motives to
induce me to reprobate the traffic in human flesh; other
considerations weigh with me to support the commitment of the
memorial, and to support every constitutional measure likely to bring
about its total abolition. Perhaps, in our legislative capacity, we
can go no further than to impose a duty of ten dollars, but I do not
know how far I might go, if I was one of the judges of the United
States, and those people were to come before me and claim their
emancipation; but I am sure I would go as far as I could.

Mr. Jackson (of Ga.) differed with the gentleman last up, and supposed
the master had a qualified property in his slave; he said the contrary
doctrine would go to the destruction of every species of personal
service. The gentleman said he did not stand in need of religion to
induce him to reprobate slavery, but if he is guided by that evidence,
which the Christian system is founded upon, he will find that religion
is not against it; he will see, from Genesis to Revelation, the
current setting strong that way. There never was a government on the
face of the earth, but what permitted slavery. The purest sons of
freedom in the Grecian republics, the citizens of Athens and
Lacedaemon all held slaves. On this principle the nations of Europe
are associated; it is the basis of the feudal system. But suppose all
this to have been wrong, let me ask the gentleman, if it is policy to
bring forward a business at this moment, likely to light up a flame of
civil discord, for the people of the Southern States will resist one
tyranny as soon as another; the other parts of the continent may bear
them down by force of arms, but they will never suffer themselves to
be divested of their property without a struggle. The gentleman says,
if he was a federal judge, he does not know to what length he would go
in emancipating these people; but, I believe his judgment would be of
short duration in Georgia; perhaps even the existence of such a judge
might be in danger.

Mr. Sherman (of Conn.) could see no difficulty in committing the
memorial; because it was probable the committee would understand their
business, and perhaps they might bring in such a report as would be
satisfactory to gentlemen on both sides of the House.

Mr. Baldwin (of Ga.) was sorry the subject had ever been brought
before Congress, because it was a delicate nature, as it respected
some of the States. Gentlemen who had been present at the formation of
this Constitution, could not avoid the recollection of the pain and
difficulty which the subject caused in that body; the members from the
Southern States were so tender upon this point, that they had well
nigh broken up without coming to any determination; however, from the
extreme desire of preserving the Union, and obtaining an efficient
government, they were induced mutually, to concede, and the
Constitution jealously guarded what they agreed to. If gentlemen look
over the footsteps of that body, they will find the greatest degree of
caution used to imprint them, so as not to be easily eradicated; but
the moment we go to jostle on that ground, said he, I fear we shall
feel it tremble under our feet. Congress have no power to interfere
with the importation of slaves, beyond what is given in the 9th
section of the first article of the Constitution; every thing else is
interdicted to them in the strongest terms. If we examine the
Constitution, we shall find the expressions, relative to this subject,
cautiously expressed, and more punctiliously guarded than any other
part. "The migration or importation of such persons, shall not be
prohibited by Congress." But lest this should not have secured the
object sufficiently, it is declared in the same section, "That no
capitation or direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the
census;" this was intended to prevent Congress from laying any special
tax upon negro slaves, as they might, in this way, so burthen the
possessors of them, as to induce a general emancipation. If we go on
to the 5th article, we shall find the 1st and 5th clauses of the 9th
section of the 1st article restrained from being altered before the
year 1808.

Gentlemen have said, that this petition does not pray for an abolition
of the slave-trade; I think, sir, it prays for nothing else, and
therefore we have no more to do with it, than if it prayed us to
establish an order of nobility, or a national religion.

Mr. Sylvester of (N.Y.) said that he had always been in the habit of
respecting the society called Quakers; he respected them for their
exertions in the cause of humanity, but he thought the present was not
a time to enter into a consideration of the subject, especially as he
conceived it to be a business in the province of the State
legislature.

Mr. Lawrance of (of N.Y.) observed that the subject would undoubtedly
come under the consideration of the House; and he thought, that as it
was now before them, that the present time was as proper as any; he
was therefore for committing the memorial; and when the prayer of it
had been properly examined, they could see how far congress may
constitutionally interfere; as they knew the limits of their power on
this, as well as on every other occasion, there was no just
apprehension to be entertained that they would go beyond them.

Mr. Smith (of S.C.) insisted that it was not in the power of the House
to grant the prayer of the petition, which went to the total
abolishment of the slave trade, and it was therefore unnecessary to
commit it. He observed, that in the Southern States, difficulties had
arisen on adopting the Constitution, inasmuch as it was apprehended,
that Congress might take measures under it for abolishing the
slave-trade.

Perhaps the petitioners, when they applied to this house, did not
think their object unconstitutional, but now they are told that it is,
they will be satisfied with the answer, and press it no further. If
their object had been for Congress to lay a duty of ten dollars per
head on the importation of slaves, they would have said so, but that
does not appear to have been the case; the commitment of the petition,
on that ground, cannot be contended; if they will not be content with
that, shall it be committed to investigate facts? The petition speaks
of none; for what purpose then shall it be committed? If gentlemen can
assign no good reason for the measure, they will not support it, when
they are told that it will create great jealousies and alarm in the
Southern States; for I can assure them, that there is no point on
which they are more jealous and suspicious, than on a business with
which they think the government has nothing to do.

When we entered into this Confederacy, we did it from political, not
from moral motives, and I do not think my constituents want to learn
morals from the petitioners; I do not believe they want improvement in
their moral system; if they do, they can get it at home.

The gentleman from Georgia, has justly stated the jealousy of the
Southern States. On entering into this government, they apprehended
that the other States, not knowing the necessity the citizens of the
Southern States were under to hold this species of property, would,
from motives of humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general
emancipation; and had they not seen that the Constitution provided
against the effect of such a disposition, I may be bold to say, they
never would have adopted it. And notwithstanding all the calmness with
which some gentlemen have viewed the subject, they will find, that the
discussion alone will create great alarm. We have been told, that if
the discussion will create alarm, we ought to have avoided it, by
saying nothing; but it was not for that purpose that we were sent
here, we look upon this measure as an attack upon the palladium of the
property of our country; it is therefore our duty to oppose it by
every means in our power. Gentlemen should consider that when we
entered into a political connexion with the other States, that this
property was there; it was acquired under a former government,
conformably to the laws and Constitution; therefore anything that will
tend to deprive them of that property, must be an _ex post facto_ law,
and as such is forbid by our political compact.

I said the States would never have entered into the confederation,
unless their property had been guaranteed to them, for such is the
state of agriculture in that country, that without slaves it must be
depopulated. Why will these people then make use of arguments to
induce the slave to turn his hand against his master? We labor under
difficulties enough from the ravages of the late war. A gentleman can
hardly come from that country, with a servant or two, either to this
place or Philadelphia, but what there are persons trying to seduce his
servants to leave him; and, when they have done this, the poor
wretches are obliged to rob their master in order to obtain a
subsistence; all those, therefore, who are concerned in this
seduction, are accessaries to the robbery.

The reproaches which they cast upon the owners of negro property, is
charging them with the want of humanity; I believe the proprietors are
persons of as much humanity as any part of the continent and are as
conspicuous for their good morals as their neighbors. It was said
yesterday, that the Quakers were a society known to the laws, and the
Constitution, but they are no more so than other religious societies;
they stand exactly in the same situation; their memorial, therefore,
relates to a matter in which they are no more interested than any
other sect, and can only be considered as a piece of advice; it is
customary to refer a piece of advice to a committee, but if it is
supposed to pray for what they think a moral purpose, is that
sufficient to induce us to commit it? What may appear a moral virtue
in their eyes, may not be so in reality. I have heard of a sect of
Shaking Quakers, who, I presume, suppose their tenets of a moral
tendency; I am informed one of them forbids to intermarry, yet in
consequence of their shakings and concussions, you may see them with a
numerous offspring about them. Now, if these people were to petition
Congress to pass a law prohibiting matrimony, I ask, would gentlemen
agree to refer such a petition? I think if they would reject one of
that nature, as improper, they ought also to reject this.

Mr. Page (of Va.) was in favor of the commitment; he hoped that the
designs of the respectable memorialists would not be stopped at the
threshold, in order to preclude a fair discussion of the prayer of the
memorial. He observed that gentlemen had founded their arguments upon
a misrepresentation; for the object of the memorial was not declared
to be the total abolition of the slave trade: but that Congress would
consider, whether it be not in reality within their power to exercise
justice and mercy, which, if adhered to, they cannot doubt must
produce the abolition of the slave trade. If then the prayer contained
nothing unconstitutional, he trusted the meritorious effort would not
be frustrated. With respect to the alarm that was apprehended, he
conjectured there was none; but there might be just cause, if the
memorial was not taken into consideration. He placed himself in the
case of a slave, and said, that, on hearing that Congress had refused
to listen to the decent suggestions of a respectable part of the
community, he should infer, that the general government (from which
was expected great good would result to every class of citizens) had
shut their ears against the voice of humanity, and he should despair
of any alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in
prospect; if any thing could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke
like this, impressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. But if
he was told, that application was made in his behalf, and that
Congress were willing to hear what could be urged in favor of
discouraging the practice of importing his fellow-wretches, he would
trust in their justice and humanity, and wait the decision patiently.
He presumed that these unfortunate people would reason in the same
way; and he, therefore, conceived the most likely way to prevent
danger, was to commit the petition. He lived in a State which had the
misfortune of having in her bosom a great number of slaves, he held
many of them himself, and was as much interested in the business, he
believed, as any gentleman in South Carolina or Georgia, yet, if he
was determined to hold them in eternal bondage, he should feel no
uneasiness or alarm on account of the present measure, because he
should rely upon the virtue of Congress, that they would not exercise
any unconstitutional authority.

Mr. Madison (of Va.) The debate has taken a serious turn, and it will
be owing to this alone if an alarm is created; for had the memorial
been treated in the usual way, it would have been considered as a
matter of course, and a report might have been made, so as to have
given general satisfaction.

If there was the slightest tendency by the commitment to break in upon
the constitution, he would object to it; but he did not see upon what
ground such an event was to be apprehended. The petition prayed, in
general terms, for the interference of congress, so far as they were
constitutionally authorized; but even if its prayer was, in some
degree, unconstitutional, it might be committed, as was the case on
Mr. Churchman's petition, one part of which was supposed to apply for
an unconstitutional interference by the general government.

He admitted that congress was restricted by the constitution from
taking measures to abolish the slave-trade; yet there were a variety
of ways by which they could countenance the abolition, and they might
make some regulations respecting the introduction of them into the new
States, to be formed out of the Western Territory, different from what
they could in the old settled States. He thought the object well
worthy of consideration.

Mr. Gerry (of Mass.) thought the interference of congress fully
compatible with the constitution, and could not help lamenting the
miseries to which the tribes of Africa were exposed by this inhuman
commerce; and said that he never contemplated the subject, without
reflecting what his own feelings would be, in case himself, his
children, or friends, were placed in the same deplorable
circumstances. He then adverted to the flagrant acts of cruelty which
are committed in carrying on that traffic; and asked whether it can be
supposed, that congress has no power to prevent such transactions? He
then referred to the constitution, and pointed out the restrictions
laid on the general government respecting the importation of slaves.
It was not, he presumed, in the contemplation of any gentleman in this
house to violate that part of the constitution; but that we have a
right to regulate this business, is as clear as that we have any
rights whatever; nor has the contrary been shown by any person who has
spoken on the occasion. Congress can, agreeable to the constitution,
lay a duty of ten dollars on imported slaves; they may do this
immediately. He made a calculation of the value of the slaves in the
Southern States, and supposed they might be worth ten millions of
dollars; congress have a right, if they see proper, to make a proposal
to the Southern States to purchase the whole of them, and their
resources in the Western Territory may furnish them with means. He did
not intend to suggest a measure of this kind, he only instanced these
particulars, to show that congress certainly have a right to
intermeddle in the business. He thought that no objection had been
offered, of any force, to prevent the commitment of the memorial.

Mr. Boudinot (of N.J.) had carefully examined the petition, and found
nothing like what was complained of by gentlemen, contained in it; he,
therefore, hoped they would withdraw their opposition, and suffer it
to be committed.

Mr. Smith (of S.C.) said, that as the petitioners had particularly
prayed congress to take measures for the annihilation of the slave
trade, and that was admitted on all hands to be beyond their power,
and as the petitioners would not be gratified by a tax of ten dollars
per head, which was all that was within their power, there was, of
consequence, no occasion for committing it.

Mr. Stone (of Md.) thought this memorial a thing of course; for there
never was a society, of any considerable extent, which did not
interfere with the concerns of other people, and this kind of
interference, whenever it has happened, has never failed to deluge the
country in blood: on this principle he was opposed to the commitment.

The question on the commitment being about to be put, the yeas and
nays were called for, and are as follows:--

Yeas.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Brown, Cadwallader, Clymer,
Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gale, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Griffin,
Grout, Hartley, Hathorne, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, Leonard,
Livermore, Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Pale, Parker, Partridge,
Renssellaer, Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Sinnickson,
Smith of Maryland, Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, Wadsworth, White, and
Wynkoop--43.

Noes--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Bourke, Coles, Huger, Jackson, Mathews,
Sylvester, Smith of S.C., Stone, and Tucker--11.

Whereupon it was determined in the affirmative; and on motion, the
petition of the Society of Friends, at New York, and the memorial from
the Pennsylvania Society, for the abolition of slavery, were also
referred to a committee.--LLOYD'S DEBATES.



_Debate on Committee's Report, March_, 1790.

ELIOT'S DEBATES.

Mr. Tucker moved to modify the first paragraph by striking out all the
words after the word opinion, and to insert the following: that the
several memorials proposed to the consideration of this house, a
subject on which its interference would be unconstitutional, and even
its deliberations highly injurious to some of the States in the Union.

Mr. Jackson rose and observed, that he had been silent on the subject
of the reports coming before the committee, because he wished the
principles of the resolutions to be examined fairly, and to be decided
on their true grounds. He was against the propositions generally, and
would examine the policy, the justice and the use of them, and he
hoped, if he could make them appear in the same light to others as
they did to him by fair argument, that the gentlemen in opposition
were not so determined in their opinions as not to give up their
present sentiments.

With respect to the policy of the measure, the situation of the slaves
here, their situation in their native States, and the disposal of them
in case of emancipation, should be considered. That slavery was an
evil habit, he did not mean to controvert; but that habit was already
established, and there were peculiar situations in countries which
rendered that habit necessary. Such situations the States of South
Carolina and Georgia were in--large tracts of the most fertile lands
on the continent remained uncultivated for the want of population. It
was frequently advanced on the floor of Congress, how unhealthy those
climates were, and how impossible it was for northern constitutions to
exist there. What, he asked, is to be done with this uncultivated
territory? Is it to remain a waste? Is the rice trade to be banished
from our coasts? Are congress willing to deprive themselves of the
revenue arising from that trade, and which is daily increasing, and to
throw this great advantage into the hands of other countries?

Let us examine the use or the benefit of the resolutions contained in
the report. I call upon gentlemen to give me one single instance in
which they can be of service. They are of no use to congress. The
powers of that body are already defined, and those powers cannot be
amended, confirmed or diminished by ten thousand resolutions. Is not
that the guide and rule of this legislature. A multiplicity of laws is
reprobated in any society, and tend but to confound and perplex. How
strange would a law appear which was to confirm a law; and how much
more strange must it appear for this body to pass resolutions to
confirm the constitution under which they sit! This is the case with
others of the resolutions.

A gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Stone) very properly observed, that the
Union had received the different States with all their ill habits
about them. This was one of these habits established long before the
constitution, and could not now be remedied. He begged congress to
reflect on the number on the continent who were opposed to this
constitution, and on the number which yet remained in the Southern
States. The violation of this compact they would seize on with
avidity; they would make a handle of it to cover their designs against
the government, and many good federalists, who would be injured by the
measure, would be induced to join them: his heart was truly federal,
and it had always been so, and he wished those designs frustrated. He
begged congress to beware before they went too far: he called on them
to attend to the interest of two whole States, as well as to the
memorials of a society of quakers, who came forward to blow the
trumpet of sedition, and to destroy that constitution which they had
not in the least contributed by personal service or supply to
establish.

He seconded Mr. Tucker's motion.

Mr. Smith (of S.C.) said, the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr.
Gerry,) had declared that it was the opinion of the select committee,
of which he was a member, that the memorial of the Pennsylvania
society, required congress to violate the constitution. It was not
less astonishing to see Dr. Franklin taking the lead in a business
which looks so much like a persecution of the Southern inhabitants,
when he recollected the parable he had written some time ago, with a
view of showing the immorality of one set of men persecuting others
for a difference of opinion. The parable was to this effect: an old
traveller, hungry and weary, applied to the patriarch Abraham for a
night's lodging. In conversation, Abraham discovered that the stranger
differed with him on religious points, and turned him out of doors. In
the night God appeared unto Abraham, and said, where is the stranger?
Abraham answered, I found that he did not worship the true God, and so
I turned him out of doors. The Almighty thus rebuked the patriarch:
have I borne with him three-score and ten years, and couldst thou not
bear with him one night? Has the Almighty, said Mr. Smith, borne with
us for more than three-score years and ten: He has even made our
country opulent, and shed the blessings of affluence and prosperity on
our land, notwithstanding all its slaves, and must we now be ruined
on account of the tender consciences of a few scrupulous individuals
who differ from us on this point?

Mr. Boudinot agreed with the general doctrines of Mr. S., but could
not agree that the clause in the constitution relating to the want of
power in congress to prohibit the importation of such persons as any
of the States, _now existing_, shall think proper to admit, prior to
the year 1808, and authorizing a tax or duty on such importation not
exceeding ten dollars for each person, did not extend to negro slaves.
Candor required that he should acknowledge that this was the express
design of the constitution, and therefore congress could not interfere
in prohibiting the importation or promoting the emancipation of them,
prior to that period. Mr. Boudinot observed, that he was well informed
that the tax or duty of ten dollars was provided, instead of the five
per cent. ad valorem, and was so expressly understood by all parties
in the convention; that therefore it was the interest and duty of
congress to impose this tax, or it would not be doing justice to the
States, or equalizing the duties throughout the Union. If this was
not done, merchants might bring their whole capitals into this branch
of trade, and save paying any duties whatever. Mr. Boudinot observed,
that the gentleman had overlooked the prophecy of St. Peter, where he
foretells that among other damnable heresies, "Through covetousness
shall they with feigned words make merchandize of you."


[NOTE.--This petition, with others of a similar object, was committed
to a select committee; that committee made a report; the report was
referred to a committee of the whole house, and discussed on four
successive days; it was then reported to the House with amendments,
and by the House ordered to be inscribed in its Journals, and then
laid on the table.

That report, as amended in committee, is in the following words: The
committee to whom were referred sundry memorials from the people
called Quakers, and also a memorial from the Pennsylvania Society for
promoting the abolition of slavery, submit the following report, (as
amended in committee of the whole.)

"First: That the migration or importation of such persons as any of
the States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be
prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808."

"Secondly: That Congress have no power to interfere in the
emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within any of the
States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any
regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require."

"Thirdly: That Congress have authority to restrain the citizens of the
United States from carrying on the African Slave trade, for the
purpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing by
proper regulations for the humane treatment, during their passage, of
slaves imported by the said citizens into the states admitting such
importations."

"Fourthly: That Congress have also authority to prohibit foreigners
from fitting out vessels in any part of the United States for
transporting persons from Africa to any foreign port."]



ADDRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY
SOCIETY TO THE Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the United
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 see 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 hail
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 be light." It assumes that to be practicable, which is
impossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union with
injustice, and safety with bloodguiltiness. 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 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 no respecters of person 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 I, 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,[8] who was a prominent member of that body:

[Footnote 8: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.]


"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 their turn, _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--

"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!_ [9]

[Footnote 9: How terribly and justly as the guilty nation been
scourged, since these words were spoken, on account of slavery and the
slave trade!]


"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 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." [10]

[Footnote 10: Secret Proceedings, p. 61.]


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 on 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 the 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, and 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 questions 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
on 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 saith 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 bloodhounds, 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 up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may
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 notion 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 all the other
inhabitants are at the mercy of prowling kidnappers, because there are
multitudes of white as well as black slaves on Southern plantations,
and slavery is no longer fastidious with regard to the color of its
prey.

As soon as that appalling decision of the Supreme Court was
enunciated, in the name of the Constitution, the people of the North
should have risen _en masse_, if for no other cause, and declared the
Union at an end; and they would have done so, if they had not lost
their manhood, and their reverence for justice and liberty.

In the 4th Sect. of Art. IV., the United States guarantee to protect
every State in the Union "against _domestic violence_." By the 8th
Section of Article I., congress is empowered "to provide for calling
forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, _suppress
insurrections_, and repel invasions." These provisions, however
strictly they may apply to cases of disturbance among the white
population, were adopted with special reference to the slave
population, for the purpose of keeping them in their chains by the
combined military force of the country; and were these repealed, and
the South left to manage her slaves as best she could, a servile
insurrection would ere long be the consequence, as general as it would
unquestionably be successful. Says Mr. Madison, respecting these
clauses:--


"On application of the legislature or executive, as the case may be,
the militia of the other States are to be called to suppress domestic
insurrections. Does this bar the States from calling forth their own
militia? No; but it gives them a _supplementary_ security to suppress
insurrections and domestic violence."


The answer to Patrick Henry's objection, as urged against the
constitution in the Virginia convention, that there was no power left
to the _States_ to quell an insurrection of slaves, as it was wholly
vested in congress, George Nicholas asked:--


"Have they it now?  If they have, does the constitution take it away?
If it does, it must be in one of those clauses which have been
mentioned by the worthy member. The first part gives the general
government power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it
away from the States? No! but _it gives an additional security;_ for,
beside the power in the State government to use their own militia, it
will be _the duty of the general government_ to aid them WITH THE
STRENGTH OF THE UNION, when called for."


This solemn guaranty of security to the slave system, caps the climax
of national barbarity, and stains with human blood the garments of all
the people. In consequence of it, that system has multiplied its
victims from five hundred thousand to nearly three millions--a vast
amount of territory has been purchased, in order to give it extension
and perpetuity--several new slave States have been admitted into the
Union--the slave trade has been made one of the great branches of
American commerce--the slave population, though over-worked, starved,
lacerated, branded, maimed, and subjected to every form of deprivation
and every species of torture, have been overawed and crushed,--or,
whenever they have attempted to gain their liberty by revolt, they
have been shot down and quelled by the strong arm of the national
government; as, for example, in the case of Nat Turner's insurrection
in Virginia, when the naval and military forces of the government were
called into active service. Cuban bloodhounds have been purchased with
the money of the people, and imported and used to hunt slave fugitives
among the everglades of Florida. A merciless warfare has been waged
for the extermination or expulsion of the Florida Indians, because
they gave succor to those poor hunted fugitives--a warfare which has
cost the nation several thousand lives, and forty millions of dollars.
But the catalogue of enormities is too long to be recapitulated in the
present address.

We have thus demonstrated that the compact between the North and the
South embraces every variety of wrong and outrage,--is at war with God
and man, cannot be innocently supported, and deserves to be
immediately annulled. In behalf of the Society which we represent, we
call upon all our fellow-citizens, who believe it is right to obey God
rather than man, to declare themselves peaceful revolutionists, and to
unite with us under the stainless banner of Liberty, having for its
motto--"EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL--NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS!"

It is pleaded that the Constitution provides for its own amendment;
and we ought to use the elective franchise to effect this object.
True, there is such a proviso; but, until the amendment be made, that
instrument is binding as it stands. Is it not to violate every moral
instinct, and to sacrifice principle to expediency, to argue that we
may swear to steal, oppress and murder by wholesale, because it may be
necessary to do so only for the time being, and because there is some
remote probability that the instrument which requires that we should
be robbers, oppressors and murderers, may at some future day be
amended in these particulars? Let us not palter with our consciences
in this manner--let us not deny that the compact was conceived in sin
and brought forth in iniquity--let us not be so dishonest, even to
promote a good object, as to interpret the Constitution in a manner
utterly at variance with the intentions and arrangements of the
contracting parties; but, confessing the guilt of the nation,
acknowledging the dreadful specifications in the bond, washing our
hands in the waters of repentance from all further participation in
this criminal alliance, and resolving that we will sustain none other
than a free and righteous government, let us glory in the name of
revolutionists, unfurl the banner of disunion, and consecrate our
talents and means to the overthrow of all that is tyrannical in the
land,--to the establishment of all that is free, just, true and
holy,--to the triumph of universal love and peace.

If, in utter disregard of the historical facts which have been cited,
it is still asserted, that the Constitution needs no amendment to make
it a free instrument, adapted to all the exigencies of a free people,
and was never intended to give any strength or countenance to the
slave system--the indignant spirit of insulted Liberty replies:--"What
though the assertion be true? Of what avail is a mere piece of
parchment? In itself, though it be written all over with words of
truth and freedom--though its provisions be as impartial and just as
words can express, or the imagination paint--though it be as pure as
the gospel, and breathe only the spirit of Heaven--it is powerless; it
has no executive vitality; it is a lifeless corpse, even though
beautiful in death. I am famishing for lack of bread! How is my
appetite relieved by holding up to my gaze a painted loaf? I am
manacled, wounded, bleeding, dying! What consolation is it to know,
that they who are seeking to destroy my life, profess in words to be
my friends?" If the liberties of the people have been betrayed--if
judgement is turned away backward and justice standeth afar off, and
truth has fallen in the streets, and equality cannot enter--if the
princes of the land are roaring lions, the judges evening wolves, the
people light and treacherous persons, the priests covered with
pollution--if we are living under a frightened despotism, which scoffs
at all constitutional restrains, and wields the resources of the
nation to promote its own bloody purposes--tell us not that the forms
of freedom are still left to us! "Would such tameness and submission
have freighted the May-Flower for Plymouth Rock? Would it have
resisted the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, or any of those entering wedges
of tyranny with which the British government sought to rive the
liberties of America? The wheel of the Revolution would have rusted on
its axle, if a spirit so weak had been the only power to give it
motion. Did our fathers say, when their rights and liberties were
infringed--"_Why, what is done cannot be undone_. That is the first
thought." No it was the last thing they thought of: or, rather it
never entered their minds at all. They sprang to the conclusion at
once--"_What is done_ SHALL _be undone_. That is our FIRST and ONLY
thought."

    "Is water running in our veins? Do we remember still
    Old Plymouth Rock, and Lexington, and famous Bunker Hill?
    The debt we owe our fathers' graves? and to the yet unborn,
    Whose heritage ourselves must make a thing of pride or scorn?

    Gray Plymouth Rock hath yet a tongue, and Concord is not dumb;
    And voices from our fathers' graves and from the future come:
    They call on us to stand our ground--they charge us still to be
    Not only free from chains ourselves, but foremost to make free!"

It is of little consequence who is on the throne, if there be behind
it a power mightier than the throne. It matters not what is the theory
of the government, if the practice of the government be unjust and
tyrannical. We rise in rebellion against a despotism incomparably more
dreadful than that which induced the colonists to take up arms against
the mother country; not on account of a three-penny tax on tea, but
because fetters of living iron are fastened on the limbs of millions
of our countrymen, and our own sacred rights are trampled in the dust.
As citizens of the State, we appeal to the State in vain for
protection and redress. As citizen of the United States, we are
treated as outlaws in one half of the country, and the national
government consents to our destruction. We are denied the right of
locomotion, freedom of speech, the right of petition, the liberty of
the press, the right peaceably to assemble together to protest against
oppression and plead for liberty--at least in thirteen States of the
Union. If we venture, as avowed and unflinching abolitionists, to
travel South of Mason and Dixon's line, we do so at the peril of our
lives. If we would escape torture and death, on visiting any of the
slave States, we must stifle our conscientious convictions, hear no
testimony against cruelty and tyranny, suppress the struggling
emotions of humanity, divest ourselves of all letters and papers of an
antislavery character, and do homage to the slaveholding power--or run
the risk of a cruel martyrdom! These are appalling and undeniable
facts.

Three millions of the American people are crushed under the American
Union! They are held as slaves--trafficked as merchandise--registered
as goods and chattels! The government gives them no protection--the
government is their enemy--the government keeps them in chains! There
they lie bleeding--we are prostrate by their side--in their sorrows
and sufferings we participate--their stripes are inflicted on our
bodies, their shackles are fastened to our limbs, their cause is ours!
The Union which grinds them to the dust rests upon us, and with them
we will struggle to overthrow it! The Constitution, which subjects
them to hopeless bondage, is one that we cannot swear to support! Our
motto is, "NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS," either religious or political.
They are the fiercest enemies of mankind, and the bitterest foes of
God! We separate from them not in anger, not in malice, not for a
selfish purpose, not to do them an injury, not to cease warning,
exhorting, reproving them for their crimes, not to leave the perishing
bondman to his fate--O no! But to clear our skirts of innocent
blood--to give the oppressor no countenance--to signify our abhorrence
of injustice and cruelty--to testify against an ungodly compact--to
cease striking hands with thieves and consenting with adulterers--to
make no compromise with tyranny--to walk worthily of our high
profession--to increase our moral power over the nation--to obey God
and vindicate the gospel of His Son--to hasten the downfall of slavery
in America, and throughout the world!

We are not acting under a blind impulse. We have carefully counted the
cost of this warfare, and are prepared to meet its consequences. It
will subject us to reproach, persecution, infamy--it will prove a
fiery ordeal to all who shall pass through it--it may cost us our
lives. We shall be ridiculed as fools, scorned as visionaries, branded
as disorganizers, reviled as madmen, threatened and perhaps punished
as traitors. But we shall bide our time. Whether safety or peril,
whether victory or defeat, whether life or death be ours, believing
that our feet are planted on an eternal foundation, that our position
is sublime and glorious, that our faith in God is rational and
steadfast, that we have exceeding great and precious promises on which
to rely, THAT WE ARE IN THE RIGHT, we shall not falter nor be
dismayed, "though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be
carried into the midst of the sea,"--though our ranks be thinned to
the number of "three hundred men." Freemen! are you ready for the
conflict? Come what may, will you sever the chain that binds you to a
slaveholding government, and declare your independence? Up, then, with
the banner of revolution! Not to shed blood--not to injure the person
or estate of any oppressor--not by force and arms to resist any
law--not to countenance a servile insurrection--not to wield any
carnal weapons! No--ours must be a bloodless strife, excepting _our_
blood be shed--for we aim, as did Christ our leader, not to destroy
men's lives, but to save them--to overcome evil with good--to conquer
through suffering for righteousness' sake--to set the captive free by
the potency of truth!

Secede, then, from the government. Submit to its exactions, but pay it
no allegiance, and give it no voluntary aid. Fill no offices under it.
Send no senators or representatives to the national or State
legislature; for what you cannot conscientiously perform yourself, you
cannot ask another to perform as your agent. Circulate a declaration
of DISUNION FROM SLAVEHOLDERS, throughout the country. Hold mass
meetings--assemble in conventions--nail your banners to the mast!

Do you ask what can be done, if you abandon the ballot-box? What did
the crucified Nazarene do without the elective franchise? What did the
apostles do? What did the glorious army of martyrs and confessors do?
What did Luther and his intrepid associates do? What can women and
children do? What has Father Mathew done for teetotalism? What has
Daniel O'Connell done for Irish repeal? "Stand, having your loins girt
about with truth, and having on the breast-plate of righteousness," and
arrayed in the whole armor of God!

The form of government that shall succeed the present government of
the United States, let time determine. It would be a waste of time to
argue that question, until the people are regenerated and turned from
their iniquity. Ours is no anarchical movement, but one of order and
obedience. In ceasing from oppression, we establish liberty. What is
now fragmentary, shall in due time be crystallized, and shine like a
gem set in the heavens, for a light to all coming ages.

Finally--we believe that the effect of this movement will be,--First,
to create discussion and agitation throughout the North; and these
will lead to a general perception of its grandeur and importance.

Secondly, to convulse the slumbering South like an earthquake, and
convince her that her only alternative is, to abolish slavery, or be
abandoned by that power on which she now relies for safety.

Thirdly, to attack the slave power in its most vulnerable point, and
to carry the battle to the gate.

Fourthly, to exalt the moral sense, increase the moral power, and
invigorate the moral constitution of all who heartily espouse it.

We reverently believe that, in withdrawing from the American Union, we
have the God of justice with us. We know that we have our enslaved
countrymen with us. We are confident that all free hearts will be with
us. We are certain that tyrants and their abettors will be against us.

In behalf of the Executive committee of the American Anti-Slavery
Society,

WM. LLOYD GARRISON, _President_.
WENDELL PHILLIPS, MARIA WESTON CHAPMAN   }  _Secretaries_.
_Boston, May 20, 1844_.



LETTER FROM FRANCIS JACKSON.

BOSTON, 4th July, 1844.

_To His Excellency George N. Briggs_:

SIR--Many years since, I received from the executive of the
Commonwealth a commission as Justice of the Peace. I have held the
office that it conferred upon me till the present time, and have found
it a convenience to myself, and others. It might continue to be so,
could I consent longer to hold it. But paramount considerations
forbid, and I herewith transmit to you my commission respectfully
asking you to accept my resignation.

While I deem it a duty to myself to take this step, I feel called on
to state the reasons that influence me.

In entering upon the duties of the office in question, I complied with
the requirements of the law, by taking an oath "_to support the
Constitution of the United States_." I regret that I ever took that
oath. Had I then as maturely considered its full import, and the
obligations under which it is understood, and meant to lay those who
take it, as I have done since, I certainly never would have taken it,
seeing, as I now do, that the Constitution of the United States
contains provisions calculated and intended to foster, cherish, uphold
and perpetuate _slavery_. It pledges the country to guard and protect
the slave system so long as the slaveholding States choose to retain
it. It regards the slave code as lawful in the States which enact it.
Still more, "it has done that, which, until its adoption, was never
before done for African slavery. It took it out of its former category
of municipal law and local life, adopted it as a national institution,
spread around it the broad and sufficient shield of national law, and
thus gave to slavery a national existence." Consequently, the oath to
support the Constitution of the United States is a solemn promise to
do that which is morally wrong; that which is a violation of the
natural rights of man, and a sin in the sight of God.

I am not, in this matter, constituting myself a judge of others. I do
not say that no honest man can take such an oath, and abide by it. I
only say, that _I_ would not now deliberately take it; and that,
having inconsiderately taken it, I can no longer suffer it to lie upon
my soul. I take back the oath, and ask you, sir, to take back the
commission, which was the occasion of my taking it.

I am aware that my course in this matter is liable to be regarded as
singular, if not censurable; and I must, therefore, be allowed to make
a more specific statement of those _provisions of the Constitution_
which support the enormous wrong, the heinous sin of slavery.

The very first Article of the Constitution takes slavery at once under
its legislative protection, as a basis of representation in the
popular branch of the National Legislature. It regards slaves under
the description "of all other _persons_"--as of only three-fifths of
the value of free persons; thus to appearance undervaluing them in
comparison with freemen. But its dark and involved phraseology seems
intended to blind us to the consideration, that those underrated
slaves are merely a _basis_, not the _source_ of representation; that
by the laws of all the States where they live, they are regarded not
as _persons_, but as _things_; that they are not the _constituency_ of
the representative, but his property; and that the necessary effect of
this provision of the Constitution is, to take legislative power out
of the hands of _men_ as such, and give it to the mere possessors of
goods and chattels. Fixing upon thirty thousand persons, as the
smallest number that shall send one member into the House of
Representatives, it protects slavery by distributing legislative power
in a free and in a slave State thus: To a congressional district in
South Carolina, containing fifty thousand slaves, claimed as the
property of five hundred whites, who hold, on an average, one hundred
apiece, it gives one Representative in Congress; to a district in
Massachusetts containing a population of thirty thousand five hundred,
one Representative is assigned. But inasmuch as a slave is never
permitted to vote, the fifty thousand persons in a district in
Carolina form no part of "the constituency;" _that_ is found only in
the five hundred free persons. Five hundred freemen of Carolina could
send one Representative to Congress, while it would take thirty
thousand five hundred freemen of Massachusetts, to do the same thing;
that is, one slaveholder in Carolina is clothed by the Constitution
with the same political power and influence in the Representatives
Hall at Washington, as sixty Massachusetts men like you and me, who
"eat their bread in the sweat of their own brows."

According to the census of 1830, and the _ratio_ of representation
based upon that, slave property added twenty-five members to the House
of Representatives. And as it has been estimated, (as an approximation
to the truth,) that the two and a half million slaves in the United
States are held as property by about two hundred and fifty thousand
persons--giving an average of ten slaves to each slaveholder, those
twenty-five Representatives, each chosen, at most, by only ten
thousand voters, and probably by less than three-fourths of that
number, were the representatives, not only of the two hundred and
fifty thousand persons who chose them; but of _property_ which, five
years ago, when slaves were lower in market, than at present, were
estimated, by the man who is now the most prominent candidate for the
Presidency, at twelve hundred millions of dollars--a sum, which, by
the natural increase of five years, and the enhanced value resulting
from a more prosperous state of the planting interest, cannot now be
less than fifteen hundred millions of dollars. All this vast amount of
property, as it is "peculiar," is also identical in its character. In
Congress, as we have seen, it is animated by one spirit, moves in one
mass, and is wielded with one aim; and when we consider that tyranny
is always timid, and despotism distrustful, we see that this vast
money power would be false to itself, did it not direct all its eyes
and hands, and put forth all its ingenuity and energy, to one
end--self-protection and self-perpetuation. And this it has ever done.
In all the vibrations of the political scale, whether in relation to a
Bank or Sub-Treasury, Free Trade or a Tariff, this immense power has
moved, and will continue to move, in one mass, for its own protection.

While the weight of the slave influence is thus felt in the House of
Representatives, "in the Senate of the Union," says John Quincy Adams,
"the proportion of slaveholding power is still 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
fifty-two members of the federal Senate, twenty-six are owners of
slaves, and are as effectually representatives of that interest, as
the eighty-eight members elected by them to the House."

The dominant power which the Constitution gives to the slave interest,
as thus seen and exercised in the _Legislative Halls_ of our nation,
is equally obvious and obtrusive in every other department of the
National government.

In the _Electoral college_, the same cause produces the same
effect--the same power is wielded for the same purpose, as in the
Halls of Congress. Even the preliminary nominating conventions, before
they dare name a candidate for the highest office in the gift of the
people, must ask of the Genius of slavery, to what votary she will
show herself propitious. This very year, we see both the great
political parties doing homage to the slave power, by nominating each
a slaveholder for the chair of State. The candidate of one party
declares, "I should have opposed, and would continue to oppose, any
scheme whatever of emancipation, either gradual or immediate;" and
adds, "It is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, that either
of the two great parties of this country has any design or aim at
abolition. I should deeply lament it, if it were true."[11]

[Footnote 11: Henry Clay's speech in the United States Senate in 1839,
and confirmed at Raleigh, N.C. 1844.]


The other party nominates a man who says, "I have no hesitation in
declaring that I am in favor of the immediate re-annexation of Texas
to the territory and government of the United States."

Thus both the political parties, and the candidates of both, vie with
each other, in offering allegiance to the slave power, as a condition
precedent to any hope of success in the struggle for the executive
chair; a seat that, for more than three-fourths of the existence of
our constitutional government, has been occupied by a slaveholder.

The same stern despotism overshadows even the sanctuaries of justice.
Of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, five
are slaveholders and of course, must be faithless to their own
interest, as well as recreant to the power that gives them place, or
must, so far as _they_ are concerned, give both to law and
constitution such a construction as shall justify the language of John
Quincy Adams, when he says--"The legislative, executive, and judicial
authorities, are all in their hands--for 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."

Thus by merely adverting but briefly to the theory and the practical
effect of this clause of the Constitution, that I have sworn to
support, it is seen that it throws the political power of the nation
into the hands of the slaveholders; a body of men, which, however it
may be regarded by the Constitution as "persons," is in fact and
practical effect, a vast moneyed corporation, bound together by an
indissoluble unity of interest, by a common sense of a common danger;
counselling at all times for its common protection; wielding the whole
power, and controlling the destiny of the nation.

If we look into the legislative halls, slavery is seen in the chair of
the presiding officer of each, and controlling the action of both.
Slavery occupies, by prescriptive right, the Presidential chair. The
paramount voice that comes from the temple of national justice, issues
from the lips of slavery. The army is in the hands of slavery, and at
her bidding, must encamp in the everglades of Florida, or march from
the Missouri to the borders of Mexico, to look after her interests in
Texas.

The navy, even that part that is cruising off the coast of Africa, to
suppress the foreign slave trade, is in the hands of slavery.

Freemen of the North, who have even dared to lift up their voice
against slavery, cannot travel through the slave States, but at the
peril of their lives.

The representatives of freemen are forbidden, on the floor on
Congress, to remonstrate against the encroachments of slavery, or to
pray that she would let her poor victims go.

I renounce my allegiance to a Constitution that enthrones such a
power, wielded for the purpose of depriving me of my rights, of
robbing my countrymen of their liberties, and of securing its own
protection, support and perpetuation.

Passing by that clause of the Constitution, which restricted Congress
for twenty years, from passing any law against the African slave
trade, and which gave authority to raise a revenue on the stolen sons
of Africa, I come to that part of the fourth article, which guarantees
protection against "_domestic violence_," and which pledges to the
South the military force of the country, to protect the masters
against their insurgent slaves: binds us, and our children, to shoot
down our fellow-countrymen, who may rise, in emulation of our
revolutionary fathers, to vindicate their inalienable "right to life,
_liberty_ and the pursuit of happiness,"--this clause of the
Constitution, I say distinctly, I never will support.

That part of the Constitution which provides for the surrender of
fugitive slaves, I never have supported and never will. I will join in
no slave-hunt. My door shall stand open, as it has long stood, for the
panting and trembling victim of the slave-hunter. When I shut it
against him, may God shut the door of her mercy against me! Under this
clause of the Constitution, and designed to carry it into effect,
slavery has demanded that laws should be passed, and of such a
character, as have left the free citizen of the North without
protection for his own liberty. The question, whether a man seized in
a free State as a slave, _is_ a slave or not, the law of Congress does
not allow a jury to determine: but refers it to the decision of a
Judge of a United State' Court, or even of the humblest State
magistrate, it may be, upon the testimony or affidavit of the party
most deeply interested to support the claim. By virtue of this law,
freemen have been seized and dragged into perpetual slavery--and
should I be seized by a slave-hunter in any part of the country where
I am not personally known, neither the Constitution nor laws of the
United States would shield me from the same destiny.

These, sir, are the specific parts of the Constitution of the united
States, which in my opinion are essentially vicious, hostile at once
to the liberty and to the morals of the nation. And these are the
principal reasons of my refusal any longer to acknowledge my
allegiance to it, and of my determination to revoke my oath to support
it. I cannot, in order to keep the law of man, break the law of God,
or solemnly call him to witness my promise that I will break it.

It is true that the Constitution provides for its own amendment, and
that by this process, all the guarantees of Slavery may be expunged.
But it will be time enough to swear to support it when this is done.
It cannot be right to do so, until these amendments are made.

It is also true that the framers of the Constitution did studiously
keep the words "Slave" and "Slavery" from its face. But to do our
constitutional fathers justice, while they forebore--from very
shame--to give the word "Slavery" a place in the Constitution, they
did not forbear--again to do them justice--to give place in it to the
_thing_. They were careful to wrap up the idea, and the substance of
Slavery, in the clause for the surrender of the fugitive, though they
sacrificed justice in doing so.

There is abundant evidence that this clause touching "persons held to
service or labor," not only operates practically, under the judicial
construction, for the protection of the slave interest; but that it
was _intended_ so to operate by the framers of the Constitution. The
highest judicial authorities--Chief Justice Shaw, of the Supreme Court
of Massachusetts, in the Latimer case, and Mr. Justice Story, in the
Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of _Prigg vs. The
State of Pennsylvania_,--tell us, I know not on what evidence, that
without this "compromise," this security for Southern slaveholders,
"the Union could not have been formed." And there is still higher
evidence, not only that the framers of the Constitution meant by this
clause to protect slavery, but that they did this, knowing that
slavery was wrong. Mr. Madison[12] informs us that the clause in
question, as it came out of the hands of Dr. Johnson, the chairman of
the "committee on style," read thus: "No person legally held to
service, or labor, in one State, escaping into another, shall," &c.,
and the word "legally" was struck out, and the words "under the laws
thereof" inserted after the word "State," in compliance with the wish
of some, who thought the term _legal_ equivocal, and favoring the idea
that slavery was legal "_in a moral view_." A conclusive proof that,
although future generations might apply that clause to other kinds of
"service or labor," when slavery should have died out, or been killed
off by the young spirit of liberty, which was _then_ awake and at work
in the land; still, slavery was what they were wrapping up in
"equivocal" words: and wrapping it up for its protection and safe
keeping: a conclusive proof that the framers of the Constitution were
more careful to protect themselves in the judgement of coming
generations, from the charge of ignorance, than of sin; a conclusive
proof that they knew that slavery was not "legal in a moral view,"
that it was a violation of the moral law of God; and yet knowing and
confessing its immorality, they dared to make this stipulation for its
support and defence.

[Footnote 12: Madison Papers, p. 1589.]


This language may sound harsh to the ears of those who think it a part
of their duty, as citizens, to maintain that whatever the patriots of
the revolution did, was right; and who hold that we are bound to _do_
all the iniquity that they covenanted for us that we _should_ do. But
the claims of truth and right are paramount to all other claims.

With all our veneration for our constitutional fathers, we must
admit,--for they have left on record their own confession of
it,--that in this part of their work they _intended_ to hold the
shield of their protection over a wrong, knowing that it was a wrong.
They made a "compromise" which they had no right to make--a compromise
of moral principle for the sake of what they probably regarded as
"political expediency." I am sure they did not know--no man could
know, or can now measure, the extent, or the consequences of the wrong
that they were doing. In the strong language of John Quincy Adams,[13]
in relation to the article fixing the basis of representation, "Little
did the members of the Convention, from the free States, imagine or
foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden under the mask of this
concession."

[Footnote 13: See his Report on the Massachusetts Resolutions.]


I verily believe that, giving all due consideration to the benefits
conferred upon this nation by the Constitution, its national unity,
its swelling masses of wealth, its power, and the external prosperity
of its multiplying millions; yet the _moral_ injury that has been
done, by the countenance shown to slavery by holding over that
tremendous sin the shield of the Constitution, and thus breaking down
in the eyes of the nation the barrier between right and wrong; by so
tenderly cherishing slavery as, in less than the life of man, to
multiply her children from half a million to nearly three millions; by
exacting oaths from those who occupy prominent stations in society,
that they will violate at once the rights of man and the law of God;
by substituting itself as a rule of right, in place of the moral laws
of the universe;--thus in effect, dethroning the Almighty in the
hearts of this people and setting up another sovereign in his
stead--more than outweighs it all. A melancholy and monitory lesson
this, to all time-serving and temporising statesmen! A striking
illustration of the _impolicy_ of sacrificing _right_ to any
considerations of expediency! Yet, what better than the evil effects
that we have seen, could the authors of the Constitution have
reasonably expected, from the sacrifice of right, in the concessions
they made to slavery? Was it reasonable in them to expect that after
they had introduced a vicious element into the very Constitution of
the body politic which they were calling into life, it would not exert
its vicious energies? Was it reasonable in them to expect that, after
slavery had been corrupting the public morals for a whole generation,
their children would have too much virtue to _use_ for the defence of
slavery, a power which they themselves had not too much virtue to
_give_? It is dangerous for the sovereign power of a State to license
immorality; to hold the shield of its protection over any thing that
is not "legal in a moral view." Bring into your house a benumbed
viper, and lay it down upon your warm hearth, and soon it will not ask
you into which room it may crawl. Let Slavery once lean upon the
supporting arm, and bask in the fostering smile of the State, and you
will soon see, as we now see, both her minions and her victims
multiply apace till the politics, the morals, the liberties, even the
religion of the nation, are brought completely under her control.

To me, it appears that the virus of slavery, introduced into the
Constitution of our body politic, by a few slight punctures, has now
so pervaded and poisoned the whole system of our National Government,
that literally there is no health in it. The only remedy that I can
see for the disease, is to be found in the _dissolution of the
patient_.

The Constitution of the United States, both in theory and practice, is
so utterly broken down by the influence and effects of slavery, so
imbecile for the highest good of the nation, and so powerful for evil,
that I can give no voluntary assistance in holding it up any longer.

Henceforth it is dead to me, and I to it. I withdraw all profession of
allegiance to it, and all my voluntary efforts to sustain it. The
burdens that it lays upon me, while it is held up by others, I shall
endeavor to bear patiently, yet acting with reference to a higher law,
and distinctly declaring, that while I retain my own liberty, I will
be a part to no compact, which helps to rob any other man of his.

Very respectfully, your friend,

FRANCIS JACKSON.

       *     *     *     *     *

FROM

MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH

AT NIBLO'S GARDENS.

"We have slavery, already, amongst us. The Constitution found it among
us; it recognized it and gave it SOLEMN GUARANTIES. To the full extent
of these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in justice, and by the
Constitution. All the stipulations, contained in the Constitution, _in
favor of the slaveholding States_ which are already in the Union,
ought to be fulfilled, and so far as depends on me, shall be
fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit, and to the exactness of
their letter."!!!

       *     *     *     *     *

EXTRACTS FROM

JOHN Q. ADAMS'S ADDRESS

AT NORTH BRIDGEWATER, NOV. 6, 1844.

The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the
restoration of credit and reputation, to the country--the revival of
commerce, navigation, and ship-building--the acquisition of the means
of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection and
encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the country.
All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was insufficient to
propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to the adoption of the
Constitution. What they specially wanted was _protection_.--Protection
from the powerful and savage tribes of Indians within their
borders, and who were harrassing them with the most terrible of
wars--and protection from their own negroes--protection from their
insurrections--protection from their escape--protection even to the
trade by which they were brought into the country--protection, shall I
not blush to say, protection to the very bondage by which they were
held. Yes! it cannot be denied--the slaveholding lords of the South
prescribed, as a condition of their assent to the Constitution, three
special provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over
their slaves. The first was the immunity for twenty years of
preserving the African slave-trade; the second was the stipulation to
surrender fugitive slaves--an engagement positively prohibited by the
laws of God, delivered from Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction fatal to
the principles of popular representation, of a representation for
slaves--for articles of merchandise, under the name of persons.

The reluctance with which the freemen of the North submitted to the
dictation of these conditions, is attested by the awkward and
ambiguous language in which they are expressed. The word slave is
most cautiously and fastidiously excluded from the whole instrument. A
stranger, who should come from a foreign land, and read the
Constitution of the United States, would not believe that slavery or a
slave existed within the borders of our country. There is not word in
the Constitution _apparently_ bearing up on the condition of slavery,
nor is there a provision but would be susceptible of practical
execution if there were not a slave in the land.

The delegates from South Carolina and Georgia distinctly avowed that,
without this guarantee of protection to their property in slaves, they
would not yield their assent to the Constitution; and the freemen of
the North, reduced to the alternative of departing from the vital
principle of their liberty, or of forfeiting the Union itself, averted
their faces, and with trembling hand subscribed the bond.

Twenty years passed away--the slave markets of the South were
saturated with the blood of African bondage, and from midnight of the
31st December, 1807, not a slave from Africa was suffered ever more to
be introduced upon our soil. But the internal traffic was still
lawful, and the _breeding_ States soon reconciled themselves to a
prohibition which gave them the monopoly of the interdicted trade, and
they joined the full chorus of reprobation, to punish with death the
slave-trader from Africa, while they cherished and shielded and
enjoyed the precious profits of the American slave-trade exclusively
to themselves.

Perhaps this unhappy result of their concession had not altogether
escaped the foresight of the freemen of the North; but their intense
anxiety for the preservation of the whole Union, and the habit already
formed of yielding to the somewhat peremptory and overbearing tone
which the relation of master and slave welds into the nature of the
lord, prevailed with them to overlook this consideration, the internal
slave-trade having scarcely existed while that with Africa had been
allowed. But of one consequence which has followed from the slave
representation, pervading the whole organic structure of the
Constitution, they certainly were not prescient; for if they had been,
never--no, never would they have consented to it.

The representation, ostensibly of slaves, under the name of persons,
was in its operation an exclusive grant of power to one class of
proprietors, owners of one species of property, to the detriment of
all the rest of the community. This species of property was odious in
its nature, held in direct violation of the natural and inalienable
rights of man, and of the vital principles of Christianity; it was all
accumulated in one geographical section of the country, and was all
held by wealthy men, comparatively small in numbers, not amounting to
a tenth part of the free white population of the States in which it
was concentrated.

In some of the ancient, and in some modern republics, extraordinary
political power and privileges have been invested in the owners of
horses; but then these privileges and these powers have been granted
for the equivalent of extraordinary duties and services to the
community, required of the favored class. The Roman knights
constituted the cavalry of their armies, and the bushels of rings
gathered by Hannibal from their dead bodies, after the battle of
Cannae, amply prove that the special powers conferred upon them were
no gratuitous grants. But in the Constitution of the United States,
the political power invested in the owners of slaves is entirely
gratuitous. No extraordinary service is required of them; they are, on
the contrary, themselves grievous burdens upon the community, always
threatened with the danger of insurrections, to be smothered in the
blood of both parties, master and slave, and always depressing the
condition of the poor free laborer, by competition with the labor of
the slave. The property in horses was the gift of God to man, at the
creation of the world; the property in slaves is property acquired and
held by crimes, differing in no moral aspect from the pillage of a
freebooter, and to which no lapse of time can give a prescriptive
right. You are told that this is no concern of yours, and that the
question of freedom and slavery is exclusively reserved to the
consideration of the separate States. But if it be so, as to the mere
question of right between master and slave, it is of tremendous
concern to you that this little cluster of slave-owners should
possess, besides their own share in the representative hall of the
nation, the exclusive privilege of appointing two-fifths of the whole
number of the representatives of the people. This is now your
condition, under that delusive ambiguity of language and of principle,
which begins by declaring the representation in the popular branch of
the legislature a representation of persons, and then provides that
one class of persons shall have neither part nor lot in the choice of
their representative; but their elective franchise shall he
transferred to their masters, and the oppressors shall represent the
oppressed. The same perversion of the representative principle
pollutes the composition of the colleges of electors of President and
Vice President of the United States, and every department of the
government of the Union is thus tainted at its source by the gangrene
of slavery.

Fellow-citizens,--with a body of men thus composed, for legislators
and executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been your
legislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation are much
greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free. You have
at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union. Your
influence on the legislation and the administration of the government
ought to be in the proportion of three to two.--But how stands the
fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence exercised by the
slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers, here is an
intrusive influence in every department, by a representation nominally
of persons, but really of property, ostensibly of slaves, but
effectively of their masters, overbalancing your superiority of
numbers, adding two-fifths of supplementary power to the two-fifths
fairly secured to them by the compact, CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE
WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AT HOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to
the sordid private interest and oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of
slaves.

From the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United
States, the institution of domestic slavery has been becoming more and
more the abhorrence of the civilized world. But in proportion as it
has been growing odious to all the rest of mankind, it has been
sinking deeper and deeper into the affections of the holders of
slaves themselves. The cultivation of cotton and of sugar, unknown in
the Union at the establishment of the Constitution, has added largely
to the pecuniary value of the slave. And the suppression of the
African slave-trade as piracy upon pain of death, by securing the
benefit of a monopoly to the virtuous slaveholders of the ancient
dominion, has turned her heroic tyrannicides into a community of
slave-breeders for sale, and converted the land of George Washington,
Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Jefferson, into a great
barracoon--a cattle-show of human beings, an emporium, of which the
staple articles of merchandise are the flesh and blood, the bones and
sinews of immortal man.

Of the increasing abomination of slavery in the unbought hearts of men
at the time when the Constitution of the United States was formed,
what clearer proof could be desired, than that the very same year in
which that charter of the land was issued, the Congress of the
Confederation, with not a tithe of the powers given by the people to
the Congress of the new compact, actually abolished slavery for ever
throughout the whole Northwestern territory, without a remonstrance or
a murmur. But in the articles of confederation, there was no guaranty
for the property of the slaveholder--no double representation of him
in the Federal councils--no power of taxation--no stipulation for the
recovery of fugitive slaves. But when the powers of _government_ came
to be delegated to the Union, the--that is, South Carolina and
Georgia--refused their subscription to the parchment, till it should
be saturated with the infection of slavery, which no fumigation could
purify, no quarantine could extinguish. The freemen of the North gave
way, and the deadly venom of slavery was infused into the Constitution
of freedom. Its first consequence has been to invert the first
principle of Democracy, that the will of the majority of numbers shall
rule the land. By means of the double representation, the minority
command the whole, and a KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW AND
PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF THE COUNTRY. To acquire this superiority of a
large majority of freemen, a persevering system of engrossing nearly
all the seats of power and place, is constantly for a long series of
years pursued, and you have seen, in a period of fifty-six years, the
Chief-magistracy of the Union held, during forty-four of them, by the
owners of slaves. The Executive departments, the Army and Navy, the
Supreme Judicial Court and diplomatic missions abroad, all present the
same spectacle;--an immense majority of power in the hands of a very
small minority of the people--millions made for a fraction of a few
thousands.

       *     *     *     *     *

From that day (1830,) SLAVERY, SLAVEHOLDING, SLAVE-BREEDING AND
SLAVE-TRADING, HAVE FORMED THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE POLICY OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and of the slaveholding States, at home and
abroad; and at the very time when a new census has exhibited a large
increase upon the superior numbers of the free States, it has
presented the portentous evidence of increased influence and
ascendancy of the slaveholding power.

Of the prevalence of that power, you have had continual and conclusive
evidence in the suppression for the space of ten years of the right of
petition, guarantied, if there could be a guarantee against slavery,
by the first article amendatory of the Constitution.










       *     *     *     *     *




THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.--NO. XI

THE

CONSTITUTION

A PRO-SLAVERY COMPACT

OR

SELECTIONS

FROM

THE MADISON PAPERS, &C.

SECOND EDITION, ENLARGED.

       *     *     *     *     *

NEW YORK:

AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,

142 NASSAU STREET.

1845.



CONTENTS.


INTRODUCTION.

Debates in the Congress of the Confederation.
Debates in the Federal Convention.
List of Members of the Federal Convention.
Speech of Luther Martin.

DEBATES IN STATE CONVENTIONS.

    Massachusetts,
    New York,
    Pennsylvania,
    Virginia,
    North Carolina,
    South Carolina,

Extracts from the Federalist,
Debates in First Congress,
Address of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society,
Letter from Francis Jackson to Gov. Briggs,
Extract from Mr. Webster's Speech,
Extracts from J.Q. Adams's Address, November, 1844.



INTRODUCTION.

       *     *     *     *     *

Every one knows that the "Madison Papers" contain a Report, from the
pen of James Madison, of the Debates in the Old Congress of the
Confederation and in the Convention which formed the Constitution of
the United States. We have extracted from them, in these pages, all
the Debates on those clauses of the Constitution which relate to
slavery. To these we have added all that is found, on the same topic,
in the Debates of the several State Conventions which ratified the
Constitution: together with so much of the Speech of Luther Martin
before the Legislature of Maryland, and of the Federalist, as relate
to our subject; with some extracts, also, from the Debates of the
first Federal Congress on Slavery. These are all printed without
alteration, except that, in some instances, we have inserted in
brackets, after the name of a speaker, the name of the State from
which he came. The notes and italics are those of the original, but
the editor has added two notes on page 38, which are marked as his,
and we have taken the liberty of printing in capitals one sentiment of
Rufus King's, and two of James Madison's--a distinction which the
importance of the statements seemed to demand--otherwise we have
reprinted exactly from the originals.

These extracts develop most clearly all the details of that
"compromise," which was made between freedom and slavery, in 1787;
granting to the slaveholder distinct privileges and protection for his
slave property, in return for certain commercial concessions on his
part toward the North. They prove also that the Nation at large were
fully aware of this bargain at the time, and entered into it willingly
and with open eyes.

We have added the late "Address of the American Anti-Slavery Society,"
and the Letter of FRANCIS JACKSON to Governor BRIGGS, resigning his
commission of Justice of the Peace--as bold and honorable protests
against the guilt and infamy of this National bargain, and as proving
most clearly the duty of each individual to trample it under his feet.
The clauses of the Constitution to which we refer as of a pro-slavery
character are the following :--

ART. 1, SECT. 2.--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_.

ART. 1, SECT. 8.--Congress shall have power . . . to suppress
insurrections.

ART. 1, SECT. 9.--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.

ART. 4, SECT. 2.--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.

ART. 4, SECT. 4.--The United States shall guarantee to every State in
this Union a republican form of government; and shall protect each of
them against invasion; and, on application of the legislature, or of
the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) _against
domestic violence_.

The first of these clauses, relating to representation, confers on a
slaveholding community additional political power for every slave held
among them, and thus tempts them to continue to uphold the system: the
second and the last, relating to insurrection and domestic violence,
perfectly innocent in themselves--yet being made with the fact
directly in view that slavery exists among us, do deliberately pledge
the whole national force against the unhappy slave if he imitate our
fathers and resist oppression--thus making us partners in the guilt of
sustaining slavery: the third, relating to the slave-trade, disgraces
the nation by a pledge not to abolish that traffic till after twenty
years, _without obliging Congress to do so even then_, and thus the
slave-trade may be legalized to-morrow if Congress choose: the fourth
is a promise on the part of the whole Nation to return fugitive slaves
to their masters, a deed which God's law expressly condemns and which
every noble feeling of our nature repudiates with loathing and
contempt.

These are the articles of the "Compromise," so much talked of, between
the North and South.

We do not produce the extracts which make up these pages to show what
is the meaning of the clauses above cited. For no man or party, of any
authority in such matters, has ever pretended to doubt to what subject
they all relate. If indeed they were ambiguous in their terms, a
resort to the history of those times would set the matter at rest
forever. A few persons, to be sure, of late years, to serve the
purposes of a party, have tried to prove that the Constitution makes
no compromise with slavery. Notwithstanding the clear light of
history;--the unanimous decision of all the courts in the land, both
State and Federal;--the action of Congress and the State
Legislature;--the constant practice of the Executive in all its
branches;--and the deliberate acquiescence of the whole people for
half a century, still they contend that the Nation does not know its
own meaning, and that the Constitution does not tolerate slavery!
Every candid mind, however, must acknowledge that the language of the
Constitution is clear and explicit.

Its terms are so broad, it is said, that they include many others
beside slaves, and hence it is wisely (!) inferred that they cannot
include the slaves themselves! Many persons besides slaves in this
country doubtless are "held to service and labor under the laws of the
States," but that does not at all show that slaves are not "held to
service;" many persons beside the slaves may take part "in
insurrections," but that does not prove that when the slaves rise, the
National Government is not bound to put them down by force. Such a
thing has been heard of before as one description including a great
variety of persons,--and this is the case in the present instance.

But granting that the terms of the Constitution are ambiguous--that
they are susceptible of two meanings, if the unanimous, concurrent,
unbroken practice of every department of the Government, judicial,
legislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the whole people
for fifty years do not prove which is the true construction, then how
and where can such a question ever be settled? If the people and the
Courts of the land do not know what they themselves mean, who has
authority to settle their meaning for them?

If then the people and the Courts of a country are to be allowed to
determine what their own laws mean, it follows that at this time and
for the last half century, the Constitution of the United States has
been, and still is, a pro-slavery instrument, and that any one who
swears to support it, swears to do pro-slavery acts, and violates his
duty both as a man and an abolitionist. What the Constitution may
become a century hence, we know not; we speak of it _as it is_, and
repudiate it _as it is_.

But the purpose, for which we have thrown these pages before the
community, is this. Some men, finding the nation unanimously deciding
that the Constitution tolerates slavery, have tried to prove that this
false construction, as they think it, has been foisted into the
instrument by the corrupting influence of slavery itself, tainting all
it touches. They assert that the known anti-slavery spirit of
revolutionary times never _could_ have consented to so infamous a
bargain as the Constitution is represented to be, and has in its
present hands become. Now these pages prove the melancholy fact, that
willingly, with deliberate purpose, our fathers bartered honesty for
gain, and became partners with tyrants, that they might share in the
profits of their tyranny.

And in view of this fact, will it not require a very strong argument
to make any candid man believe, that the bargain which the fathers
tell us they meant to incorporate into the Constitution, and which the
sons have always thought they found there incorporated, does not exist
there, after all? Forty of the shrewdest men and lawyers in the land
assemble to make a bargain, among other things, about slaves,--after
months of anxious deliberation they put it into writing and sign their
names to the instrument,--fifty years roll away, twenty millions, at
least, of their children pass over the stage of life,--courts sit and
pass judgment,--parties arise and struggle fiercely; still all concur
in finding in the instrument just that meaning which the fathers tell
us they intended to express:--must not he be a desperate man, who,
after all this, sets out to prove that the fathers were bunglers and
the sons fools, and that slavery is not referred to at all?

Besides, the advocates of this new theory of the Anti-slavery
character of the Constitution, quote some portions of the Madison
Papers in support of their views,--and this makes it proper that the
community should hear _all_ that these Debates have to say on the
subject. The further we explore them, the clearer becomes the fact,
that the Constitution was meant to be, what it has always been
esteemed, a compromise between slavery and freedom.

If then the Constitution be, what these Debates show that our fathers
intended to make it, and what, too, their descendants, this nation,
say they did make it and agree to uphold,--then we affirm that it is a
"covenant with death and an agreement with hell," and ought to be
immediately annulled. No abolitionist can consistently take office
under it, or swear to support it.

But if, on the contrary, our fathers failed in their purpose, and the
Constitution is all pure and untouched by slavery,--then, Union itself
is impossible, without guilt. For it is undeniable that the fifty
years passed under this (anti-slavery) Constitution, show us the
slaves trebling in numbers;--slaveholders monopolizing the offices and
dictating the policy of the Government;--prostituting the strength and
influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and
elsewhere;--trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the
courts of the country their tools. To continue this disastrous
alliance longer is madness. The trial of fifty years with the best of
men and the best of Constitutions, on this supposition, only proves
that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms,
without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin
of slavery. We dare not prolong the experiment, and with double
earnestness we repeat our demand upon every honest man to join in the
outcry of the American Anti-Slavery Society,--

NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS!



THE CONSTITUTION

A PRO-SLAVERY COMPACT.

       *     *     *     *     *

_Extracts from Debates in the Congress of Confederation, preserved by
Thomas Jefferson, 1776._

Congress proceeded the same day to consider the Declaration of
Independence, * * *

The clause too reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa was
struck out, in compliance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never
attempted to restrain the importation of Slaves, and who on the
contrary still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also, I
believe, felt a little tender under those censures; for though their
people have very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty
considerable carriers of them to others.--p. 18.

On Friday, the twelfth of July, 1776, the committee appointed to draw
the articles of Confederation reported them, and on the twenty-second,
the House resolved themselves into a committee to take them into
consideration. On the thirtieth and thirty-first of that month, and
the first of the ensuing, those articles were debated which determined
the proportion or quota of money which each State should furnish to
the common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress. The first
of these articles was expressed in the original draught in these
words:--

"Article 11. All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be
incurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and allowed by
the United States assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common
treasury, which shall be supplied by the several Colonies in
proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex and duality,
except Indians not paying taxes, in each Colony, a true account of
which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially
taken and transmitted to the Assembly of the United States."

Mr. CHASE (of Maryland) moved, that the quotas should be paid, not by
the number of inhabitants of every condition but by that of the "white
inhabitants." He admitted that taxation should be always in proportion
to property; that this was in theory the true rule, but that from a
variety of difficulties it was a rule which could never be adopted in
practice. The value of the property in every State could never be
estimated justly and equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the
State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which
would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a
tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might always be
obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode we could adopt, with
one exception only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such
cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those
States where there are few slaves. That the surplus of profit which a
Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c.;
whereas, a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves. There
is no more reason therefore for taxing the Southern States on the
farmer's head and on his slave's head, than the Northern ones on their
farmers' heads and the heads of their cattle. That the method proposed
would therefore tax the Southern States according to their numbers and
their wealth conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers
only: that negroes in fact should not be considered as members of the
State, more than cattle, and that they have no more interest in it.

Mr. John Adams (of Massachusetts) observed, that the numbers of people
were taken by this article as an index of the wealth of the State and
not as subjects of taxation. That as to this matter it was of no
consequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of
freemen or of slaves. That in some countries the laboring poor were
called freemen, in others they were called slaves: but that the
difference as to the state was imaginary only. What matters it whether
a landlord employing ten laborers on his farm gives them annually as
much money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them
those necessaries at short hand? The ten laborers add as much wealth
annually to the State, increase its exports as much, in the one case
as the other. Certainly five hundred freemen produce no more profits,
no greater surplus for the payment of taxes, than five hundred slaves.
Therefore the State in which are the laborers called freemen, should
be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves. Suppose,
by any extraordinary operation of nature or of law, one half the
laborers of a State could in the course of one night be transformed
into slaves,--would the State be made the poorer, or the less able to
pay taxes? That the condition of the laboring poor in most
countries,--that of the fishermen, particularly, of the Northern
States,--is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of laborers
which produces the surplus for taxation; and numbers, therefore,
indiscriminately, are the fair index of wealth. That it is the use of
the word "property" here, and its application to some of the people of
the State, which produces the fallacy. How does the Southern farmer
procure slaves? Either by importation or by purchase from his
neighbor. If he imports a slave, he adds one to the number of laborers
in his country, and proportionably to its profits and abilities to pay
taxes; if he buys from his neighbor, it is only a transfer of a
laborer from one farm to another, which does not change the annual
produce of the State, and therefore should not change its tax; that if
a Northern farmer works ten laborers on his farm, he can, it is true,
invest the surplus of ten men's labor in cattle; but so may the
Southern farmer working ten slaves. That a State of one hundred
thousand freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of one hundred
thousand slaves; therefore they have no more of that kind of property.
That a slave may, indeed, from the custom of speech, be more properly
called the wealth of his master, than the free laborer might be called
the wealth of his employer: but as to the State, both were equally its
wealth, and should therefore equally add to the quota of its tax.

Mr. HARRISON (of Virginia) proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves
should be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do
as much work as freemen, and doubted if two effected more than one.
That this was proved by the price of labor, the hire of a laborer in
the Southern colonies being from £8 to £12, while in the Northern it
was generally £24.

Mr. WILSON (of Pennsylvania) said, that if this amendment should take
place, the Southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves,
whilst the Northern ones would bear the burthen. That slaves increase
the profits of a State, which the Southern States mean to take to
themselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence, which
would of course fall so much the heavier on the Northern; that slaves
occupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your slaves,
and freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay every
discouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment would
give the _jus trium liberorum_ to him who would import slaves. That
other kinds of property were pretty equally distributed through all
the Colonies: there were as many cattle, horses, and sheep, in the
North as the South, and South as the North; but not so as to slaves:
that experience has shown that those colonies have been always able to
pay most, which have the most inhabitants, whether they be black or
white; and the practice of the Southern colonies has always been to
make every farmer pay poll taxes upon all his laborers, whether they
be black or white. He acknowledged indeed that freemen worked the
most; but they consume the most also. They do not produce a greater
surplus for taxation. The slave is neither fed nor clothed so
expensively as a freeman. Again, white women are exempted from labor
generally, which negro women are not. In this then the Southern States
have an advantage as the article now stands. It has sometimes been
said that slavery was necessary, because the commodities they raise
would be too dear for market if cultivated by freemen; but now it is
said that the labor of the slave is the dearest.

Mr. PAYNE (of Massachusetts) urged the original resolution of
Congress, to proportion the quotas of the States to the number of
souls.

Dr. WITHERSPOON (of New-Jersey) was of opinion, that the value of
lands and houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and
that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true
barometer of wealth. The one now proposed is imperfect in itself, and
unequal between the States. It has been objected that negroes eat the
food of freemen, and therefore should be taxed: horses also eat the
food of freemen; therefore they also should be taxed. It has been said
too, that in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes the State
is to pay, we do no more than those States themselves do, who always
take slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to pay.
But the cases are not parallel. In the Southern Colonies, slaves
pervade the whole Colony; but they do not pervade the whole continent.
That as to the original resolution of Congress, it was temporary only,
and related to the moneys heretofore emitted: whereas we are now
entering into a new compact, and therefore stand on original ground.

AUGUST 1st. The question being put, the amendment proposed was
rejected by the votes of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island,
Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania, against those of
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North; and South Carolina. Georgia was
divided.--_pp_. 27-8-9, 30-1-2.

       *     *     *     *     *

_Extracts from Madison's Report of Debates in the Congress of the
Confederation._


TUESDAY, January 14, 1783.

If the valuation of land had not been prescribed by the Federal
Articles, the Committee would certainly have preferred some other rule
of appointment, particularly that of numbers, under certain
qualifications as to slaves.--_p_. 260


TUESDAY, Feb. 11, 1783.

Mr. WOLCOTT declares his opinion that the Confederation ought to be
amended by substituting numbers of inhabitants as the rule; admits the
difference between freemen and blacks; and suggests a compromise, by
including in the numeration such blacks only as were within sixteen
and sixty years of age.--_p_. 331


THURSDAY, March 27, 1783.

(The eleventh and twelfth paragraphs:)

Mr. WILSON (of Pennsylvania) was strenuous in their favor; said he was
in Congress when the Articles of Confederation directing a valuation
of land were agreed to; that it was the effect of the impossibility of
compromising the different ideas of the Eastern and Southern States,
as to the value of slaves compared with the whites, the alternative in
question.

Mr. CLARK (of New-Jersey) was in favor of them. He said that he was
also in Congress when this article was decided; that the Southern
States would have agreed to numbers in preference to the value of land
if half their slaves only should be included; but that the Eastern
States would not concur in that proposition.

It was agreed, on all sides, that, instead of fixing the proportion by
ages, as the report proposed, it would be best to fix the proportion
in absolute numbers. With this view, and that the blank might be
filled up, the clause was recommitted. _p_. 421-2.

FRIDAY, March 28, 1783.

The committee last mentioned, reported that two blacks be rated as one
freeman.

Mr. WOLCOTT (of Connecticut) was for rating them as four to three. Mr.
CARROLL as four to one. Mr. WILLIAMSON (of North Carolina) said he
was principled against slavery; and that he thought slaves an
incumbrance to society, instead of increasing its ability to pay
taxes. Mr. HIGGINSON (of Massachusetts) as four to three. Mr. RUTLEDGE
(of South Carolina) said, for the sake of the object, he would agree
to rate slaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to one
would be a juster proportion. Mr. HOLTON as four to three.--Mr. OSGOOD
said he did not go beyond four to three. On a question for rating them
as three to two, the votes were, New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts,
no; Rhode Island; divided; Connecticut, aye; New Jersey, aye;
Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, aye; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; North
Carolina, no; South Carolina, no. The paragraph was then postponed, by
general consent, some wishing for further time to deliberate on it;
but it appearing to be the general opinion that no compromise would be
agreed to.

After some further discussions on the Report, in which the necessity
of some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came fully into
view, Mr. MADISON (of Virginia) said that, in order to give a proof of
the sincerity of his professions of liberality, he would propose that
slaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. RUTLEDGE (of South
Carolina) seconded the motion. Mr. WILSON (of Pennsylvania) said he
would sacrifice his opinion on this compromise.

Mr. LEE was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion that
two slaves were not equal to one freeman.

On the question for five to three, it passed in the affirmative; New
Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut,
no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye;
North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, aye.

A motion was then made by Mr. BLAND, seconded by Mr. LEE, to strike
out the clause so amended, and, on the question "Shall it stand," it
passed in the negative; New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode
Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye;
Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South
Carolina, no; so the clause was struck out.

The arguments used by those who were for rating slaves high were, that
the expense of feeding and clothing them was as far below that
incident to freemen as their industry and ingenuity were below those
of freemen; and that the warm climate within which the States having
slaves lay, compared with the rigorous climate and inferior fertility
of the others, ought to have great weight in the case; and that the
exports of the former States were greater than of the latter. On the
other side, it was said, that slaves were not put to labor as young as
the children of laboring families; that, having no interest in their
labor, they did as little as possible, and omitted every exertion of
thought requisite to facilitate and expedite it; that if the exports
of the States having slaves exceeded those of the others, their
imports were in proportion, slaves employed wholly in agriculture, not
in manufactures; and that, in fact, the balance of trade formerly was
much more against the Southern States than the others.

On the main question, New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode
Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York (Mr. FLOYD, aye;) New Jersey,
aye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye;
South Carolina, no.--_pp. 423-4-5_.

TUESDAY, April l, 1783.

Congress resumed the Report on Revenue, &c. Mr. HAMILTON, who
had been absent when the last question was taken for substituting
numbers in place of the value of land, moved to reconsider that vote.
He was seconded by Mr. OSGOOD. Those who voted differently from
their former votes were influenced by the conviction of the necessity
of the change, and despair on both sides of a more favorable rate
of the slaves. The rate of three-fifths was agreed to without
opposition.--_p. 430_.

MONDAY, MAY 26, 1783.

The Resolutions on the Journal instructing the ministers in Europe to
remonstrate against the carrying off the negroes--also those for
furloughing the troops--passed _unanimously.--p. 456._

       *     *     *     *     *

_Letter from Mr. Madison to Edmund Randolph_.

PHILADELPHIA, April 8, 1783.

A change of the valuation of lands for the number of inhabitants,
deducting two-fifths of the slaves, has received a tacit sanction,
and, unless hereafter expunged, will go forth in the general
recommendation, as material to future harmony and justice among the
members of the Confederacy. The deduction of two-fifths was a
compromise between the wide opinions and demands of the Southern and
other States.--_p. 523_.

       *     *     *     *     *

_Extract from "Debates in the Federal Convention" of 1787, for the
formation of the Constitution of the United States_.

TUESDAY, May 29, 1787.

Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY laid before the House the draft of a Federal
Government. * * * "The proportion of direct taxation shall be
regulated by the whole number of inhabitants of every
description"--_pp_. 735, 741.

WEDNESDAY, May 30, 1787.

The following Resolution, being the second of those proposed by Mr.
RANDOLPH, was taken up, viz.

"_That the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be
proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free
inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different
cases_."

Colonel HAMILTON moved to alter the resolution so as to read, "that
the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be
proportioned to the number of free inhabitants." Mr. SPAIGHT seconded
the motion.--_p_. 750.


WEDNESDAY, June 6, 1787.

Mr. MADISON. We have seen the mere distinction of color made, in the
most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive
dominion ever exercised by man over man.--_p_. 806.


MONDAY, June 11, 1787.

Mr. SHERMAN proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first
branch should be according to the respective numbers of free
inhabitants;

Mr. RUTLEDGE proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first
branch should be according to the quotas of contribution.

Mr. KING and Mr. WILSON, in order to bring the question to a point,
moved, "that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the National
Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the
Articles of Confederation, but according to some equitable ratio of
representation."--_p_. 836.

It was then moved by Mr. RUTLEDGE, seconded by Mr. BUTLER, to add to
the words, "equitable ratio of representation," at the end of the
motion just agreed to, the words "according to the quotas of
contribution." On motion of Mr. WILSON, seconded by Mr. PINCKNEY, this
was postponed; in order to add, after the words, "equitable ratio of
representation," the words following: "In proportion to the whole
number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age,
sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of
years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the
foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each
State"--this being the rule in the act of Congress, agreed to by
eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and
requiring a census only every five, seven, or ten years.

Mr. GERRY (of Massachusetts) thought property not the rule of
representation. Why, then, should the blacks, who were property in the
South, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle and
horses of the North?

On the question,--Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9;
New Jersey, Delaware, no--2.--_pp_. 842-3.


TUESDAY, June 19, 1787.

Mr. MADISON. Where slavery exists, the republican theory becomes still
more fallacious.--_p_. 899.


SATURDAY, June 30, 1787.

Mr. Madison,--admitted that every peculiar interest, whether in any
class of citizens, or any description of states, ought to be secured
as far as possible. Wherever there is danger of attack, there ought to
be given a constitutional power of defence. But he contended that the
States were divided into different interests, not by their difference
of size, but by other circumstances; the most material of which
resulted partly from climate, but principally from the effects of
their having or not having slaves. These two causes concurred in
forming the great division of interests in the United States. It did
not lie between the large and small States. IT LAY BETWEEN THE
NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN; and if any defensive power were necessary, it
ought to be mutually given to these two interests. He was so strongly
impressed with this important truth, that he had been casting about in
his mind for some expedient that would answer the purpose. The one
which had occurred was, that, instead of proportioning the votes of
the States in both branches, to the irrespective numbers of
inhabitants, computing the slaves in the ratio of five to three, they
should be represented in one branch according to the number of free
inhabitants only; and in the other according to the whole number,
counting slaves as free. By this arrangement the Southern scale would
have the advantage in one House, and the Northern in the other. He had
been restrained from proposing this expedient by two considerations;
one was his unwillingness to urge any diversity of interests on an
occasion where it is but too apt to arise of itself; the other was the
inequality of powers that must be vested in the two branches, and
which would destroy the equilibrium of interests.--_pp_. 1006-7


MONDAY, July 2, 1787.

Mr. PINCKNEY. There is a real distinction between the Northern and
Southern interests. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, in
their rice and indigo, had a peculiar interest which might be
sacrificed.--_p_. 1016.


FRIDAY, July 6, 1787.

Mr. PINCKNEY--thought the blacks ought to stand on an equality with
the whites; but would agree to the ratio settled by Congress.--_p._
1039.


MONDAY, July 9, 1787.

Mr. PATTERSON considered the proposed estimate for the future
according to the combined rules of numbers and wealth, as too vague.
For this reason New Jersey was against it. He could regard negro
slaves in no light but as property. They are no free agents, have no
personal liberty, no faculty of acquiring property, but on the
contrary are themselves property, and like other property entirely at
the will of the master. Has a man in Virginia a number of votes in
proportion to the number of his slaves? And if negroes are not
represented in the States to which they belong, why should they be
represented in the General Government. What is the true principle of
representation? It is an expedient by which an assembly of certain
individuals, chosen by the people, is substituted in place of the
inconvenient meeting of the people themselves. If such a meeting of
the people was actually to take place, would the slaves vote? They
would not. Why then should they be represented? He was also against
such an indirect encouragement of the slave trade; observing that
Congress, in their act relating to the change of the eighth article of
Confederation, had been ashamed to use the term "slaves," and had
substituted a description.

Mr. MADISON reminded Mr. PATTERSON that his doctrine of
representation, which was in its principle the genuine one, must for
ever silence the pretensions of the small States to an equality of
votes with the large ones. They ought to vote in the same proportion
in which their citizens would do, if the people of all the States were
collectively met. He suggested, as a proper ground of compromise, that
in the first branch the States should be represented according to
their number of free inhabitants; and in the second, which had for one
of its primary objects the guardianship of property, according to the
whole number, including slaves.

Mr. BUTLER urged warmly the justice and necessity of regarding wealth
in the apportionment of representation.

Mr. KING had always expected, that, as the Southern States are the
richest, they would not league themselves with the Northern, unless
some respect were paid to their superior wealth. If the latter expect
those preferential distinctions in commerce, and other advantages
which they will derive from the connexion, they must not expect to
receive them without allowing some advantages in return. Eleven out of
thirteen of the States had agreed to consider slaves in the
apportionment of taxation; and taxation and representation ought to go
together.--_pp_. 1054-5-6.


TUESDAY, July 10, 1787.

_In Convention_,--Mr. KING reported, from the Committee yesterday
appointed, "that the States at the first meeting of the General
Legislature, should be represented by sixty-five members, in the
following proportions, to wit:--New Hampshire, by 3; Massachusetts, 8;
Rhode Island, 1; Connecticut, 5; New York, 6; New Jersey, 4;
Pennsylvania, 8; Delaware, 1; Maryland, 6; Virginia, 10; North
Carolina, 5; South Carolina, 5; Georgia, 3."

Mr. KING remarked that the four Eastern States, having 800,000 souls,
have one-third fewer representatives than the four Southern States,
having not more than 700,000 souls, rating the blacks as five for
three. The Eastern people will advert to these circumstances, and be
dissatisfied. He believed them to be very desirous of uniting with
their Southern brethren, but did not think it prudent to rely so far
on that disposition, as to subject them to any gross inequality. He
was fully convinced that THE QUESTION CONCERNING A DIFFERENCE OF
INTERESTS DID NOT LIE WHERE IT HAD HITHERTO BEEN DISCUSSED, BETWEEN
THE GREAT AND SMALL STATES; BUT BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN. For
this reason be had been ready to yield something, in the proportion of
representatives, for the security of the Southern. No principle would
justify the giving them a majority. They were brought as near an
equality as was possible. He was not averse to giving them a still
greater security, but did not see how it could be done.

General PINCKNEY. The Report before it was committed was more favorable
to the Southern States than as it now stands. If they are to form so
considerable a minority, and the regulation of trade is to be given to
the General Government, they will be nothing more than overseers for
the Northern States. He did not expect the Southern States to be
raised to a majority of representatives; but wished them to have
something like an equality.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. The Southern interest must be extremely endangered by
the present arrangement. The Northern States are to have a majority in
the first instance, and the means of perpetuating it.

General PINCKNEY urged the reduction; dwelt on the superior wealth of
the Southern States, and insisted on its having its due weight in the
Government.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS regretted the turn of the debate. The States, he
found, had many representatives on the floor. Few, he feared, were to
be deemed the representatives of America. He thought the Southern
States have, by the Report, more than their share of Representation.
Property ought to have its weight, but not all the weight. If the
Southern States are to supply money, the Northern States are to spill
their blood. Besides, the probable revenue to be expected from the
Southern States has been greatly overrated.--_pp_. 1056-7-8-9.


WEDNESDAY, July 11, 1787.

Mr. WILLIAMSON moved that Mr. RANDOLPH's propositions be postponed, in
order to consider the following, "that in order to ascertain the
alterations that may happen in the population and wealth of the
several States, a census shall be taken of the free white inhabitants,
and three-fifths of those of other descriptions on the first year
after this government shall have been adopted, and every ---- year
thereafter; and that the representation be regulated accordingly."

Mr. BUTLER and General PINCKNEY insisted that blacks be included in the
rule of representation _equally_ with the whites; and for that purpose
moved that the words "three-fifths" be struck out.

Mr. GERRY thought that three-fifths of them was, to say the least, the
full proportion that could be admitted.

Mr. GORHAM. This ratio was fixed by Congress as a rule of taxation.
Then, it was urged, by the Delegates representing the States having
slaves, that the blacks were still more inferior to freemen. At
present, when the ratio of representation is to be established, we are
assured that they are equal to freemen. The arguments on the former
occasion had convinced him, that three-fifths was pretty near the just
proportion, and he should vote according to the same opinion now.

Mr. BUTLER insisted that the labor of a slave in South Carolina was as
productive and valuable, as that of a freeman in Massachusetts; that
as wealth was the great means of defence and utility to the nation,
they were equally valuable to it with freemen; and that consequently
an equal representation ought to be allowed for them in a government
which was instituted principally, for the protection of property, and
was itself to be supported by property.

Mr. MASON could not agree to the motion, notwithstanding it was
favorable to Virginia, because he thought it unjust. It was certain
that the slaves were valuable, as they raised the value of land,
increased the exports and imports, and of course the revenue, would
supply the means of feeding and supporting an army, and might in cases
of emergency become themselves soldiers. As in these important
respects they were useful to the community at large, they ought not to
be excluded from the estimate of representation. He could not,
however, regard them as equal to freemen, and could not vote for them
as such. He added, as worthy of remark, that the Southern States have
this peculiar species of property, over and above the other species of
property common to all the States.

Mr. WILLIAMSON reminded Mr. GORHAM that if the Southern States
contended for the inferiority of blacks to whites when taxation was in
view, the Eastern States, on the same occasion, contended for their
equality. He did not, however, either then or now, concur in either
extreme, but approved of the ratio of three-fifths.

On Mr. BUTLER'S motion, for considering blacks as equal to whites in
the apportionment of representation,--Delaware, South Carolina,
Georgia, aye--3; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, no--7; New York, not on the floor.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS said he had several objections to the
proposition of Mr. WILLIAMSON. In the first place, it fettered the
Legislature too much. In the second place, it would exclude some
States altogether who would not have a sufficient number to entitle
them to a single representation. In the third place, it will not
consist with the resolution passed on Saturday last, authorizing the
Legislature to adjust the representation from time to time on the
principles of population and wealth; nor with the principles of
equity. If slaves were to be considered as inhabitants, not as wealth,
then the said Resolution would not be pursued; if as wealth, then why
is no other wealth but slaves included? These objections may perhaps
be removed by amendments.

Mr. KING thought there was great force in the objections of Mr.
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. He would, however, accede to the proposition for
the sake of doing something.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. Another objection with him, against admitting
the blacks into the census, was, that the people of Pennsylvania would
revolt at the idea of being put on a footing with slaves. They would
reject any plan that was to have such an effect.

Mr. MADISON. Future contributions, it seemed to be understood on all
hands, would be principally levied on imports and exports.--pp.
1066-7-8-9; 1070-2-3.

On the question on the first clause of Mr. WILLIAMSON's motion, as to
taking a census of the _free_ inhabitants, it passed in the
affirmative,--Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, North Carolina, aye--6; Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina,
Georgia, no--4.

The next clause as to three-fifths of the negroes being considered,

Mr. KING, being much opposed to fixing numbers as the rule of
representation, was particularly so on account of the blacks. He
thought the admission of them along with whites at all, would excite
great discontents among the States having no slaves. He had never
said, as to any particular point, that he would in no event acquiesce
in and support it; but he would say that if in any case such a
declaration was to be made by him, it would be in this.

He remarked that in the temporary allotment of representatives made by
the Committee, the Southern States had received more than the number
of their white and three-fifths of their black inhabitants entitled
them to.

Mr. SHERMAN. South Carolina had not more beyond her proportion than
New York and New Hampshire; nor either of them more than was necessary
in order to avoid fractions, or reducing them below their proportion.
Georgia had more; but the rapid growth of that State seemed to justify
it. In general the allotment might not be just, but considering all
circumstances he was satisfied with it.

Mr. GORHAM was aware that there might be some weight in what had
fallen from his colleague, as to the umbrage which might be taken by
the people of the Eastern States. But he recollected that when the
proposition of Congress for changing the eighth Article of the
Confederation was before the Legislature of Massachusetts, the only
difficulty then was, to satisfy them that the negroes ought not to
have been counted equally with the whites, instead of being counted in
the ratio of three-fifths only.[1]

[Footnote 1: They were then to have been a rule of taxation only.]


Mr. WILSON did not well see, on what principle the admission of blacks
in the proportion of three-fifths could be explained. Are they
admitted as citizens--then why are they not admitted on an equality
with white citizens? Are they admitted as property--then why is not
other property admitted into the computation? These were difficulties,
however, which he thought must be overruled by the necessity of
compromise. He had some apprehensions also, from the tendency of the
blending of the blacks with the whites, to give disgust to the people
of Pennsylvania, as had been intimated by his colleague (Mr.
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS.)

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was compelled to declare himself reduced to the
dilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States, or to human nature;
and he must therefore do it to the former. For he could never agree to
give such encouragement to the slave trade, as would be given by
allowing them a representation for their negroes; and he did not
believe those States would ever confederate on terms that would
deprive them of that trade.

On the question for agreeing to include three-fifths of the
blacks,--Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye--4;
Massachusetts, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,[2] South
Carolina, no--6.--_pp_.1076-7-8.

[Footnote 2: Mr. Carroll said, in explanation of the vote of Maryland,
that he wished the _phraseology_ to be so altered as to obviate, if
possible, the danger which had been expressed of giving umbrage to the
Eastern and Middle States.]



THURSDAY, July 12, 1787.

_In Convention_,--Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved a proviso, "that
taxation shall be in proportion to representation."

Mr. BUTLER contended again, that representation should be according to
the full number of inhabitants, including all the blacks; admitting
the justice of Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS'S motion.

General PINCKNEY was alarmed at what was said yesterday, [by
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS] concerning the negroes. He was now again alarmed at
what had been thrown out concerning the taxing of exports. South
Carolina has in one year exported to the amount of 600,000£. sterling,
all which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. Will she be
represented in proportion to this amount? She will not. Neither ought
she then to be subject to a tax on it. He hoped a clause would be
inserted in the system, restraining the Legislature from taxing
exports.

Mr. WILSON approved the principle, but could not see how it could be
carried into execution; unless restrained to direct taxation.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS having so varied his motion by inserting the
word "direct," it passed, _nem. con_., as follows: "provided always
that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation"

Mr. DAVIE said it was high time now to speak out. He saw that it was
meant by some gentlemen to deprive the Southern States of any share of
representation for their blacks. He was sure that North Carolina would
never confederate on any terms that did not rate them at least as
three-fifths. If the Eastern States meant, therefore, to exclude them
altogether, the business was at an end.

Dr. JOHNSON thought that wealth and population were the true,
equitable rules of representation; but he conceived that these two
principles resolved themselves into one, population being the best
measure of wealth. He concluded, therefore, that the number of people
ought to be established as the rule, and that all descriptions,
including blacks _equally_ with the whites, ought to fall within the
computation. As various opinions had been expressed on the subject, he
would move that a committee might be appointed to take them into
consideration, and report them.

Mr. GOUVENEUR MORRIS. It had been said that it is high time to speak
out. As one member, he would candidly do so. He came here to form a
compact for the good of America. He was ready to do so with all the
States. He hoped, and believed, that all would enter into such
compact. If they would not, he was ready to join with any states that
would. But as the compact was to be voluntary, it is in vain for the
Eastern States to insist on what the Southern States will never agree
to. It is equally vain for the latter to require, what the other
States can never admit; and he verily believed the people of
Pennsylvania will never agree to a representation of negroes. What can
be desired by these States more than has been already proposed--that
the legislature shall from time to time regulate representation
according to population and wealth?

General PINCKNEY desired that the rule of wealth should be
ascertained, and not left to the pleasure of the legislature, and that
property in slaves should not be exposed to danger, under a government
instituted for the protection of property.

The first clause in the Report of the first Grand Committee was
postponed.

Mr. ELLSWORTH, in order to carry into effect the principle
established, moved to add to the last clause adopted by the house the
words following, "and that the rule of contribution by direct
taxation, for the support of the Government of the United States,
shall be the number of white inhabitants, and three-fifths of every
other description in the several States, until some other rule that
shall more accurately ascertain the wealth of the several States, can
be devised and adopted by the Legislature."

Mr. BUTLER seconded the motion, in order that it might be committed.

Mr. RANDOLPH was not satisfied with the motion. The danger will be
revived, that the ingenuity of the Legislature may evade or pervert
the rule, so as to perpetuate the power where it shall be lodged in
the first instance. He proposed, in lieu of Mr. ELLSWORTH'S motion
"that in order to ascertain the alterations in representation that
stay be required, from time to time, by changes in the relative
circumstances of the States, a census shall be taken within two years
from the first meeting of the General Legislature of the United
States, and once within the term of every ---- years afterwards, of
all the inhabitants, in the manner and according to the ratio
recommended by Congress in their Resolution of the eighteenth day of
April, 1783, (rating the blacks at three-fifths of their number); and
that the Legislature of the United States shall arrange the
representation accordingly." He urged strenuously that express
security ought to be presided for including slaves in the ratio of
representation. He lamented that such a species of property existed.
But as it did exist, the holders of it would require this security.
It was perceived that the design was entertained by some of excluding
slaves altogether; the Legislature therefore ought not to be left at
liberty.

Mr. ELLSWORTH withdraws his motion, and seconds that of Mr. RANDOLPH.

Mr. WILSON observed, that less umbrage would perhaps be taken against
an admission of the slaves into the rule of representation, if it
should be so expressed as to make them indirectly only an ingredient
in the rule, by saying that they should enter into the rule of
taxation; and as representation was to be according to taxation, the
end would be equally attained.

Mr. PINCKNEY moved to amend Mr. RANDOLPH'S motion, so as to make
"blacks equal to the whites in the ratio of representation." This,
he urged was nothing more than justice. The blacks are the laborers,
the peasants, of the Southern States. They are as productive of
pecuniary resources as those of the Northern States. They add equally
to the wealth, and, considering money as the sinew of war, to the
strength, of the nation. It will also be politic with regard to the
Northern States, as taxation is to keep pace with representation.

On Mr. PINCKNEY'S (of S. Carolina) motion, for rating blacks as equal
to whites, instead of as three-fifths,--South Carolina, Georgia,
aye--2; Massachusetts, Connecticut (Doctor JOHNSON, aye), New Jersey,
Pennsylvania (three against two), Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, no--8.

Mr. RANDOLPH'S (of Virginia) proposition, as varied by Mr. WILSON (of
Pennsylvania) being read for taking the question on the whole,--

Mr. GERRY (of Massachusetts) urged that the principle of it could not
be carried into execution, as the States were not to be taxed as
States. With regard to taxes on imposts, he conceived they would be
more productive where there were no slaves, than where there were; the
consumption being greater.

Mr. ELLSWORTH (of Connecticut). In the case of a poll-tax there would
be no difficulty. But there would probably be none. The sum allotted
to a State may be levied without difficulty, according to the plan
used by the State in raising its own supplies.

On the question on the whole proposition, as proportioning
representation to direct taxation, and both to the white and
three-fifths of the black inhabitants, and requiring a census within
six years, and within every ten years afterwards,--Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye--6; New
Jersey, Delaware, no--2; Massachusetts, South Carolina,
divided.--pp. 1079 to 1087.

Friday, July 13, 1787. Mr. MADISON said, that having always conceived
that the difference of interest in the United States lay not between
the large and small, but the Northern and Southern States.-p. 1088.

On the motion of Mr. RANDOLPH (of Virginia) the vote of Monday last,
authorizing the Legislature to adjust, from time to time, the
representation upon the principles of _wealth_ and numbers of
inhabitants, was reconsidered by common consent, in order to strike
out _wealth_ and adjust the resolution to that requiring periodical
revisions according to the number of whites and three-fifths of the
blacks.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS (of Pennsylvania) opposed the alteration, as
leaving still an incoherence. If negroes were to be viewed as
inhabitants, and the revision was to proceed on the principle of
numbers of inhabitants, they ought to be added in their entire number,
and not in the proportion of three-fifths. If as property, the word
wealth was right; and striking it out would produce the very
inconsistency which it was meant to get rid of. The train of business,
and the late turn which it had taken, had led him, he said, into deep
meditation on it, and he would candidly state the result. A
distinction had been set up, and urged, between the Northern and
Southern States. He had hitherto considered this doctrine as
heretical. He still thought the distinction groundless. He sees,
however, that it is persisted in; and the Southern gentlemen will not
be satisfied unless they see the way open to their gaining a majority
in the public councils. The consequence of such a transfer of power
from the maritime to the interior and landed interest, will, he
foresees, be such an oppression to commerce, that he shall be obliged
to vote for the vicious principle of equality in the second branch, in
order to provide some defence for the Northern States against it. But
to come more to the point, either this distinction is fictitious or
real; if fictitious, let it be dismissed, and let us proceed with due
confidence. If it be real, instead of attempting to blend incompatible
things, let us at once take a friendly leave of each other. There can
be no end of demands for security, if every particular interest is to
be entitled to it. The Eastern States may claim it for their fishery,
and for other objects, as the Southern States claim it for their
peculiar objects. In this struggle between the two ends of the Union,
what part ought the Middle States, in point of policy, to take? To
join their Eastern brethren, according to his ideas. If the Southern
States get the power into their hands, and be joined, as they will be,
with the interior country, they will inevitably bring on a war with
Spain for the Mississippi. This language is already held. The interior
country, having no property nor interest exposed on the sea, will be
little affected by such a war. He wished to know what security the
Northern and Middle States will have against this danger. It has been
said that North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia only, will in a
little time have a majority of the people of America. They must in
that case include the great interior country, and every thing was to
be apprehended from their getting the power into their hands.

Mr. BUTLER (of South Carolina). The security the Southern States want
is, that their negroes may not be taken from them, which some
gentlemen within or without doors have a very good mind to do. It was
not supposed that North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, would
have more people than all the other States, but many more relatively
to the other States, than they now have. The people and strength of
America are evidently bearing southwardly, and southwestwardly.

On the question to strike out _wealth_, and to make the change
as moved by Mr. RANDOLPH (of Virginia) it passed in the
affirmative,--Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9;
Delaware, divided.--_pp_. 1090-1-2-3-4.


SATURDAY, July 14, 1787.

Mr. MADISON. It seemed now to be pretty well understood, that the real
difference of interests lay, not between the large and small, but
between the Northern and Southern, States. THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY,
AND IT'S CONSEQUENCES, FORMED THE LINE OF DISCRIMINATION.--_p_. 1104.


TUESDAY, July 17, 1787.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. The largest State will be sure to succeed. This will
not be Virginia, however. Her slaves will have no suffrage.--_p_.
1123.


THURSDAY, July 19, 1787.

Mr. MADISON. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the
Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no
influence in the election, on the score of the negroes.--p. 1148.


MONDAY, July 23, 1787.

General PINCKNEY reminded the Convention, that if the Committee should
fail to insert some security to the Southern States against an
emancipation of slaves, and taxes on exports, he should be bound by
duty to his State to vote against their report.--_p_. 1187.


TUESDAY, July 24, 1787.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. As the Executive is to have a kind of veto on the
laws, and there is an essential difference of interests between the
Northern and Southern States, particularly in the carrying trade, the
power will be dangerous, if the Executive is to be taken from part of
the Union, to the part from which he is not taken.--_p_. 1189.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS hoped the Committee would strike out the whole
of the clause proportioning direct taxation to representation. He had
only meant it as a bridge[3] to assist us over a certain gulf; having
passed the gulf, the bridge may be removed. He thought the principle
laid down with so much strictness liable to strong objections.--_p_.
1197.

[Footnote 3: The object was to lessen the eagerness, on one side, for,
and the opposition, on the other, to the share of representation
claimed by the Southern States on account of the negroes.]



WEDNESDAY, July 25, 1787.

Mr. MADISON. Refer the appointment of the National Executive to the
State Legislatures, and * * *

The remaining mode was an election by the people, or rather by the
qualified part of them at large. * * *

The second difficulty arose from the disproportion of qualified voters
in the Northern and Southern States, and the disadvantages which this
mode would throw on the latter. The answer to this objection was--in
the first place, that this disproportion would be continually
decreasing under the influence of the republican laws introduced in
the Southern States, and the more rapid increase of their population;
in the second place, that local considerations must give way to the
general interest. As an individual from the Southern States, he was
willing to make the sacrifice.--pp. 1200-1.

THURSDAY, July 26, 1787.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris. Revenue will be drawn, it is foreseen, as much
as possible from trade.--p. 1217.

MONDAY, August 6, 1787.

Mr. Rutledge delivered in the Report of the Committee of Detail.


ARTICLE VII.

SECT. 3. The proportions of direct taxation shall be regulated by the
whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every
age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term
of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in
the foregoing description, (except Indians not paying taxes); which
number shall, within six years after the first meeting of the
Legislature, and within the term of every ten years afterwards, be
taken in such a manner as the said Legislature shall direct.

SECT. 4. No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature on articles
exported from any State; nor on the migration or importation of such
persons as the several States shall think proper to admit; nor shall
such migration or importation be prohibited.

SECT. 5. No capitation tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the
census herein before directed to be taken.

SECT. 6. No navigation act shall be passed without the assent of
two-thirds of the members present in each house.--pp. 1226-33-34.

WEDNESDAY, August 8, 1787.

Mr. King wished to know what influence the vote just passed was meant
to have on the succeeding part of the Report, concerning the admission
of slaves into the rule of representation. He could not reconcile his
mind to the Article, if it was to prevent objections to the latter
part. The admission of slaves was a most grating circumstance to his
mind, and he believed would be so to a great part of the people of
America. He had not made a strenuous opposition to it heretofore,
because he had hoped that this concession would have produced a
readiness, which had not been manifested, to strengthen the General
Government, and to mark a full confidence in it. The Report under
consideration had, by the tenor of it, put an end to all those hopes.
In two great points the hands of the Legislature were absolutely tied.
The importation of slaves could not be prohibited. Exports could not
be taxed. Is this reasonable? What are the great objects of the
general system? First, defence against foreign invasion; secondly,
against internal sedition. Shall all the States, then, be bound to
defend each, and shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness
which will render defence more difficult? Shall one part of the United
States be bound to defend another part, and that other part be at
liberty, not only to increase its own danger, but to withhold the
compensation for the burden? If slaves are to be imported, shall not
the exports produced by their labor supply a revenue the better to
enable the General Government to defend their masters? There was so
much inequality and unreasonableness in all this, that the people of
the Northern States could never be reconciled to it. No candid man
could undertake to justify it to them. He had hoped that some
accommodation would have taken place on this subject; that at least a
time would have been limited for the importation of slaves. He never
could agree to let them be imported without limitation, and then be
represented in the National Legislature. Indeed, he could so little
persuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice, that he was not
sure be could assent to it under any circumstances. At all events,
either slaves should not be represented, or exports should be taxable.

Mr. SHERMAN regarded the slave trade as iniquitous; but the point of
representation having been settled after much difficulty and
deliberation, he did not think himself bound to make opposition;
especially as the present Article, as amended, did not preclude any
arrangement whatever on that point, in another place of the report.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to insert "free" before the word
"inhabitants." Much, he said, would depend on this point. He never
would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious
institution. It was the curse of Heaven on the States where it
prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich
and noble cultivation marks the prosperity and happiness of the
people, with the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes
of Virginia, Maryland, and the other States having slaves. Travel
through the whole continent, and you behold the prospect continually
varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery. The moment
you leave the Eastern States, and enter New York, the effects of the
institution become visible. Passing through the Jerseys and entering
Pennsylvania, every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the
change. Proceed southwardly, and every step you take, through the
great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with the
increasing proportion of these wretched beings. Upon what principle is
it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they
men? Then make them citizens, and let them vote. Are they property?
Why, then, is no other property included? The houses in this city
(Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover
the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the
representation, when fairly explained, comes to this, that the
inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the coast of
Africa, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears
away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections, and damns
them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes in a government
instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizen
of Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who views with a laudable horror so
nefarious a practice. He would add, that domestic slavery is the most
prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed
Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite
offspring of aristocracy. And what is the proposed compensation to the
Northern States, for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every
impulse of humanity? They are to bind themselves to march their
militia for the defence of the Southern States, for their defence
against those very slaves of whom they complain. They must supply
vessels and seamen, in case of foreign attack. The Legislature will
have indefinite power to tax them by excises, and duties on imports;
both of which will fall heavier on them than on the Southern
inhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a Northern freeman will pay
more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which
consists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag
that covers his nakedness. On the other side, the Southern States are
not to be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched
Africans, at once to increase the danger of attack, and the difficulty
of defence; nay, they are to be encouraged to it, by an assurance of
having their votes in the National Government increased in proportion;
and are, at the same time, to have their exports and their slaves
exempt from all contributions for the public service. Let it not be
said, that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation. It
is idle to suppose that the General Government can stretch its hand
directly into the pockets of the people, scattered over so vast a
country. They can only do it through the medium of exports, imports
and excises. For what, then, are all the sacrifices to be made? He
would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the negroes in
the United States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.

Mr. DAYTON seconded the motion. He did it, he said, that his
sentiments on the subject might appear, whatever might be the fate of
the amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN did not regard the admission of the negroes into the ratio
of representation, as liable to such insuperable objections. It was
the freemen of the Southern States who were, in fact, to be
represented according to the taxes paid by them, and the negroes are
only included in the estimate of the taxes. This was his idea of the
matter.

Mr. PINCKNEY considered the fisheries, and the western frontier, as
more burdensome to the United States than the slaves. He thought this
could be demonstrated, if the occasion were a proper one.

Mr. WILSON thought the motion premature. An agreement to the clause
would be no bar to the object of it.

On the question, on the motion to insert "free" before "inhabitants,"
New-Jersey, aye--1; New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, no--10.--pp. 1261-2-3-4-5-6.

THURSDAY, August 16, 1787.

Mr. MASON urged the necessity of connecting with the powers of levying
taxes, duties, &c., the prohibition in Article 6, Sect. 4, "that no
tax should be laid on exports."

He hoped the Northern States did not mean to deny the Southern this
security.

MR. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS considered such a proviso as inadmissible
anywhere.

MR. MADISON. Fourthly, the Southern States, being most in danger and
most needing naval protection, could the less complain, if the burthen
should be somewhat heaviest on them. And finally, we are not providing
for the present moment only; and time will equalize the situation of
the States in this matter. He was, for these reasons, against the
motion.

MR. MERCER. It had been said the Southern States had most need of
naval protection. The reverse was the case. Were it not for promoting
the carrying trade of the Northern States, the Southern States could
let the trade go into foreign bottoms, where it would not need our
protection.--pp. 1339-40-41-42.


TUESDAY, August 21, 1787.

Articles 7, Section 3, was then resumed.

MR. DICKINSON moved to postpone this, in order to reconsider Article
4, Section 4, and to _limit_ the number of Representatives to be
allowed to the large States. Unless this were done, the small States
would be reduced to entire insignificance, and encouragement given to
the importation of slaves.

MR. SHERMAN would agree to such a reconsideration; but did not see the
necessity of postponing the section before the House. MR. DICKINSON
withdrew his motion.

Article 7, Section 3, was then agreed to,--ten ayes; Delaware alone,
no.--p. 1379.

Article 7, Section 4, was then taken up.

MR. LANGDON. By this section the States are left at liberty to tax
exports. This could not be admitted. It seems to be feared that the
Northern States will oppress the trade of the Southern. This may be
guarded against, by requiring the concurrence of two-thirds, or
three-fourths of the Legislature, in such cases.--p. 1382-3.

MR. MADISON. As to the fear of disproportionate burthens on the more
exporting States, it might be remarked that it was agreed, on all
hands, that the revenue would principally be drawn from trade.--p.
1385.

COL. MASON--A majority, when interested, will oppress the minority.

If we compare the States in this point of view, the eight Northern
States have an interest different from the five Southern States; and
have, in one branch of the Legislature, thirty-six votes, against
twenty-nine, and in the other in the proportion of eight against five.
The Southern States had therefore ground for their suspicions. The
case of exports was not the same with that of imports.--pp. 1386-7.

MR. L. MARTIN proposed to vary Article 7, Section 4, so as to allow a
prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. In the first place,
as five slaves are to be counted as three freemen, in the
apportionment of Representatives, such a clause would leave an
encouragement to this traffic. In the second place, slaves weakened
one part of the Union, which the other parts were bound to protect;
the privilege of importing them was therefore unreasonable. And in the
third place, it was inconsistent with the principles of the
Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a
feature in the Constitution.

Mr. RUTLEDGE did not see how the importation of slaves could be
encouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections,
and would readily exempt the other States from the obligation to
protect the Southern against them. Religion and humanity had nothing
to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle
with nations. The true question at present is, whether the Southern
States shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern
States consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of
slaves, which will increase the commodities of which they will become
the carriers.

Mr. ELLSWORTH was for leaving the clause as it stands. Let every State
import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery are
considerations belonging to the States themselves. What enriches a
part enriches the whole, and the States are the best judges of their
particular interest. The Old Confederation had not meddled with this
point; and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within
the policy of the new one.

Mr. PINCKNEY. South Carolina can never receive the plan if it
prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers
of Congress, that State has expressly and watchfully excepted that of
meddling with the importation of negroes. If the States be all left at
liberty on this subject, South Carolina may perhaps, by degrees, do of
herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland already have done.
Adjourned.--_pp_. 1388-9.

WEDNESDAY, August 22, 1787.

_In Convention_,--Article 7, Section 4, was resumed.

Mr. SHERMAN was for leaving the clause as it stands. He disapproved of
the slave trade; yet as the States were now possessed of the right to
import slaves, as the public good did not require it to be taken from
them, and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to
the proposed scheme of government, he thought it best to leave the
matter as we find it. He observed that the abolition of slavery seemed
to be going on in the United States, and that the good sense of the
several States would probably by degrees complete it. He urged on the
Convention the necessity of despatching its business.

Col. MASON. This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British
merchants. The British Government constantly checked the attempts of
Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the
importing States alone, but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves
was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they
might have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous
instruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it
did by the tories. He mentioned the dangerous insurrections of the
slaves in Greece and Sicily; and the instructions given by Cromwell to
the commissioners sent to Virginia, to arm the servants and slaves, in
case other means of obtaining its submission should fail. Maryland and
Virginia he said had already prohibited the importation of slaves
expressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this
would be in vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to
import. The Western people are already calling out for slaves for
their new lands; and will fill that country with slaves, if they can
be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts
and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves.
They prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and
strengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on
manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the
judgment of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or
punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable
chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by
national calamities. He lamented that some of our Eastern brethren
had, from a lust of gain, embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to
the States being in possession of the right to import, this was the
case with many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it
essential in every point of view, that the General Government should
have power to prevent the increase of slavery.

Mr. ELLSWORTH, as he had never owned a slave, could not judge of the
effects of slavery on character. He said, however, that if it was to
be considered in a moral light, we ought to go further and free those
already in the country. As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia
and Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them, whilst in
the sickly rice swamps foreign supplies are necessary, if we go no
further than is urged, we shall be unjust towards South Carolina and
Georgia. Let us not intermeddle. As population increases, poor
laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery, in
time, will not be a speck in our country. Provision is already made in
Connecticut for abolishing it. And the abolition has already taken
place in Massachusetts. As to the danger of insurrections from foreign
influence, that will become a motive to kind treatment of the slaves.

Mr. PINCKNEY. If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the example of
all the world. He cited the case of Greece, Rome and other ancient
States; the sanction given by France, England, Holland and other
modern States. In all ages one half of mankind have been slaves. If
the Southern States were let alone, they will probably of themselves
stop importations. He would himself, as a citizen of South Carolina,
vote for it. An attempt to take away the right, as proposed, will
produce serious objections to the Constitution, which he wished to see
adopted.

Gen. PINCKNEY declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself and
all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution and use their
personal influence, it would be of no avail towards obtaining the
assent of their constituents. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do
without slaves. As to Virginia, she will gain by stopping the
importations. Her slaves will rise in value, and she has more than she
wants. It would be unequal, to require South Carolina and Georgia, to
confederate on such unequal terms. He said the Royal assent, before
the Revolution, had never been refused to South Carolina, as to
Virginia. He contended that the importation of slaves would be for the
interest of the whole Union. The more slaves, the more produce to
employ the carrying trade; the more consumption also; and the more of
this, the more revenue for the common treasury. He admitted it to be
reasonable that slaves should be dutied like other imports; but should
consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South Carolina
from the Union.

Mr. BALDWIN had conceived national objects alone to be before the
Convention; not such as, like the present, were of a local nature.
Georgia was decided on this point. That State has always hitherto
supposed a General Government to be the pursuit of the central States,
who wished to have a vortex for everything; that her distance would
preclude her, from equal advantage; and that she could not prudently
purchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might be
understood, in what light she would view an attempt to abridge one of
her favorite prerogatives. If left to herself, she may probably put a
stop to the evil. As one ground for this conjecture, he took notice of
the sect of ----; which he said was a respectable class of people, who
carried their ethics beyond the mere _equality of men_, extending
their humanity to the claims of the whole animal creation.

Mr. WILSON observed that if South Carolina and Georgia were themselves
disposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time, as
had been suggested, they would never refuse to unite because the
importation might be prohibited. As the section now stands, all
articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is in
fact a bounty on that article.

Mr. GERRY thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States
as to slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it.

Mr. DICKINSON considered it as inadmissible, on every principle of
honor and safety, that the importation of slaves should be authorized
to the States by the Constitution. The true question was, whether the
national happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation;
and this question ought to be left to the National Government, not to
the States particularly interested. If England and France permit
slavery, slaves are, at the same time, excluded from both those
kingdoms. Greece and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves. He could
not believe that the Southern States would refuse to confederate on
the account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely to be
immediately exercised by the General Government.

Mr. WILLIAMSON stated the law of North Carolina on the subject, to
wit, that it did not directly prohibit the importation of slaves. It
imposed a duty of £5 on each slave imported from Africa; £10 on each
from elsewhere; and £50 on each from a State licensing manumission. He
thought the Southern States could not be members of the Union, if the
clause should be rejected; and that it was wrong to force any thing
down not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to.

Mr. KING thought the subject should be considered in a political light
only. If two States will not agree to the Constitution, as stated on
one side, he could affirm with equal belief, on the other, that great
and equal opposition would be experienced from the other States. He
remarked on the exemption of slaves from duty, whilst every other
import was subjected to it, as an inequality that could not fail to
strike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and Middle States.

Mr. LANGDON was strenuous for giving the power to the General
Government. He could not, with a good conscience, leave it with the
States, who could then go on with the traffic, without being
restrained by the opinions here given, that they will themselves cease
to import slaves.

Gen. PINCKNEY thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did
not think South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves, in any
short time; but only stop them occasionally as she now does. He moved
to commit the clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax
with other imports; which he thought right, and which would remove one
difficulty that had been started.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia, will ever agree to the plan, unless their right
to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of
those States will never be such fools, as to give up so important an
interest. He was strenuous against striking out the section, and
seconded the motion of Gen. PINCKNEY for a commitment.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS wished the whole subject to be committed,
including the clauses relating to taxes on exports and to a navigation
act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern and Southern
States.

MR. BUTLER declared that he never would agree to the power of taxing
exports.

Mr. SHERMAN said it was better to let the Southern States import
slaves, than to part with them, if they made that a _sine qua non_. He
was opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse,
because it implied they were _property_. He acknowledged that if the
power of prohibiting the importation should be given to the General
Government, that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its
duty to exercise the power.

Mr. READ was for the commitment, provided the clause concerning taxes
on exports should also be committed.

Mr. SHERMAN observed that that clause had been agreed to, and
therefore could not be committed.

Mr. Randolph was for committing, in order that some middle ground
might, if possible, be found. He could never agree to the clause as it
stands. He would sooner risk the Constitution. He dwelt on the dilemma
to which the Convention was exposed. By agreeing to the clause, it
would revolt the Quakers, the Methodists, and many others in the
States having no slaves. On the other hand, two States might be lost
to the Union. Let us then, he said, try the chance of a commitment.

On the question for committing the remaining part of Sections 4 and 5,
of Article 7,--Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--7; New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, no--3; Massachusetts absent.

Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Langdon moved to commit Section 6, as to a
navigation act by two-thirds of each House.

Mr. Gorham did not see the propriety of it. Is it meant to require a
greater proportion of votes? He desired it to be remembered, that the
Eastern States had no motive to union but a commercial one. They were
able to protect themselves. They were not afraid of external danger,
and did not need the aid of the Southern States.

Mr. Wilson wished for a commitment, in order to reduce the proportion
of votes required.

Mr. Ellsworth was for taking the plan as it is. This widening of
opinions had a threatening aspect. If we do not agree on this middle
and moderate ground, he was afraid we should lose two States, with
such others as may be disposed to stand aloof; should fly into a
variety of shapes and directions, and most probably into several
confederations,--and not without bloodshed.

On the question for committing Section 6, as to a navigation act, to a
member from each State,--New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
aye--9; Connecticut, New Jersey, no--2.

The Committee appointed were Messrs. Langdon, King, Johnson,
Livingston, Clymer, Dickinson, L. Martin, Madison, Williamson, C.C.
Pinckney, and Baldwin.

To this Committee were referred also the two clauses above mentioned
of the fourth and fifth Sections of Article 7.--pp. 1390 to 1397.

Friday, August 24, 1787

_In Convention_,--Governor Livingston, from the committee of eleven,
to whom were referred the two remaining clauses of the fourth section,
and the fifth and sixth sections, of the seventh Article, delivered in
the following Report:

"Strike out so much of the fourth section as was referred to the
Committee, and insert, 'The migration or importation of such persons
as the several States, now existing, shall think proper to admit,
shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1800; but
a tax or duty may be imposed on such migration or importation, at a
rate not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports.

"The fifth Section to remain as in the Report.
The sixth Section to be stricken out."--p. 1415.

SATURDAY, August 25, 1787.

The Report of the Committee of eleven (see Friday, the twenty-fourth),
being taken up,--

Gen. PINCKNEY moved to strike out the words, "the year eighteen
hundred," as the year limiting the importation of slaves; and to
insert the words, "the year eighteen hundred and eight."

Mr. GORHAM seconded the motion.

Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be
apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be
more dishonorable to the American character, than to say nothing about
it in the Constitution.

On the motion, which passed in the affirmative,--New-Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, aye--7; New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no--4.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was for making the clause read at once, "the
importation of slaves in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia,
shall not be prohibited, &c." This he said, would be most fair, and
would avoid the ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to
naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated.
He wished it to be known, also, that this part of the Constitution was
a compliance with those States. If the change of language, however,
should be objected to, by the members from those States, he should not
urge it.

Col. MASON was not against using the term "slaves," but against naming
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, lest it should give
offence to the people of those States.

Mr. SHERMAN liked a description better than the terms proposed, which
had been declined by the old Congress, and were not pleasing to some
people.

Mr. CLYMER concurred with Mr. SHERMAN.

Mr. WILLIAMSON said, that both in opinion and practice he was against
slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all
circumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia on those terms,
than to exclude them from the Union.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS withdrew his motion.

Mr. DICKINSON wished the clause to be confined to the States which had
not themselves prohibited the importation of slaves; and for that
purpose moved to amend the clause, so as to read: "The importation of
slaves into such of the States as shall permit the same, shall not be
prohibited by the Legislature of the United States, until the year
1808;" which was disagreed to, _nem. con_.[4]

[Footnote 4: In the printed Journals, Connecticut, Virginia, and
Georgia, voted in the affirmative.]


The first part of the Report was then agreed to, amended as follows:
"The migration or importation of such persons as the several States
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
the Legislature prior to the year 1808,"--

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, aye--7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Virginia, no--4.

Mr. BALDWIN, in order to restrain and more explicitly define, "the
average duty," moved to strike out of the second part the words,
"average of the duties laid on imports," and insert "common impost on
articles not enumerated;" which was agreed to, _nem. con_.

Mr. SHERMAN was against this second part, as acknowledging men to be
property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.

Mr. KING and Mr. LANGDON considered this as the price of the first
part. Gen. PINCKNEY admitted that it was so. Col. MASON. Not to tax,
will be equivalent to a bounty on, the importation of slaves.

Mr. GORHAM thought that Mr. SHERMAN should consider the duty, not as
implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the
importation of them.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS remarked, that, as the clause now stands, it
implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.

Mr. SHERMAN, in answer to Mr. GORHAM, observed, that the smallness of
the duty showed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of
the importation.

Mr. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea
that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not
hold, as slaves are not, like merchandize consumed, &c.

Col. MASON, in answer to Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. The provision, as it
stands, was necessary for the case of convicts, in order to prevent
the introduction of them.

It was finally agreed, _nem. con_., to make the clause read: "but a
tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten
dollars for each person;" and then the second part, as amended, was
agreed to.--_pp_. 1427 to 30.


TUESDAY, August 28, 1787.

Article 14, was then taken up.[5]

[Footnote 5: Article 14 was,--The citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several
States.--EDITOR.]


General PINCKNEY was not satisfied with it. He seemed to wish some
provision should be included in favor of property in slaves.

On the question on Article 14,--New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
North Carolina, aye--9; South Carolina, no--1; Georgia, divided.

Article 15,[6] being then taken up, the words, "high misdemeanor,"
were struck out, and the words, "other crime," inserted, in order to
comprehend all proper cases; it being doubtful whether "high
misdemeanor" had not a technical meaning too limited.

[Footnote 6: Article 15 was,--Any person charged with treason, felony
or high misdemeanor in any State, who shall flee from justice, and
shall be found in any other State, shall, on demand of the Executive
power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to
the State having jurisdiction of the offence.--EDITOR.]


Mr. BUTLER and Mr. PINCKNEY moved to require "fugitive slaves and
servants to be delivered up like criminals."

Mr. WILSON. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it, at
the public expense.

Mr. SHERMAN saw no more propriety in the public seizing and
surrendering a slave or servant, than a horse.

Mr. BUTLER withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular
provision might be made, apart from this article.

Article 15, as amended, was then agreed to, _nem. con_.--_pp_. 1447-8.


WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 1787.

Article 7, Section 6, by the Committee of Eleven reported to be struck
out (see the twenty-fourth inst.) being now taken up,--

Mr. PINCKNEY moved to postpone the Report, in favor of the following
proposition: "That no act of the Legislature for the purpose of
regulating the Commerce of the United States with foreign powers,
among the several States, shall be passed without the assent of
two-thirds of the members of each House." He remarked that there were
five distinct commercial interests.

The power of regulating commerce was a pure concession on the part of
the Southern States. They did not need the protection of the Northern
States at present.--_p_. 1450.

General PINCKNEY said it was the true interest of the Southern States
to have no regulation of commerce; but considering the loss brought on
the commerce of the Eastern States by the Revolution, their liberal
conduct towards the views[7] of South Carolina, and the interest the
weak Southern States had in being united with the strong Eastern
States, he thought it proper that no fetters should be imposed on the
power of making commercial regulations, and that his constituents,
though prejudiced against the Eastern States, would be reconciled to
this liberality. He had, himself, he said, prejudices against the
Eastern States before he came here, but would acknowledge that he had
found them as liberal and candid as any men whatever.--_p_. 1451.

[Footnote 7: He meant the permission to import slaves. An understanding
on the two subjects of _navigation_ and _slavery_, had taken place
between those parts of the Union, which explains the vote of the
motion depending, as well as the language of General Pinckney and
others.]


Mr. PINCKNEY replied, that his enumeration meant the five minute
interests. It still left the two great divisions of Northern and
Southern interests.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS opposed the object of the motion as highly
injurious.--A navy was essential to security, particularly of the
Southern States;--

Mr. WILLIAMSON. As to the weakness of the Southern States, he was not
alarmed on that account. The sickliness of their climate for invaders
would prevent their being made an object. He acknowledged that he did
not think the motion requiring two-thirds necessary in itself; because
if a majority of the Northern States should push their regulations too
far, the Southern States would build ships for themselves; but he knew
the Southern people were apprehensive on this subject, and would be
pleased with the precaution.

Mr. SPAIGHT was against the motion. The Southern States could at any
time save themselves from oppression, by building ships for their own
use.--_p_. 1452.

Mr. BUTLER differed from those who considered the rejection of the
motion as no concession on the part of the Southern States. He
considered the interests of these and of the Eastern States to be as
different as the interests of Russia and Turkey. Being,
notwithstanding, desirous of conciliating the affections of the
Eastern States, he should vote against requiring two-thirds instead of
a majority.--_p_. 1453.

Mr. MADISON. He added, that the Southern States would derive an
essential advantage, in the general security afforded by the increase
of our maritime strength. He stated the vulnerable situation of them
all, and of Virginia in particular.

Mr. RUTLEDGE was against the motion of his colleague. At the worst, a
navigation act could bear hard a little while only on the Southern
States. As we are laying the foundation for a great empire, we ought
to take a permanent view of the subject, and not look at the present
moment only.

Mr. GORMAN. The Eastern States were not led to strengthen the Union by
fear for their own safety.

He deprecated the consequences of disunion; but if it should take
place, it was the Southern part of the Continent that had most reason
to dread them.

On the question to postpone, in order to take up Mr. PINCKNEY's
motion,--

Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye--4; New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South
Carolina, no--7. The Report of the Committee for striking out Section
6, requiring two-thirds of each House to pass a navigation act, was
then agreed to, _nem. con_.

Mr. BUTLER moved to insert after Article 15, "If any person bound to
service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into
another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or
labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to
which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly
claiming their service or labor,"--which was agreed to, _nem.
con_.--_p_. 1454-5-6.


THURSDAY, August 30, 1787.

Article 18, being taken up,

On a question for striking out "domestic violence," and inserting
"insurrections," it passed in the negative,--New Jersey, Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--5; New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
no--6.--_pp_. 1466-7.

MONDAY, September 10, 1787.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said he never could agree to give a power by which the
articles relating to slaves might be altered by the States not
interested in that property, and prejudiced against it. In order to
obviate this objection, these words were added to the proposition:
"provided that no amendments, which may be made prior to the year 1808
shall in any manner affect the fourth and fifth sections of the
seventh Article:"--_p_. 1536.

TUESDAY, September 13, 1787.

Article 1, Section 2. On motion of Mr. RANDOLPH, the word "servitude"
was struck out, and "service" unanimously[8] inserted, the former
being thought to express the condition of slaves, and the latter the
obligations of free persons.

[Footnote 8:  See page 372 of the printed journal.]


Mr. DICKENSON and Mr. WILSON moved to strike out, "and direct taxes,"
from Article 1, Section 2, as improperly placed in a clause relating
merely to the Constitution of the House of Representatives.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. The insertion here was in consequence of what
had passed on this point; in order to exclude the appearance of
counting the negroes in the _representation_. The including of them
may now be referred to the object of direct taxes, and incidentally
only to that of representation.

On the motion to strike out, "and direct taxes," from this place,--

New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, aye--3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, no--8.--_pp_. 1569-70.

SATURDAY, September 15, 1787.

Article 4, Section 2, (the third paragraph,) the term "legally" was
struck out; and the words, "under the laws thereof," inserted after
the word "State," in compliance with the wish of some who thought the
term _legal_ equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal
in a moral view.--p. 1589.

Mr. GERRY stated the objections which determined him to withhold his
name from the Constitution: 1-2-3-4-5-6, that three-fifths of the
blacks are to be represented, as if they were freemen.--p. 1595.





                    LIST OF MEMBERS
OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION WHO FORMED THE CONSTITUTION OF
                    THE UNITED STATES.



_From_                                 _Attended._
New Hampshire,     1 John Langdon,           July 23, 1787.
                    _John Pickering_,
                   2 Nicholas Gilman,         "   23.
                    _Benjamin West_,
Massachusetts,      _Francis Dana_,
                     Elbridge Gerry,          May 29.
                   3 Nath'l Gorham,            "  28.
                   4 Rufus King,               "  25.
                     Caleb Strong,            May 28.
Rhode Island,       (No appointment.)
Connecticut,       5 W.S. Johnson,            June 2.
                   6 Roger Sherman,           May 30.
                     Oliver Ellsworth,         "  29.
New York,            Robert Yates,             "  25.
                   7 Alex'r Hamilton,          "  25.
                     John Lansing,            June 2.
New Jersey,        8 Wm. Livingston,           "   5.
                   9 David Brearly,           May 25.
                     Wm. C. Houston,          May 25.
                  10 Wm. Patterson,             do.
                    _John Nielson_,
                    _Abraham Clark_.
                  11 Jonathan Dayton,        June 21.
Pennsylvania,     12 Benj. Franklin,          May 28.
                  13 Thos. Mifflin,             do.
                  14 Robert Morris,           May 25.
                  15 Geo. Clymer,              "  28.
                  16 Thos. Fitzsimons,         "  25.
                  17 Jared Ingersoll,          "  28.
                  18 James Wilson,             "  25.
                  19 Gouv'r Morris,            "  25.
Delaware,         20 Geo. Reed,                "  25.
                  21 G. Bedford, Jr.           "  28.
                  22 John Dickenson,           "  28.
                  23 Richard Bassett,          "  25.
                  24 Jacob Broom,              "  25.
Maryland,         25 James M'Henry,            "  29.
                  26 Daniel of St. Tho.
                          Jenifer,            June 2.
                  27 Daniel Carroll,          July 9.
                     John F. Mercer,          Aug. 6.
                     Luther Martin,           June 9.
Virginia,         28 G. Washington,           May 25.
                    _Patrick Henry_, (declined.)
                     Edmund Randolph,          "  25.
                  29 John Blair,               "  25.
                  30 Jas. Madison, Jr.         "  25.
                     George Mason,             "  25.
                     George Wythe,             "  25.
                     James McClurg, (in
                          room of P. Henry)    "  25.
                  31 Wm. Blount (in room
                          of R. Caswell),    June 20.
                  _Willie Jones_, (declined.)
                  32 R.D. Spaight,            May 25.
                  33 Hugh Williamson, (in
                          room of W. Jones,)  May 25.
South Carolina,   34 John Rutledge,            "  25.
                  35 Chas. C. Pinckney,        "  25.
                  36 Chas. Pinckney,           "  25.
                  37 Peirce Butler,            "  25.
Georgia,          38 William Few,             May 25.
                  39 Abr'm Baldwin,          June 11.
                     William Pierce,          May 31.
                    _George Walton._
                     Wm. Houston,            June  1.
                    _Nath'l Pendleton._

Those with numbers before their names signed the Constitution.  39
Those in italics never attended.                                10
Members who attended, but did not sign the Constitution,        16
                                                                --
                                                                65



Extracts from a speech of Luther Martin, (delivered before the
Legislature of Maryland,) one of the delegates from Maryland to the
Convention that formed the Constitution of the United States.

With respect to that part of the _second_ section of the _first_
Article, which relates to the apportionment of representation and
direct taxation, there were considerable objections made to it,
besides the great objection of inequality--It was urged, that no
principle could justify taking _slaves_ into computation in
apportioning the number of _representatives_ a State should have in
the government--That it involved the absurdity of increasing the power
of a State in making laws for _free men_ in proportion as that State
violated the rights of freedom--That it might be proper to take slaves
into consideration, when _taxes_ were to be apportioned, because it
had a tendency to _discourage slavery_; but to take them into account
in giving representation tended to _encourage_ the _slave trade_, and
to make it the interest of the States to continue that _infamous
traffic_--That slaves could not be taken into account as _men_, or
_citizens_, because they were not admitted to the _rights of
citizens_, in the States which adopted or continued slavery--If they
were to be taken into account as _property_, it was asked, what
peculiar circumstance should render this property (of all others the
most odious in its nature) entitled to the high privilege of
conferring consequence and power in the government to its possessors,
rather than _any other_ property: and why _slaves_ should, as
property, be taken into account rather than horses, cattle, mules, or
any other species; and it was observed by an honorable member from
Massachusetts, that he considered it as dishonorable and humiliating
to enter into compact with the _slaves_ of the _Southern States_, as
it would with the _horses_ and _mules_ of the _Eastern_.

By the ninth section of this Article, the importation of such persons
as any of the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall
not be prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a duty may be imposed on
such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The design of this clause is to prevent the general government from
prohibiting the importation of slaves; but the same reasons which
caused them to strike out the word "national," and not admit the word
"stamps," influenced them here to guard against the word "_slaves_."
They anxiously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which
might be odious in the ears of Americans, although they were willing
to admit into their system those _things_ which the expressions
signified; and hence it is that the clause is so worded as really to
authorize the general government to impose a duty of ten dollars on
every foreigner who comes into a State to become a citizen, whether he
comes absolutely free, or qualifiedly so as a servant; although this
is contrary to the design of the framers, and the duty was only meant
to extend to the importation of slaves.

This clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the
Convention. As the system was reported by the committee of detail, the
provision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited,
without confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by
eight States--Georgia, South Carolina, and, I think, North Carolina,
voting for it.

We were then told by the delegates of the two first of those States,
that their States would never agree to a system, which put it in the
power of the general government to prevent the importation of slaves,
and that they, as delegates from those States, must withhold their
assent from such a system.

A committee of one member from each State was chosen by ballot, to
take this part of the system under their consideration, and to
endeavor to agree upon some report, which should reconcile those
States. To this committee also was referred the following proposition,
which had been reported by the committee of detail, to wit: "No
navigation act shall be passed without the assent of two-thirds of the
members present in each house;" a proposition which the staple and
commercial States were solicitous to retain, lest their commerce
should be placed too much under the power of the Eastern States; but
which these last States were as anxious to reject. This committee, of
which also I had the honor to be a member, met and took under their
consideration the subjects committed to them. I found the _Eastern_
States, notwithstanding their _aversion to 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
their turn 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 restricted clause relative to navigation acts was to be
omitted.

This report was adopted by a majority of the Convention, but not
without considerable opposition.

It was said, we had just assumed a place among 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 had 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 putting
it 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 an insult to, that God whose
protection we had then 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, it ought be considered 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 sanction, and encouragement,
ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and
vengeance of him who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal
eye the poor African slave and his American master!

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 rather 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 which are 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 us 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; from this
consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have a power
to restrain the importation of slaves, since, in proportion as the
number of slaves are increased in any State, in the same proportion
the State is weakened and exposed to foreign invasion or domestic
insurrection, and by so much less will it be able to protect itself
against either, and therefore will by so much the more want aid from,
and be a burden to, the Union.

It was further said, that, as in this system we were giving the
general government a 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
should prohibit the government from interfering with both slave trade,
than which nothing could so materially affect both our national honor
and interest.

These reasons influenced me, both on the committee and in convention,
most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as it now makes
part of the system.

You will perceive, sir, not only that the general government is
prohibited from interfering in the slave trade before the year
eighteen hundred and eight, but that there is no provision in the
Constitution that it shall afterwards be prohibited, nor any security
that such prohibition will ever take place; and I think there is great
reason to believe, that, if the importation of slaves is permitted
until the year eighteen hundred and eight, it will not be prohibited
afterwards. At this time, we do not generally hold this commerce in so
great abhorrence as we have done. When our liberties were at stake, we
warmly felt for the common rights of men. The danger being thought to
be past, which threatened ourselves, we are daily growing more
insensible to those rights. In those States which have restrained or
prohibited the importation of slaves, it is only done by legislative
acts, which may be repealed. When those States find that they must, in
their national character and connexion, suffer in the disgrace, and
share in the inconveniences attendant upon that detestable and
iniquitous traffic, they may be desirous also to share in the benefits
arising from it; and the odium attending it will be greatly effaced by
the sanction which is given to it in the general government.

By the next paragraph, the general government is to have a power of
suspending the _habeas corpus act_, in cases of _rebellion_ or
_invasion_.

As the State governments have a power of suspending the habeas corpus
act in those cases, it was said, there could be no reason for giving
such a power to the general government; since, whenever the State
which is invaded, or in which an insurrection takes place, finds its
safety requires it, it will make use of that power. And it was urged,
that if we gave this power to the general government, it would be an
engine of oppression in its hands; since whenever a State should
oppose its views, however arbitrary and unconstitutional, and refuse
submission to them, the general government may declare it to be an act
of rebellion, and, suspending the habeas corpus act, may seize upon
the persons of those advocates of freedom, who have had virtue and
resolution enough to excite the opposition, and may imprison them
during its pleasure in the remotest part of the Union; so that a
citizen of Georgia might be _bastiled_ in the furthest part of New
Hampshire; or a citizen of New Hampshire in the furthest extreme of
the South, cut off from their family, their friends, and their every
connexion. These considerations induced me, sir, to give my negative
also to this clause.



EXTRACTS FROM DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION
OF THE UNITED STATES' CONSTITUTION.

       *     *     *     *     *

MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION.

The third paragraph of the 2d section being read,

Mr. KING rose to explain it. There has, says he, been much
misconception of this section. It is a principle of this Constitution,
that representation and taxation should go hand in hand. This
paragraph states, that the number of free persons 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. These persons are the slaves. By
this rule is representation and taxation to be apportioned. And it was
adopted, because it was the language of all America.

Mr. WIDGERY asked, if a boy of six years of age was to be considered
as a free person?

Mr. KING in answer said, all persons born free were to be considered
as freemen; and to make the idea of _taxation by numbers_ more
intelligible, said that five negro children of South Carolina, are to
pay as much tax as the three Governors of New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, and Connecticut.

Mr. GORHAM thought the proposed section much in favor of
Massachusetts; and if it operated against any State, it was
Pennsylvania, because they have more white persons _bound_ than any
other.

Judge DANA, in reply to the remark of some gentlemen, that the
southern States were favored in this mode of apportionment, by having
five of their negroes set against three persons in the eastern, the
honorable judge observed, that the negroes of the southern States work
no longer than when the eye of the driver is on them. Can, asked he,
that land flourish like this, which is cultivated by the hands of
freemen? Are not _three_ of these independent freemen of more real
advantage to a State, than _five_ of those poor slaves?

Mr. NASSON remarked on the statement of the honorable Mr. KING, by
saying that the honorable gentleman should have gone further, and
shown us the other side of the question. It is a good rule that works
both ways--and the gentleman should also have told us, that three of
our infants in the cradle, are to be rated as high as five of the
working negroes of Virginia. Mr. N. adverted to a statement of Mr.
KING, who had said, that five negro children of South Carolina were
equally rateable as three governors of New England, and wished, he
said, the honorable gentleman had considered this question upon the
other side--as it would then appear that this State will pay as great
a tax for three children in the cradle, as any of the southern States
will for five hearty working negro men. He hoped, he said, while we
were making a new government, we should make it better than the old
one: for if we had made a bad bargain before, as had been hinted, it
was a reason why we should make a better one now.

Mr. DAWES said, he was sorry to hear so many objections raised against
the paragraph under consideration. He though them wholly unfounded;
that the black inhabitants of the southern States must be considered
either as slaves, and as so much property, or in the character of so
many freemen; if the former, why should they not be wholly
represented? Our _own_ State laws and Constitution would lead us to
consider those blacks as _freemen_, and so indeed would our own ideas
of natural justice: if, then, they are freemen, they might form an
equal basis for representation as though they were all white
inhabitants. In either view, therefore, he could not see that the
northern States would suffer, but directly to the contrary. He
thought, however, that gentlemen would do well to connect the passage
in dispute with another article in the Constitution, that permits
Congress, in the year 1808, wholly to prohibit the importation of
slaves, and in the mean time to impose a duty of ten dollars a head on
such blacks as should be imported before that period. Besides, by the
new Constitution, every particular State is left to its own option
totally to prohibit the introduction of slaves into its own
territories. What could the convention do more? The members of the
southern States, like ourselves, have _their_ prejudices. It would not
do to abolish slavery, by an act of Congress, in a moment, and so
destroy what our southern brethren consider as property. But we may
say, that although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet it has
received a mortal wound and will die of a consumption.

Mr. NEAL (from Kittery,) went over the ground of objection to this
section on the idea that the slave trade was allowed to be continued
for 20 years. His profession, he said, obliged him to bear witness
against any thing that should favor the making merchandise of the
bodies of men, and unless his objection was removed, he could not put
his hand to the Constitution. Other gentlemen said, in addition to
this idea, that there was not even a proposition that the negroes ever
shall be free, and Gen. THOMPSON exclaimed:

Mr. President, shall it be said, that after we have established our
own independence and freedom, we make slaves of others? Oh!
Washington, what a name has he had! How he has immortalized himself!
but he holds those in slavery who have a good right to be free as he
has--he is still for self; and, in my opinion, his character has sunk
50 per cent.

On the other side, gentlemen said, that the step taken in this article
towards the abolition of slavery, was one of the beauties of the
Constitution. They observed, that in the confederation there was no
provision whatever for its ever being abolished; but this Constitution
provides, that Congress may, after 20 years, totally annihilate the
slave trade; and that, as all the States, except two, have passed laws
to this effect, it might reasonably be expected, that it would then be
done. In the interim, all the States were at liberty to prohibit it.

SATURDAY, January 26.--[The debate on the 9th section still continued
desultory--and consisted of similar objections, and answers thereto,
as had before been used. Both sides deprecated the slave trade in the
most pointed terms; on one side it was pathetically lamented, by Mr.
NASON, Major LUSK, Mr. NEAL, and others, that this Constitution
provided for the continuation of the slave trade for 20 years. On the
other, the honorable Judge DANA, Mr. ADAMS and others, rejoiced that a
door was now to be opened for the annihilation of this odious,
abhorrent practice, in a certain time.]

Gen. HEATH. Mr. President,--By my indisposition and absence, I have
lost several important opportunities: I have lost the opportunity
of expressing my sentiments with a candid freedom, on some of the
paragraphs of the system, which have lain heavy on my mind. I have
lost the opportunity of expressing my warm approbation on some of the
paragraphs. I have lost the opportunity of hearing those judicious,
enlightening and convincing arguments, which have been advanced during
the investigation of the system. This is my misfortune, and I must
bear it. The paragraph respecting the migration or importation of such
persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,
&c., is one of those considered during my absence, and I have heard
nothing on the subject, save what has been mentioned this morning; but
I think the gentlemen who have spoken, have carried the matter rather
too far on both sides. I apprehend that it is not in our power to do
any thing for or against those who are in slavery in the southern
States. No gentleman within these walls detests every idea of slavery
more than I do: it is generally detested by the people of this
Commonwealth; and I ardently hope that the time will soon come, when
our brethren in the southern States will view it as we do, and put a
stop to it; but to this we have no right to compel them. Two questions
naturally arise: if we ratify the Constitution, shall we do any thing
by our act to hold the blacks in slavery--or shall we become the
partakers of other men's sins? I think neither of them. Each State is
sovereign and independent to a certain degree, and they have a right,
and will regulate their own internal affairs, as to themselves appears
proper; and shall we refuse to eat, or to drink, or to be united, with
those who do not think, or act, just as we do? surely not. We are not
in this case partakers of other men's sins, for in nothing do we
voluntarily encourage the slavery of our fellow-men; a restriction is
laid on the Federal Government, which could not be avoided, and a
union take place. The Federal Convention went as far as they could;
the migration or importation, &c., is confined to the States, now
_existing only_, new States cannot claim it. Congress, by their
ordinance for erecting new States, some time since, declared that the
new States shall be republican, and that there shall be no slavery in
them. But whether those in slavery in the southern States will be
emancipated after the year 1808, I do not pretend to determine: I
rather doubt it.

Mr. NEAL rose and said, that as the Constitution at large, was now
under consideration, he would just remark, that the article which
respected the Africans, was the one which laid on his mind--and,
unless his objections to that were removed, it must, how much soever
he liked the other parts of the Constitution, be a sufficient reason
for him to give his negative to it.

Major LUSK concurred in the idea already thrown out in the debate,
that although the insertion of the amendments in the Constitution was
devoutly wished, yet he did not see any reason to suppose they ever
would be adopted. Turning from the subject of amendments, the Major
entered largely into the consideration of the 9th section, and in the
most pathetic and feeling manner, described the miseries of the poor
natives of Africa, who are kidnapped and sold for slaves. With the
brightest colors he painted their happiness and ease on their native
shores, and contrasted them with their wretched, miserable and unhappy
condition, in a state of slavery.

Rev. Mr. BACKUS. Much, sir, hath been said about the importation of
slaves into this country. I believe that, according to my capacity, no
man abhors that wicked practice more than I do, and would gladly make
use of all lawful means towards the abolishing of slavery in all parts
of the land. But let us consider where we are, and what we are doing.
In the articles of confederation, no provision was made to hinder the
importation of slaves into any of these States: but a door is now
opened hereafter to do it; and each State is at liberty now to abolish
slavery as soon as they please. And let us remember our former
connexion with Great Britain, from whom many in our land think we
ought not to have revolted. How did they carry on the slave trade! I
know that the Bishop of Gloucester, in an annual sermon in London, in
February, 1766, endeavored to justify their tyrannical claims of power
over us, by casting the reproach of the slave trade upon the
Americans. But at the close of the war, the Bishop of Chester, in an
annual sermon, in February, 1783, ingenuously owned, that their nation
is the most deeply involved in the guilt of that trade, of any nation
in the world; and also, that they have treated their slaves in the
West Indies worse than the French or Spaniards have done theirs. Thus
slavery grows more and more odious through the world; and, as an
honorable gentleman said some days ago, "Though we cannot say that
slavery is struck with an apoplexy, yet we may hope it will die with a
consumption." And a main source, sir, of that iniquity, hath been an
abuse of the covenant of circumcision, which gave the seed of Abraham
to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, and to take their houses,
vineyards, and all their estates, as their own; and also to buy and
hold others as servants. And as Christian privileges are greater than
those of the Hebrews were, many have imagined that they had a right to
seize upon the lands of the heathen, and to destroy or enslave them as
far as they could extend their power. And from thence the mystery of
iniquity, carried many into the practice of making merchandise of
slaves and souls of men. But all ought to remember, that when God
promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed, he let him know
that they were not to take possession of that land, until the iniquity
of the Amorites was full; and then they did it under the immediate
direction of Heaven; and they were as real executors of the judgment
of God upon those heathens, as any person ever was an executor of a
criminal justly condemned. And in doing it they were not allowed to
invade the lands of the Edomites, who sprang from Esau, who was not
only of the seed of Abraham, but was born at the same birth with
Israel; and yet they were not of that church. Neither were Israel
allowed to invade the lands of the Moabites, or of the children of
Ammon, who were of the seed of Lot. And no officer in Israel had any
legislative power, but such as were immediately inspired. Even David,
the man after God's own heart, had no legislative power, but only as
he was inspired from above: and he is expressly called a _prophet_ in
the New Testament And we are to remember that Abraham and his seed,
for four hundred years, had no warrant to admit any strangers into
that church, but by buying of him as a servant, with money. And it was
a great privilege to be bought, and adopted into a religious family
for seven years, and then to have their freedom. And that covenant was
expressly repealed in various parts of the New Testament; and
particularly in the first epistle to the Corinthians, wherein it is
said--Ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body,
and in your spirit, which are God's. And again--Circumcision is
nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping of the
commandments of God. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the
servants of men. Thus the gospel sets all men upon a level, very
contrary to the declaration of an honorable gentleman in this house,
"that the Bible was contrived for the advantage of a particular order
of men."


NEW YORK CONVENTION.

Mr. M. SMITH. He would now proceed to state his objections to the
clause just read, (section 2, of article 1, clause 3). His objections
were comprised under three heads: 1st, the rule of apportionment is
unjust; 2d, there is no precise number fixed on, below which the house
shall not be reduced; 3d, it is inadequate. In the first place, the
rule of apportionment of the representatives is to be according to the
whole number of the white inhabitants, with three-fifths of all
others; that is, in plain English, each State is to send
representatives in proportion to the number of freemen, and
three-fifths of the slaves it contains. He could not see any rule by
which slaves were to be included in the ratio of representation;--the
principle of a representation being that every free agent should be
concerned in governing himself, it was absurd to give that power to a
man who could not exercise it--slaves have no will of their own: the
very operation of it was to give certain privileges to those people
who were so wicked as to keep slaves. He knew it would be admitted,
that this rule of apportionment was founded on unjust principles, but
that it was the result of accommodation; which, he supposed, we should
be under the necessity of admitting, if we meant to be in union with
the southern States, though utterly repugnant to his feelings.

Mr. HAMILTON. In order that the committee may understand clearly the
principles on which the General Convention acted, I think it necessary
to explain some preliminary circumstances.

Sir, the natural situation of this country seems to divide its
interests into different classes. There are navigating and
non-navigating States--the Northern are properly the navigating
States: the Southern appear to possess neither the means nor the
spirit of navigation. This difference of situation naturally produces
a dissimilarity of interest and views respecting foreign commerce. It
was the interest of the Northern States that there should be no
restraints on the navigation, and that they should have full power, by
a majority on Congress, to make commercial regulations. The Southern
States wished to impose a restraint on the Northern, by requiring that
two-thirds in Congress should be requisite to pass an act in
regulation of commerce: they were apprehensive that the restraints of
a navigation law would discourage foreigners, and by obliging them to
employ the shipping of the Northern States would probably enhance
their freight. This being the case, they insisted strenuously on
having this provision engrafted in the Constitution; and the Northern
States were as anxious in opposing it. On the other hand, the small
States seeing themselves embraced by the confederation upon equal
terms, wished to retain the advantages which they already possessed:
the large States, on the contrary, thought it improper that Rhode
Island and Delaware should enjoy an equal suffrage with themselves:
from these sources a delicate and difficult contest arose. It became
necessary, therefore, to compromise; or the Convention must have
dissolved without effecting any thing. Would it have been wise and
prudent in that body, in this critical situation, to have deserted
their country? No. Every man who hears me--every wise man in the
United States, would have condemned them. The Convention were obliged
to appoint a committee for accommodation. In this committee the
arrangement was formed as it now stands; and their report was
accepted. It was a delicate point; and it was necessary that all
parties should be indulged. Gentlemen will see, that if there had not
been a unanimity, nothing could have been done: for the Convention had
no power to establish, but only to recommend a government. Any other
system would have been impracticable. Let a Convention be called
to-morrow--let them meet twenty times; nay, twenty thousand times;
they will have the same difficulties to encounter; the same clashing
interests to reconcile.

But dismissing these reflections, let us consider how far the
arrangement is in itself entitled to the approbation of this body. We
will examine it upon its own merits.

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 be 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
regulations 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 derived 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 all the States. But the justice of this plan will
appear in another view. The best writers on government have held that
representation should be compounded of persons and property. This rule
has been adopted, as far as it could be, in the Constitution of New
York. It will, however, by no means, be admitted, that the slaves are
considered altogether as property. They are men, though degraded to
the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws
of the States which they inhabit as well as to the laws of nature. But
representation and taxation go together--and one uniform rule ought to
apply to both. Would it be just to compute these slaves in the
assessment of taxes, and discard them from the estimate in the
apportionment of representatives? Would it be just to impose a
singular burthen, without conferring some adequate advantage?

Another circumstance ought to be considered. The rule we have been
speaking of is a general rule, and applies to all the States. Now, you
have a great number of people in your State, which are not represented
at all; and have no voice in your government: these will be included
in the enumeration--not two-fifths--nor three-fifths, but the whole.
This proves that the advantages of the plan are not confined to the
southern States, but extend to other parts of the Union.

Mr. M. SMITH. I shall make no reply to the arguments offered by the
honorable gentleman to justify the rule of apportionment fixed by this
clause: for though I am confident they might be easily refuted, yet I
am persuaded we must yield this point, in accommodation to the
southern States. The amendment therefore proposes no alteration to the
clause in this respect.

Mr. HARRISON. Among the objections, that, which has been made to the
mode of apportionment of representatives, has been relinquished. I
think this concession does honor to the gentleman who had stated the
objection. He has candidly acknowledged, that this apportionment was
the result of accommodation; without which no union could have been
formed.

       *     *     *     *     *

PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION.

Mr. WILSON. Much fault has been found with the mode of expression,
used in the first clause of the ninth section of the first article. I
believe I can assign a reason, why that mode of expression was used,
and why the term slave was not admitted in this Constitution--and as
to the manner of laying taxes, this is not the first time that the
subject has come into the view of the United States, and of the
Legislatures of the several States. The gentleman, (Mr. FINDLEY) will
recollect, that in the present Congress, the quota of the federal
debt, and general expenses, was to be in proportion to the value of
land, and other enumerated property, within the States. After trying
this for a number of years, it was found on all hands, to be a mode
that could not be carried into execution. Congress were satisfied of
this, and in the year 1783 recommended, in conformity with the powers
they possessed under the articles of confederation, that the quota
should be according to the number of free people, including those
bound to servitude, and excluding Indians not taxed. These were the
expressions used in 1783, and the fate of this recommendation was
similar to all their other resolutions. It was not carried into
effect, but it was adopted by no fewer than eleven, out of thirteen
States; and it cannot but be matter of surprise, to hear gentlemen,
who agreed to this very mode of expression at that time, come forward
and state it as an objection on the present occasion. It was natural,
sir, for the late convention, to adopt the mode after it had been
agreed to by eleven States, and to use the expression, which they
found had been received as unexceptionable before. With respect to the
clause, restricting Congress from prohibiting the migration or
importation of such persons, as any of the States now existing, shall
think proper to admit, prior to the year 1808. The honorable gentleman
says, that this clause is not only dark, but intended to grant to
Congress, for that time, the power to admit the importation of slaves.
No such thing was intended; but I will tell you what was done, and it
gives me high pleasure, that so much was done. Under the present
Confederation, the States may admit the importation of slaves as long
as they please; but by this article, after the year 1808 the Congress
will have power to prohibit such importation, notwithstanding the
disposition of any State to the contrary. I consider this as laying
the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country; and though
the period is more distant than I could wish, yet it will produce the
same kind, gradual change, which was pursued in Pennsylvania. It is
with much satisfaction I view this power in the general government,
whereby they may lay an interdiction on this reproachful trade; but an
immediate advantage is also obtained, for a tax or duty may be imposed
on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person; and
this, sir, operates as a partial prohibition; it was all that could be
obtained, I am sorry it was no more; but from this I think there is
reason to hope, that yet a few years, and it will be prohibited
altogether; and in the mean time, the new States which are to be
formed, will be under the control of Congress in this particular; and
slaves will never be introduced amongst them. The gentleman says, that
it is unfortunate in another point of view; it means to prohibit the
introduction of white people from Europe, as this tax may deter them
from coming amongst us; a little impartiality and attention will
discover the care that the Convention took in selecting their
language. The words are the _migration_ or IMPORTATION of such
persons, &c., shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year
1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation; it is
observable here, that the term migration is dropped, when a tax or
duty is mentioned, so that Congress have power to impose the tax only
on those imported.

I recollect, on a former day, the honorable gentlemen from
Westmoreland (Mr. FINDLEY,) and the honorable gentleman from
Cumberland (Mr. WHITEHILL,) took exception against the first clause of
the 9th section, art. 1, arguing very unfairly, that because Congress
might impose a tax or duty of ten dollars on the importation of
slaves, within any of the United States, Congress might therefore
permit slaves to be imported within this State, contrary to its laws.
I confess I little thought that this part of the system would be
excepted to.

I am sorry that it could be extended no further; but so far as it
operates, it presents us with the pleasing prospect, that the rights
of mankind will be acknowledged and established throughout the union.

If there was no other lovely feature in the Constitution but this one,
it would diffuse a beauty over its whole countenance. Yet the lapse of
a few years! and Congress will have power to exterminate slavery from
within our borders.

How would such a delightful prospect expand the breast of a benevolent
and philanthropic European? Would he cavil at an expression? catch at
a phrase? No, sir, that is only reserved for the gentleman on the
other side of your chair to do.

Mr. McKEAN. The arguments against the Constitution are, I think,
chiefly these:....

That migration or importation of such persons, as any of the States
shall admit, shall not be prohibited prior to 1808, nor a tax or duty
imposed on such importation exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Provision is made that Congress shall have power to prohibit the
importation of slaves after the year 1808, but the gentlemen in
opposition, accuse this system of a crime, because it has not
prohibited them at once. I suspect those gentlemen are not well
acquainted with the business of the diplomatic body, or they would
know that an agreement might be made, that did not perfectly accord
with the will and pleasure of any one person. Instead of finding fault
with what has been gained, I am happy to see a disposition in the
United States to do so much.

VIRGINIA CONVENTION.

GOV. RANDOLPH. This is one point of weakness I wish for the honor of
my countrymen that it was the only one. There is another circumstance
which renders us more vulnerable. Are we not weakened by the
population of those whom we hold in slavery?  The day may come when
they may make impression upon us. Gentlemen who have been long
accustomed to the contemplation of the subject, think there is a cause
of alarm in this case: the number of those people, compared to that of
the whites, is in an immense proportion: their number amounts to
236,000--that of the whites, only to 352,000. * * * * I beseech them
to consider, whether Virginia and North Carolina, both oppressed with
debts and slaves, can defend themselves externally, or make their
people happy internally.

GEORGE MASON. We are told in strong language, of dangers to which we
will be exposed unless we adopt this Constitution. Among the rest,
domestic safety is said to be in danger. This government does not
attend to our domestic safety. It authorizes the importation of slaves
for twenty-odd years, and thus continues upon us that nefarious trade.
Instead of securing and protecting us, the continuation of this
detestable trade adds daily to our weakness. Though this evil is
increasing, there is no clause in the Constitution that will prevent
the Northern and Eastern States from meddling with our whole property
of that kind. There is a clause to prohibit the importation of slaves
after twenty years, but there is no provision made for securing to the
Southern States those they now possess. It is far from being a
desirable property. But it will involve us in great difficulties and
infelicity to be now deprived of them. There ought to be a clause in
the Constitution to secure us that property, which we have acquired
under our former laws, and the loss of which would bring ruin on a
great many people.

MR. LEE. The honorable gentleman abominates it, because it does not
prohibit the importation of slaves, and because it does not secure the
continuance of the existing slavery! Is it not obviously inconsistent
to criminate it for two contradictory reasons? I submit it to the
consideration of the gentleman, whether, if it be reprehensible in the
one case, it can be censurable in the other? MR. LEE then concluded by
earnestly recommending to the committee to proceed regularly.

MR. HENRY. It says that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually
invaded." If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the
true meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic
insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a State may go to
war; but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an
insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be
invaded.--They cannot therefore suppress it, without the interposition
of Congress.

MR. GEORGE NICHOLAS. Another worthy member says, there is no power in
the States to quell an insurrection of slaves. Have they it now? If
they have, does the Constitution take it away? If it does, it must be
in one of the three clauses which have been mentioned by the worthy
member. The first clause gives the general government power to call
them out when necessary. Does this take it away from the States? No.
But it gives an additional security: for, besides the power in the
State governments to use their own militia, it will be the duty of the
general government to aid them with the strength of the Union when
called for. No part of this Constitution can show that this power is
taken away.

Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has
created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the
importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government,
this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts
were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants
prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place,
than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our
separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal
object of this State, and most of the States in the Union. The
augmentation of slaves weakens the States; and such a trade is
diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind. Yet, by this
Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value an
union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into
the Union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this
disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness and not strength to
the Union. And though this infamous traffic be continued, we have no
security for the property of that kind which we have already. There is
no clause in this Constitution to secure it; for they may lay such tax
as will amount to manumission. And should the government be amended,
still this detestable kind of commerce cannot be discontinued till
after the expiration of twenty years. For the fifth article, which
provides for amendments, expressly excepts this clause. I have ever
looked upon this as a most disgraceful thing to America. I cannot
express my detestation of it. Yet they have not secured us the
property of the slaves we have already. So that, "they have done what
they ought not to have done, and have left undone what they ought to
have done"

Mr. MADISON. Mr. Chairman, I should conceive this clause to be
impolitic, if it were one of those things which could be excluded
without encountering greater evils. The Southern States would not have
entered into the union of America, without the temporary permission of
that trade. And if they were excluded from the union, the consequences
might be dreadful to them and to us. We are not in a worse situation
than before. That traffic is prohibited by our laws, and we may
continue the prohibition. The union in general is not in a worse
situation. Under the articles of confederation, it might be continued
forever: but by this clause an end may be put to it after twenty
years. There is, therefore, an amelioration of our circumstances. A
tax may be laid in the mean time; but it is limited, otherwise
Congress might lay such a tax as would amount to a prohibition. From
the mode of representation and taxation, Congress cannot lay such a
tax on slaves as will amount to manumission. Another clause secures us
that property which we now possess. At present, if any slave elopes to
any of 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, 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." This clause was
expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is
a better security than any that now exist. No power is given to the
general government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves
now held by the States. The taxation of this State being equal only to
its representation, such a tax cannot be laid as he supposes. They
cannot prevent the importation of slaves for twenty years: but after
that period, they can. The gentlemen from South Carolina and Georgia
argued in this manner: "We have now liberty to import this species of
property, and much of the property now possessed, has been purchased,
or otherwise acquired, in contemplation of improving it by the
assistance of imported slaves. What would be the consequence of
hindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia would rise in value, and
we would be obliged to go to your markets." I need not expatiate on
this subject. Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the union would
be worse. If those States should disunite from the other States, for
not including them in the temporary continuance of this traffic, they
might solicit and obtain aid from foreign powers.

Mr. TYLER warmly enlarged on the impolicy, iniquity, and
disgracefulness of this wicked traffic. He thought the reasons urged
by gentlemen in defence of it were inconclusive, and ill founded. It
was one cause of the complaints against British tyranny, that this
trade was permitted. The Revolution had put a period to it; but now it
was to be revived. He thought nothing could justify it. This temporary
restriction on Congress militated, in his opinion, against the
arguments of gentlemen on the other side, that what was not given up,
was retained by the States; for that if this restriction had not been
inserted, Congress could have prohibited the African trade. The power
of prohibiting it was not expressly delegated to them; yet they would
have had it by implication, if this restraint had not been provided.
This seemed to him to demonstrate most clearly the necessity of
restraining them by a bill of rights, from infringing our unalienable
rights. It was immaterial whether the bill of rights was by itself, or
included in the Constitution. But he contended for it one way or the
other. It would be justified by our own example, and that of England.
His earnest desire was, that it should be handed down to posterity,
that he had opposed this wicked clause.

Mr. MADISON. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration,
it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to
Congress, namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.

Mr. HENRY insisted, that the insertion of these restrictions on
Congress, was a plain demonstration that Congress could exercise
powers by implication. The gentleman had admitted that Congress could
have interdicted the African trade, were it not for this restriction.
If so, the power not having been expressly delegated, must be obtained
by implication. He demanded where, then, was their doctrine of
reserved rights? He wished for negative clauses to prevent them from
assuming any powers but those expressly given. He asked why it was
moited to secure us that property in slaves, which we held now? He
feared its omission was done with design. They might lay such heavy
taxes on slaves, as would amount to emancipation; and then the
Southern States would be the only sufferers. His opinion was confirmed
by the mode of levying money. Congress, he observed, had power to lay
and collect taxes, imposts, and excises. Imposts (or duties) and
excises, were to be uniform. But this uniformity did not extend to
taxes. This might compel the Southern States to liberate their
negroes. He wished this property therefore to be guarded. He
considered the clause which had been adduced by the gentleman as a
security for this property, as no security at all. It was no more than
this--that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New York.
This could not prevent Congress from interfering with that property by
laying a grievous and enormous tax on it, so as to compel owners to
emancipate their slaves rather than pay the tax. He apprehended it
would be productive of much stockjobbing, and that they would play
into one another's hands in such a manner as that this property would
be lost to the country.

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS wondered that gentlemen who were against slavery
would be opposed to this clause; as after that period the slave trade
would be done away. He asked if gentlemen did not see the
inconsistency of their arguments? They object, says he, to the
Constitution, because the slave trade is laid open for twenty-odd
years; and yet tell you, that by some latent operation of it, the
slaves who are now, will be manumitted. At that same moment, it is
opposed for being promotive and destructive of slavery. He contended
that it was advantageous to Virginia, that it should be in the power
of Congress to prevent the importation of slaves after twenty years,
as it would then put a period to the evil complained of.

As the Southern States would not confederate without this clause, he
asked, if gentlemen would rather dissolve the confederacy than to
suffer this temporary inconvenience, admitting to it to be such?
Virginia might continue the prohibition of such importation during the
intermediate period, and would be benefitted by it, as a tax of ten
dollars on each slave might be laid, of which she would receive a
share. He endeavored to obviate the objection of gentlemen, that the
restriction on Congress was a proof that they would have power not
given them, by remarking, that they would only have had a general
superintendency of trade, if the restriction had not been inserted.
But the Southern States insisted on this exception to that general
superintendency for twenty years. It could not therefore have been a
power by implication, as the restriction was an exception from a
delegated power. The taxes could not, as had been suggested, be laid
so high on negroes as to amount to emancipation; because taxation and
representation were fixed according to the census established in the
Constitution. The exception of taxes, from the uniformity annexed to
duties and excises, could not have the operation contended for by the
gentleman; because other clauses had clearly and positively fixed the
census. Had taxes been uniform, it would have been universally
objected to, for no one object could be selected without involving
great inconveniences and oppressions. But, says Mr. Nicholas, is it
from the general government we are to fear emancipation? Gentlemen
will recollect what I said in another house, and what other gentlemen
have said that advocated emancipation. Give me leave to say, that that
clause is a great security for our slave tax. I can tell the
committee, that the people of our country are reduced to beggary by
the taxes on negroes. Had this Constitution been adopted, it would not
have been the case. The taxes were laid on all our negroes. By this
system two-fifths are exempted. He then added, that he had imagined
gentlemen would not support here what they had opposed in another
place.

Mr. HENRY replied, that though the proportion of each was to be fixed
by the census, and three-fifths of the slaves only were included in
the enumeration, yet the proportion of Virginia being once fixed,
might be laid on blacks and blacks only. For the mode of raising the
proportion of each State being to be directed by Congress, they might
make slaves the sole object to raise it. Personalities he wished to
take leave of; they had nothing to do with the question, which was
solely whether that paper was wrong or not.

Mr. NICHOLAS replied, that negroes must be considered as persons, or
property. If as property, the proportion of taxes to be laid on them
was fixed in the Constitution. If he apprehended a poll tax on
negroes, the Constitution had prevented it. For, by the census, where
a white man paid ten shillings, a negro paid but six shillings. For
the exemption of two-fifths of them reduced it to that proportion.

The second, third, and fourth clauses, were then read as follows:


The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may
require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

No capitation or other direct tax shall be paid, unless in proportion
to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


Mr. GEORGE MASON said, that gentlemen might think themselves secured
by the restriction in the fourth clause, that no capitation or other
direct tax should be laid but in proportion to the census before
directed to be taken. But that when maturely considered it would be
found to be no security whatsoever. It was nothing but a direct
assertion, or mere confirmation of the clause which fixed the ratio of
taxes and representation. It only meant that the quantum to be raised
of each State should be in proportion to their numbers in the manner
therein directed. But the general government was not precluded from
laying the proportion of any particular State on any one species of
property they might think proper. For instance, if five hundred
thousand dollars were to be raised, they might lay the whole of the
proportion of the Southern States on the blacks, or any one species of
property: so that by laying taxes too heavily on slaves, they might
totally annihilate that kind of property. No real security could arise
from the clause which provides, that persons held to labor in one
State, escaping into another, shall be delivered up. This only meant,
that runaway slaves should not be protected in other States. As to the
exclusion of _ex post facto_ laws, it could not be said to create any
security in this case. For laying a tax on slaves would not be _ex
post facto_.

Mr. MADISON replied, that even the Southern States, who were most
affected, were perfectly satisfied with this provision, and dreaded no
danger to the property they now hold. It appeared to him, that the
general government would not intermeddle with that property for twenty
years, but to lay a tax on every slave imported, not exceeding ten
dollars; and that after the expiration of that period they might
prohibit the traffic altogether. The census in the Constitution was
intended to introduce equality in the burdens to be laid on the
community. No gentleman objected to laying duties, imposts, and
excises, uniformly. But uniformity of taxes would be subversive to the
principles of equality: for that it was not possible to select any
article which would be easy for one State, but what would be heavy for
another. That the proportion of each State being ascertained, it would
be raised by the general government in the most convenient manner for
the people, and not by the selection of any one particular object.
That there must be some degree of confidence put in agents, or else we
must reject a state of civil society altogether. Another great
security to this property, which he mentioned, was, that five States
were greatly interested in that species of property, and there were
other States which had some slaves, and had made no attempt, or taken
any step to take them from the people. There were a few slaves in New
York, New Jersey and Connecticut: these States would, probably, oppose
any attempts to annihilate this species of property. He concluded, by
observing, that he would be glad to leave the decision of this to the
committee.

The second section was then read as follows:     *     *     *

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.

Mr. GEORGE MASON.--Mr. Chairman, on some former part of the
investigation of this subject, gentlemen were pleased to make some
observations on the security of property coming within this section.
It was then said, and I now say, that there is no security, nor have
gentlemen convinced me of this.

Mr. HENRY. Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume,
they may, if we be engaged in war, liberate every one of your slaves
if they please. And this must and will be done by men, a majority of
whom have not a common interest with you. They will, therefore, have
no feeling for your interests. It has been repeatedly said here, that
the great object of a national government, was national defence. That
power which is said to be intended for security and safety, may be
rendered detestable and oppressive. If you give power to the general
government to provide for the general defence, the means must be
commensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people
must be given to the government which is entrusted with the public
defence. In this State there are 236,000 blacks, and there are many in
several other States. But there are few or none in the Northern
States, and yet if the Northern States shall be of opinion, that our
numbers are numberless, they may call forth every national resource.
May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see
a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed, as to make
emancipation general. But acts of assembly passed, that every slave
who would go to the army should be free. Another thing will contribute
to bring this event about--slavery is detested--we feel its fatal
effects--we deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these
considerations, at some future period, press with full force on the
minds of Congress. Let that urbanity, which I trust will distinguish
America, and the necessity of national defence, let all these things
operate on their minds, they will search that paper, and see if they
have power of manumission. And have they not, sir? Have they not power
to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think
that these call for the abolition of slavery? May not they pronounce
all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power? There
is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to
the point. They have the power in clear, unequivocal terms; and will
clearly and certainly exercise it. As much as I deplore slavery, I see
that prudence forbids its abolition. I deny that the general
government ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the
States have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those
whose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority
of Congress is to the North, and the slaves are to the South. In this
situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of
Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquillity gone away. I
repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul, that every one of
my fellow-beings was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to admire
to admire that decree of Heaven, which has numbered us among the free,
we ought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellow-men
in bondage. But is it practicable by any human means, to liberate
them, without producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences? We
ought to possess them in the manner we have inherited them from our
ancestors, as their manumission is incompatible with the felicity of
the country. But we ought to soften, as much as possible, the rigor of
their unhappy fate. I know that in a variety of particular instances,
the legislature, listening to complaints, have admitted their
emancipation. Let me not dwell on this subject. I will only add, that
this, as well as every other property of the people of Virginia, is in
jeopardy, and put in the hands of those who have no similarity of
situation with us. This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety
in subjecting it to Congress.

Have we not a right to say, _hear our propositions_? Why, sir, your
slaves have a right to make their humble requests.--Those who are in
the meanest occupations of human life, have a right to complain.

Gov. RANDOLPH. That honorable gentleman, and some others, have
insisted that the abolition of slavery will result from it, and at the
same time have complained, that it encourages its continuation. The
inconsistency proves in some degree, the futility of their arguments.
But if it be not conclusive, to satisfy the committee that there is no
danger of enfranchisement taking place, I beg leave to refer them to
the paper itself. I hope that there is none here, who, considering the
subject in the calm light of philosophy, will advance an objection
dishonorable to Virginia; that at the moment they are securing the
rights of their citizens, an objection is started that there is a
spark of hope, that those unfortunate men now held in bondage, may, by
the operation of the general government be made _free_. But if any
gentleman be terrified by this apprehension, let him read the system.
I ask, and I will ask again and again, till I be answered (not by
declamation) where is the part that has a tendency to the abolition of
slavery? Is it the clause which says, that "the migration or
importation of such persons as any of the States now existing, shall
think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to
the year 1808?" This is an exception from the power of regulating
commerce, and the restriction is only to continue till 1808. Then
Congress can, by the exercise of that power, prevent future
importations; but does it affect the existing state of slavery? Were
it right here to mention what passed in Convention on the occasion, I
might tell you that the Southern States, even South Carolina herself;
conceived this property to be secure by these words. I believe,
whatever we may think here, that there was not a member of the
Virginia delegation who had the smallest suspicion of the abolition of
slavery. Go to their meaning. Point out the clause where this
formidable power of emancipation is inserted. But another clause of
the Constitution proves the absurdity of the supposition. The words of
the clause are, "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." Every one knows that slaves are held to
service and 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?

I observed that the honorable gentleman's proposition comes in a truly
questionable shape, and is still more extraordinary and unaccountable
for another consideration; that although we went article by article
through the Constitution, and although we did not expect a general
review of the subject, (as a most comprehensive view had been taken of
it before it was regularly debated,) yet we are carried back to the
clause giving that dreadful power, for the general welfare. Pardon me
if I remind you of the true state of that business. I appeal to the
candor of the honorable gentleman, and if he thinks it an improper
appeal, I ask the gentlemen here, whether there be a general
indefinite power of providing for the general welfare? The power is,
"to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the
debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare." So that
they can only raise money by these means, in order to provide for the
general welfare. No man who reads it can say it is general as the
honorable gentleman represents it. You must violate every rule of
construction and common sense, if you sever it from the power of
raising money and annex it to any thing else, in order to make it that
formidable power which it is represented to be.

Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, with respect to commerce and
navigation, he has given it as his opinion, that their regulation, as
it now stands, was a _sine qua non_ of the Union, and that without it,
the States in Convention would never concur. I differ from him. It
never was, nor in my opinion ever will be, a _sine qua non_ of the
Union. I will give you, to the best of my recollection, the history of
that affair. This business was discussed at Philadelphia for four
months, during which time the subject of commerce and navigation was
often under consideration; and I assert, that eight States out of
twelve, for more than three months, voted for requiring two-thirds of
the members present in each house to pass commercial and navigation
laws. True it is, that afterwards it was carried by a majority, as it
stands. If I am right, there was a great majority for requiring
two-thirds of the States in this business, till a compromise took
place between the Northern and Southern States; the Northern States
agreeing to the temporary importation of slaves, and the Southern
States conceding, in return, that navigation and commercial laws
should be on the footing on which they now stand. If I am mistaken,
let me be put right. These are my reasons for saying that this was not
a _sine qua non_ of their concurrence. The Newfoundland fisheries will
require that kind of security which we are now in want of. The Eastern
States therefore agreed at length, that treaties should require the
consent of two-thirds of the members present in the senate.

Mr. Madison. I was struck with surprise when I heard him express
himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. Let me
ask, if they should even attempt it, if it will not be an usurpation
of power? There is no power to warrant it, in that paper. If there be,
I know it not. But why should it be done? Says the honorable
gentleman, for the general welfare--it will infuse strength into our
system. Can any member of this committee suppose, that it will
increase our strength? Can any one believe, that the American councils
will come into a measure which will strip them of their property,
discourage and alienate the affections of five-thirteenths of the
Union? Why was nothing of this sort aimed at before? I believe such an
idea never entered into an American breast, nor do I believe it ever
will, unless it will enter into the heads of those gentlemen who
substitute unsupported suspicions for reasons.

Mr. Henry. He asked me where was the power of emancipating slaves? I
say it will be implied, unless implication be prohibited. He admits
that the power of granting passports will be in the new Congress
without the insertion of this restriction--yet he can shew me nothing
like such a power granted in that Constitution. Notwithstanding he
admits their right to this power by implication, he says that I am
unfair and uncandid in my deduction, that they can emancipate our
slaves, though the word emancipation be not mentioned in it. They can
exercise power by implication in one instance, as well as in another.
Thus, by the gentleman's own argument, they can exercise the power
though it be not delegated.

Mr. Z. Johnson. They tell us that they see a progressive danger of
bringing about emancipation. The principle has begun since the
revolution. Let us do what we will, it will come round. Slavery has
been the foundation of that impiety and dissipation, which have been
so much disseminated among our countrymen. If it were totally
abolished, it would do much good.



NORTH CAROLINA CONVENTION.

The first three clauses of the second section read.

Mr. GOUDY. Mr. Chairman, this clause of taxation will give an
advantage to some States, over the others. It will be oppressive to
the Southern States. Taxes are equal to our representation. To augment
our taxes and increase our burthens, our negroes are to be
represented. If a State has fifty thousand negroes, she is to send one
representative for them. I wish not to be represented with negroes,
especially if it increases my burthens.

Mr. Davie. Mr. Chairman, I will endeavor to obviate what the gentleman
last up has said. I wonder to see gentlemen so precipitate and hasty
on a subject of such awful importance. It ought to be considered, that
_some_ of _us_ are slow of apprehension, not having those quick
conceptions, and luminous understandings, of which other gentlemen may
be possessed. The gentleman "does not wish to be represented with
negroes." This, sir, is an unhappy species of population, but cannot
at present alter their situation. The Eastern States had great
jealousies on this subject. They insisted that their cows and horses
were equally entitled to representation; that the one was property as
well as the other. It became our duty on the other hand, to acquire as
much weight as possible in the legislation of the Union; and as the
Northern States were more populous in whites, this only could be done
by insisting that a certain proportion of our slaves should make a
part of the computed population. It was attempted to form a rule of
representation from a compound ratio of wealth and population; but, on
consideration, it was found impracticable to determine the comparative
value of lands, and other property, in so extensive a territory, with
any degree of accuracy; and population alone was adopted as the only
practicable rule or criterion of representation. It was urged by the
deputies of the Eastern States, that a representation of two-fifths
would of little utility, and that their entire representation would be
unequal and burthensome. That in a time of war, slaves rendered a
country more vulnerable, while its defence devolved upon its _free_
inhabitants. On the other hand, we insisted, that in time of peace
they contributed by their labor to the general wealth as well as other
members of the community. That as rational beings they had a right of
representation, and in some instances might be highly useful in war.
On these principles, the Eastern States gave the matter up, and
consented to the regulation as it has been read. I hope these reasons
will appear satisfactory. It is the same rule or principle which was
proposed some years ago by Congress, and assented to by twelve of the
States. It may wound the delicacy of the gentleman from Guilford, (Mr.
GOUDY,) but I hope he will endeavor to accommodate his feelings to the
interests and circumstances of his country.

Mr. JAMES GALLOWAY said, that he did not object to the representation
of negroes, so much as he did to the fewness of the number of
representatives. He was surprised how we came to have but five,
including those intended to represent negroes. That in his humble
opinion North Carolina was entitled to that number independent of the
negroes.

First clause of the 9th section read.

Mr. J. M'DOWALL wished to hear the reasons of this restriction.

Mr. SPAIGHT answered that there was a contest between the Northern and
Southern States--that the Southern States, whose principal support
depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of
the Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely.
That South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were
now in want of hands to cultivate their lands: That in the course of
twenty years they would be fully supplied: That the trade would be
abolished then, and that in the mean time some tax or duty might be
laid on.

Mr. M'DOWALL replied, that the explanation was just such as he
expected, and by no means satisfactory to him, and that he looked upon
it as a very objectionable part of the system.

Mr. IREDELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express sentiments similar to
those of the gentleman from Craven. For my part, were it practicable
to put an end to the importation of slaves immediately, it would give
me the greatest pleasure, for it certainly is a trade utterly
inconsistent with the rights of humanity, and under which great
cruelties have been exercised. When the entire abolition of slavery
takes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing to every
generous mind, and every friend of human nature; but we often wish for
things which are not attainable. It was the wish of a great majority
of the Convention to put an end to the trade immediately, but the
States of South Carolina and Georgia would not agree to it. Consider
then what would be the difference between our present situation in
this respect, if we do not agree to the Constitution, and what it will
be if we do agree to it. If we do not agree to it, do we remedy the
evil? No, sir, we do not; for if the Constitution be not adopted, it
will be in the power of every State to continue it forever. They may
or may not abolish it at their discretion. But if we adopt the
Constitution, the trade must cease after twenty years, if Congress
declare so, whether particular States please so or not: surely, then,
we gain by it. This was the utmost that could be obtained. I heartily
wish more could have been done. But as it is, this government is nobly
distinguished above others by that very provision. Where is there
another country in which such a restriction prevails? We, therefore,
sir, set an example of humanity by providing for the abolition of this
inhuman traffic, though at a distant period. I hope, therefore, that
this part of the Constitution will not be condemned, because it has
not stipulated for what it was impracticable to obtain.

Mr. SPAIGHT further explained the clause. That the limitation of this
trade to the term of twenty years, was a compromise between the
Eastern States and the Southern States. South Carolina and Georgia
wished to extend the term. The Eastern States insisted on the entire
abolition of the trade. That the State of North Carolina had not
thought proper to pass any law prohibiting the importation of slaves,
and therefore its delegation in the convention did not think
themselves authorized to contend for an immediate prohibition of it.

Mr. IREDELL added to what he had said before, that the States of
Georgia and South Carolina had lost a great many slaves during the
war, and that they wished to supply the loss.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Mr. Chairman, the explanation given to this clause does
not satisfy my mind. I wish to see this abominable trade put an end
to. But in case it be thought proper to continue this abominable
traffic for twenty years, yet I do not wish to see the tax on the
importation extended to all persons whatsoever. Our situation is
different from the people to the North. We want citizens; they do not.
Instead of laying a tax, we ought to a give a bounty, to encourage
foreigners to come among us. With respect to the abolition of slavery,
it requires the utmost consideration. The property of the Southern
States consists principally of slaves. If they mean to do away slavery
altogether, this property will be destroyed. I apprehend it means to
bring forward manumission. If we must manumit our slaves, what country
shall we send them to? It is impossible for us to be happy if, after
manumission, they are to stay among us.

Mr. IREDELL. Mr. Chairman, the worthy gentleman, I believe, has
misunderstood this clause, which runs in the following words: "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 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on
_such importation_, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

Now, sir, observe that the Eastern States, who long ago have abolished
slavery, did not approve of the expression _slaves_; they therefore
used another that answered the same purpose. The committee will
observe the distinction between the two words migration and
importation. The first part of the clause will extend to persons who
come into the country as free people, or are brought as slaves, but
the last part extends to slaves only. The word _migration_ refers to
free persons; but the word _importation_ refers to slaves, because
free people cannot be said to be imported. The tax, therefore, is only
to be laid on slaves who are imported, and not on free persons who
migrate. I further beg leave to say, that the gentleman is mistaken in
another thing. He seems to say that this extends to the abolition of
slavery. Is there anything in this constitution which says that
Congress shall have it in their power to abolish the slavery of those
slaves who are now in the country? Is it not the plain meaning of it,
that after twenty years they may prevent the future importation of
slaves? It does not extend to those now in the country. There is
another circumstance to be observed. There is no authority vested in
congress to restrain the States in the interval of twenty years, from
doing what they please. If they wish to inhibit such importation, they
may do so. Our next assembly may put an entire end to the importation
of slaves.

Article fourth. The first section and two first clauses of the second
section read without observation.

The last clause read--

Mr. IREDELL begged leave to explain the reason of this clause. In some
of the Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any
of our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain time, they
would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that
their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely
prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States, and to prevent
it, this clause is inserted in the Constitution. Though the word
_slave_ be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The Northern
delegates, owing to their particular scruples on the subject of
slavery, did not choose the word _slave_ to be mentioned.

The rest of the forth article read without observation.

       *     *     *     *     *

Mr. IREDELL. It is however to be observed, that the first and forth
clauses in the ninth section of the first article, are protected from
any alteration until the year 1808; and in order that no consolidation
should take place, it is provided, that no State shall, by any
amendment or alteration, be ever deprived of an equal suffrage in the
Senate without its own consent. The two first prohibitions are with
respect to the census, according to which direct taxes are imposed,
and with respect to the importation of slaves. As to the first, it
must be observed, that there is a material difference between the
Northern and Southern States. The Northern States have been much
longer settled, and are much fuller of people than the Southern, but
have not land in equal proportion, nor scarcely any slaves. The
subject of this article was regulated with great difficulty, and by a
spirit of concession which it would not be prudent to disturb for a
good many years. In twenty years there will probably be a great
alteration, and then the subject may be re-considered with less
difficulty and greater coolness. In the mean time, the compromise was
upon the best footing that could be obtained. A compromise likewise
took place in regard to the importation of slaves. It is probable that
all the members reprobated this inhuman traffic, but those of South
Carolina and Georgia would not consent to an immediate prohibition of
it; one reason of which was, that during the last war they lost a vast
number of negroes, which loss they wish to supply. In the mean time,
it is left to the States to admit or prohibit the importation, and
Congress may impose a limited duty upon it.


SOUTH CAROLINA CONVENTION.

Hon. RAWLINS LOWNDES. In the first place, what cause was there for
jealously of our importing negroes? Why confine us to twenty years, or
rather why limit us at all? For his part he thought this trade could
be justified on the principles of religion, humanity, and justice; for
certainly to translate a set of human beings from a bad country to a
better, was fulfilling every part of these principles. But they don't
like our slaves, because they have none themselves; and therefore want
to exclude us from this great advantage; why should the Southern
States allow of this, without the consent of nine States?

Judge PENDLETON observed, that only three States, Georgia, South
Carolina, and North Carolina, allowed the importation of negroes.
Virginia had a clause in her Constitution for this purpose, and
Maryland, he believed, even before the war, prohibited them.

Mr. LOWNDES continued--that we had a law prohibiting the importation
of negroes for three years, a law he greatly approved of; but there
was no reason offered, why the Southern States might not find it
necessary to alter their conduct, and open their ports. Without
negroes this State would degenerate into one of the most contemptible
in the Union; and cited an expression that fell from Gen. PINCKNEY on
a former debate, that whilst there remained one acre of swamp land in
South Carolina he should raise his voice against restricting the
importation of negroes. Even in granting the importation for twenty
years, care had been taken to make us pay for this indulgence, each
negro being liable, on importation, to pay a duty not exceeding ten
dollars, and, in addition to this, were liable to a capitation tax.
Negroes were our wealth, our only natural resource; yet behold how our
kind friends in the North were determined soon to tie up our hands,
and drain us of what we had. The Eastern States drew their means of
subsistence, in a great measure, from their shipping; and on that
head, they had been particularly careful not to allow of any burdens;
they were not to pay tonnage, or duties; no, not even the form of
clearing out: all ports were free and open to them! Why, then, call
this a reciprocal bargain, which took all from one party, to bestow it
on the other?

Major BUTLER observed that they were to pay a five per cent impost.
This, Mr. LOWNDES proved, must fall upon the consumer. They are to be
the carriers; and we, being the consumers, therefore all expenses
would fall upon us.

Hon. E. RUTLEDGE. The gentleman had complained of the inequality of
the taxes between the Northern and Southern States--that ten dollars a
head was imposed on the importation of negroes, and that those negroes
were afterwards taxed. To this it was answered, that the ten dollars
per head was an equivalent to the five per cent on imported articles;
and as to their being afterwards taxed, the advantage is on our side;
or, at least, not against us.

In the Northern States, the labor is performed by white people; in the
Southern by black. All the free people (and there are few others) in
the Northern States, are to be taxed by the new Constitution, whereas,
only the free people, and two-fifths of the slaves in the Southern
States are to be rated in the apportioning of taxes. But the principle
 objection is, that no duties are laid on shipping--that in fact the
carrying trade was to be vested in a great measure in the Americans;
that the shipbuilding business was principally carried on in the
Northern States. When this subject is duly considered, the Southern
States, should be the last to object to it. Mr. RUTLEDGE then went
into a consideration of the subject; after which the house adjourned.

Gen. CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY. We were at a loss for some time for
a role to ascertain the proportionate wealth of the States, at last we
thought that the productive labor of the inhabitants was the best rule
for ascertaining their wealth; in conformity to this rule, joined to
a spirit of concession, we determined that representatives should be
apportioned among the several States, by adding to the whole number of
free persons three-fifths of the slaves. We thus obtained a
representation for our property, and I confess I did not expect that
we had conceded too much to the Eastern States, when they allowed us a
representation for a species of property which they have not among
them.

The honorable gentleman alleges, that the Southern States are weak, I
sincerely agree with him--we are so weak that by ourselves we could
not form an union strong enough for the purpose of effectually
protecting each other. Without union with the other States, South
Carolina must soon fall. Is there any one among us so much a Quixotte
as to suppose that this State could long maintain her independence if
she stood alone, or was only connected with the Southern States? I
scarcely believe there is. Let an invading power send a naval force
into the Chesapeake to keep Virginia in alarm, and attack South
Carolina with such a naval and military force as Sir Henry Clinton
brought here in 1780, and though they might not soon conquer us, they
would certainly do us an infinite deal of mischief; and if they
considerably increased their numbers, we should probably fall. As,
from the nature of our climate, and the fewness of our inhabitants, we
are undoubtedly weak, should we not endeavor to form a close union
with the Eastern States, who are strong?

For who have been the greatest sufferers in the Union, by our
obtaining our independence? I answer, the Eastern States; they have
lost every thing but their country, and their freedom. It is notorious
that some ports to the Eastward, which used to fit out one hundred and
fifty sail of vessels, do not now fit out thirty; that their trade of
ship-building, which used to be very considerable, is now annihilated;
that their fisheries are trifling, and their mariners in want of
bread; surely we are called upon by every tie of justice, friendship,
and humanity, to relieve their distresses; and as by their exertions
they have assisted us in establishing our freedom, we should let them,
in some measure, partake of our prosperity. The General then said he
would make a few observations on the objections which the gentleman
had thrown out on the restrictions that might be laid on the African
trade after the year 1808. On this point your delegates had to contend
with the religious and political prejudices of the Eastern and Middle
States, and with the interested and inconsistent opinion of Virginia,
who was warmly opposed to our importing more slaves. I am of the same
opinion now as I was two years ago, when I used the expressions that
the gentleman has quoted, that while there remained one acre of swamp
land uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice against
restricting the importation of negroes. I am as thoroughly convinced
as that gentleman is, that the nature of our climate, and the flat,
swampy situation of our country, obliges us to cultivate our land with
negroes, and that without them South Carolina would soon be a desert
waste.

You have so frequently heard my sentiments on this subject that I need
not now repeat them. It was alleged, by some of the members who
opposed an unlimited importation, that slaves increased the weakness
of any State who admitted them; that they were a dangerous species of
property, which an invading enemy could easily turn against ourselves
and the neighboring States, and that as we were allowed a
representation for them in the House of Representatives, our influence
in government would be increased in proportion as we were less able to
defend ourselves. "Show some period," said the members from the
Eastern States, "when it may be in our power to put a stop, if we
please, to the importation of this weakness, and we will endeavor, for
your convenience, to restrain the religious and political prejudices
of our people on this subject."

The Middle States and Virginia made us no such proposition; they were
for an immediate and total prohibition. We endeavored to obviate the
objections that were made, in the best manner we could, and assigned
reasons for our insisting on the importation, which there is no
occasion to repeat, as they must occur to every gentleman in the
house: a committee of the States was appointed in order to accommodate
this matter, and after a great deal of difficulty, it was settled on
the footing recited in the Constitution.

By this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of negroes
for twenty years; nor is it declared that the importation shall be
then stopped; it may be continued--we have a security that the general
government can never emancipate them, for no such authority is
granted, and it is admitted on all hands, that the general government
has no powers but what are expressly granted by the Constitution; and
that all rights not expressed were reserved by the several States. We
have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of
America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In
short, considering all circumstances, we have made the best terms, for
the security of this species of property, it was in our power to make.
We would have made better if we could, but on the whole I do not think
them bad.

Hon. ROBERT BARNWELL. Mr. BARNWELL continued to say, I now come to the
last point for consideration, I mean the clause relative to the
negroes; and here I am particularly pleased with the Constitution; it
has not left this matter of so much importance to us open to immediate
investigation; no, it has declared that the United States shall not,
at any rate, consider this matter for twenty-one years, and yet
gentlemen are displeased with it.

Congress has guaranteed this right for that space of time, and at its
expiration may continue it as long as they please. This question then
arises, what will their interest lead them to do? The Eastern States,
as the honorable gentleman says, will become the carriers of America,
it will, therefore, certainly be their interest to encourage
exportation to as great an extent as possible; and if the quantum of
our products will be diminished by the prohibition of negroes, I
appeal to the belief of every man, whether he thinks those very
carriers will themselves dam up the resources from whence their profit
is derived? To think so is so contradictory to the general conduct of
mankind, that I am of opinion, that without we ourselves put a stop to
them, the traffic for negroes will continue forever.


FEDERALIST, No. 42


BY JAMES MADISON.

It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the
importation of slaves, had not been postponed until the year 1808, or
rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it
is not difficult to account either for this restriction on the general
government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed.

It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of
humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate for ever within
these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the
barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a
considerable discouragement from the Federal government, and may be
totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue
the unnatural traffic in the prohibitory example which has been given
by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the
unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them, of being
redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren! Attempts
have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the
Constitution, by representing it on one side, as a criminal toleration
of an illicit practice; and on another, as calculated to prevent
voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention
these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for
they deserve none; but as specimens of the manner and spirit, in which
some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed
government.


FEDERALIST, No. 54.


BY JAMES MADISON.

All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said: but does it follow from
an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of
slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves
ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation?

Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought
therefore, to be comprehended in estimates of taxation, which are
founded on property, and to be excluded from representation, which is
regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection as I
understand it; stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in
stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. We
subscribe to the doctrine, might one of our Southern brethren observe,
that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation
more immediately to property; and we join in the application of this
distinction to the case of our slaves.

But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as
property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the
case is, that they partake of both these qualities, being considered
by our laws, in some respects as persons, and in other respects as
property.

In being compelled to labor, not for himself; but for a master; in
being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject
at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body
by the capricious will of another; the slave may appear to be degraded
from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which
fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on
the other hand, in his life, and in his limbs, against the violence of
all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being
punishable himself for all violence committed against others; the
slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the
society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person,
not as a mere article of property. The Federal Constitution,
therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves,
when it views them in the mixed character of persons and property.
This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on
them by the laws under which they live, and it will not be denied,
that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the
pretext, that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of
property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers;
and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which
have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal
share of representation with the other inhabitants.

This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all
sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they
are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have
been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the
list of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be
calculated; and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of
contributions was to be adjusted?

Could it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would concur
in a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as men, when
burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same
light, when advantages were to be conferred?

Might not some surprise also be expressed, that those who reproach the
Southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a
part of their human brethren, should themselves contend, that the
government to which all the States are to be parties, ought to
consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light
of property, than the very laws of which they complain?

It may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the
estimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They
neither vote themselves, nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon
what principle, then, ought they to be taken into the Federal estimate
of representation? In rejecting them altogether, the Constitution
would, in this respect, have followed the very laws which have been
appealed to the proper guide.

This objection is repelled by a single observation. It is a
fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the
aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is
to be determined by a Federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of
inhabitants; so, the right of choosing this allotted number in each
State, is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants, as the
State itself may designate. The qualifications on which the right of
suffrage depends, are not perhaps the same in any two States. In some
of the States the difference is very material. In every State, a
certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the
Constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which
the Federal Constitution apportions the representatives. In this point
of view, the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting,
that the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard
should be had to the policy of particular States towards their own
inhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should
have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in
like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other
States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous
adherence, however, to this principle is waived by those who would be
gainers by it. All that they ask, is that equal moderation be shown on
the other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in
truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the
Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants,
but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants,
which regards the _slave_ as divested of two-fifths of the _man_.




DEBATES IN FIRST CONGRESS.


LLOYD'S DEBATES.

May 13, 1789.

Mr. PARKER (of Va.) moved to insert a clause in the bill, imposing a
duty on the importation of slaves of ten dollars each person. He was
sorry that the Constitution prevented Congress from prohibiting the
importation altogether; he thought it a defect in that instrument that
it allowed of such actions, it was contrary to the revolution
principles, and ought not to be permitted; but as he could not do all
the good he desired, he was willing to do what lay in his power. He
hoped such a duty as he moved for would prevent, in some degree, this
irrational and inhuman traffic; if so, he should feel happy from the
success of his motion.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina,) hoped that such an important and
serious proposition as this would not be hastily adopted; it was a
very late moment for the introduction of new subjects. He expected the
committee had got through the business, and would rise without
discussing any thing further; at least, if gentlemen were determined
on considering the present motion, he hoped they would delay for a few
days, in order to give time for an examination of the subject. It was
certainly a matter big with the most serious consequences to the State
he represented; be did not think any one thing that had been discussed
was so important to them, and the welfare of the Union, as the
question now brought forward, but he was not prepared to enter on any
argument, and therefore requested the motion might either be withdrawn
or laid on the table.

Mr. SHERMAN (of Ct.) approved of the object of the motion, but he did
not think this bill was proper to embrace the subject. He could not
reconcile himself to the insertion of human beings as an article of
duty, among goods, wares and merchandise. He hoped it would be
withdrawn for the present, and taken up hereafter as an independent
subject.

Mr. JACKSON, (of Geo.) observing the quarter from which this motion
came, said it did not surprise him, though it might have that effect
on others. He recollected that Virginia was an old settled State, and
had her complement of slaves, so she was careless of recruiting her
numbers by this means; the natural increase of her imported blacks
were sufficient for their purpose; but he thought gentlemen ought to
let their neighbors get supplied before they imposed such a burden
upon the importation. He knew this business was viewed in an odious
light to the Eastward, because the people were capable of doing their
own work, and had no occasion for slaves; but gentlemen will have some
feeling for others; they will not try to throw all the weight upon
others, who have assisted in lightening their burdens; they do not
wish to charge us for every comfort and enjoyment of life, and at the
same time take away the means of procuring them; they do not wish to
break us down at once.

He was convinced, from the inaptitude of the motion, and the want of
time to consider it, that the candor of the gentleman would induce him
to withdraw it for the present; and if ever it came forward again, he
hoped it would comprehend the white slaves as well as black, who were
imported from all the goals of Europe; wretches, convicted of the most
flagrant crimes, were brought in and sold without any duty whatever.
He thought that they ought to be taxed equal to the Africans, and had
no doubt but the constitutionality and propriety of such a measure was
equally apparent as the one proposed.

Mr. TUCKER (of S.C.) thought it unfair to bring in such an important
subject at a time when debate was almost precluded. The committee had
gone through the impost bill, and the whole Union were impatiently
expecting the result of their deliberations, the public must be
disappointed and much revenue lost, or this question cannot undergo
that full discussion which it deserves.

We have no right, said he, to consider whether the importation of
slaves is proper or not; the Constitution gives us no power on that
point, it is left to the States to judge of that matter as they see
fit. But if it was a business the gentleman was determined to
discourage, he ought to have brought his motion forward sooner, and
even then not have introduced it without previous notice. He hoped the
committee would reject the motion, if it was not withdrawn; he was not
speaking so much for the State he represented, as for Georgia, because
the State of South Carolina had a prohibitory law, which could be
renewed when its limitation expired.

Mr. PARKER (of Va.,) had ventured to introduce the subject after full
deliberation, and did not like to withdraw it. Although the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. SHERMAN) had said, that they ought not to be
enumerated with goods, wares, and merchandise, he believed they were
looked upon by the African traders in this light; he knew it was
degrading the human species to annex that character to them; but he
would rather do this than continue the actual evil of importing slaves
a moment longer. He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their
power to restore to human nature its inherent privileges, and if
possible wipe off the stigma which America labored under. The
inconsistency in our principles, with which we are justly charged,
should be done away; that we may shew by our actions the pure
beneficence of the doctrine we held out to the world in our
declaration of independence.

Mr. SHERMAN (of Ct.,) thought the principles of the motion and the
principles of the bill were inconsistent; the principle of the bill
was to raise revenue, the principle of the motion to correct a moral
evil. Now, considering it as an object of revenue, it would be unjust,
because two or three States would bear the whole burden, while he
believed they bore their full proportion of all the rest. He was
against receiving the motion into this bill, though he had no
objection to taking it up by itself, on the principles of humanity and
policy; and therefore would vote against it if it was not withdrawn.

Mr. AMES (of Mass.,) joined the gentleman last up. No one could
suppose him favorable to slavery, he detested it from his soul, but he
had some doubts whether imposing a duty on the importation, would not
have the appearance of countenancing the practice; it was certainly a
subject of some delicacy, and no one appeared to be prepared for the
discussion, he therefore hoped the motion would be withdrawn.

Mr. LIVERMORE. Was not against the principle of the motion, but in the
present case he conceived it improper. If negroes were goods, wares,
or merchandise, they came within the title of the bill; if they were
not, the bill would be inconsistent; but if they are goods, wares or
merchandise, the 5 per cent ad valorem, will embrace the importation;
and the duty of 5 per cent is nearly equal to 10 dollars per head, so
there is no occasion to add it even on the score of revenue.

Mr. JACKSON (of Ga.,) said it was the fashion of the day, to favor the
liberty of slaves; he would not go into a discussion of the subject,
but he believed it was capable of demonstration that they were better
off in their present situation, than they would be if they were
manumitted; what are they to do if they are discharged? Work for a
living? Experience has shewn us they will not. Examine what is become
of those in Maryland, many of them have been set free in that State;
did they turn themselves to industry and useful pursuits? No, they
turn out common pickpockets, petty larceny villains; and is this
mercy, forsooth, to turn them into a way in which they must lose their
lives,--for where they are thrown upon the world, void of property and
connections, they cannot get their living but by pilfering. What is to
be done for compensation? Will Virginia set all her negroes free? Will
they give up the money they cost them, and to whom? When this practice
comes to be tried there, the sound of liberty will lose those charms
which make it grateful to the ravished ear.

But our slaves are not in a worse situation than they were on the
coast of Africa; it is not uncommon there for the parents to sell
their children in peace; and in war the whole are taken and made
slaves together. In these cases it is only a change of one slavery for
another; and are they not better here, where they have a master bound
by the ties of interest and law to provide for their support and
comfort in old age, or infirmity, in which, if they were free, they
would sink under the pressure of woe for want of assistance.

He would say nothing of the partiality of such a tax, it was admitted
by the avowed friends of the measure; Georgia in particular would be
oppressed. On this account it would be the most odious tax Congress
could impose.

Mr. SCHUREMAN (of N.J.) hoped the gentleman would withdraw his
motion, because the present was not the time or place for introducing
the business; he thought it had better be brought forward in the
House, as a distinct proposition. If the gentleman persisted in having
the question determined, he would move the previous question if he was
supported.

Mr. MADISON, (of Va.) I cannot concur with gentlemen who think the
present an improper time or place to enter into a discussion of the
proposed motion; if it is taken up in a separate view, we shall do the
same thing at a greater expense of time. But the gentlemen say that it
is improper to connect the two objects, because they do not come
within the title of the bill. But this objection may be obviated by
accommodating the title to the contents; there may be some
inconsistency in combining the ideas which gentlemen have expressed,
that is, considering the human race as a species of property; but the
evil does not arise from adopting the clause now proposed, it is from
the importation to which it relates. Our object in enumerating persons
on paper with merchandise, is to prevent the practice of actually
treating them as such, by having them, in future, forming part of the
cargoes of goods, wares, and merchandise to be imported into the
United States. The motion is calculated to avoid the very evil
intimated by the gentleman. It has been said that this tax will be
partial and oppressive: but suppose a fair view is taken of this
subject, I think we may form a different conclusion. But if it be
partial or oppressive, are there not many instances in which we have
laid taxes of this nature? Yet are they not thought to be justified by
national policy? If any article is warranted on this account, how much
more are we authorized to proceed on this occasion? The dictates of
humanity, the principles of the people, the national safety and
happiness, and prudent policy requires it of us; the constitution has
particularly called our attention to it--and of all the articles
contained in the bill before us, this is one of the last I should be
willing to make a concession upon so far as I was at liberty to go,
according to the terms of the constitution or principles of justice--I
would not have it understood that my zeal would carry me to disobey
the inviolable commands of either.

I understood it had been intimated, that the motion was inconsistent
or unconstitutional. I believe, sir, my worthy colleague has formed
the words with a particular reference to the Constitution; any how, so
far as the duty is expressed, it perfectly accords with that
instrument; if there are any inconsistencies in it, they may be
rectified; I believe the intention is well understood, but I am far
from supposing the diction improper. If the description of the persons
does not accord with the ideas of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr.
JACKSON,) and his idea is a proper one for the committee to adopt, I
see no difficulty in changing the phraseology.

I conceive the Constitution, in this particular, was formed in order
that the government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total
prohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the sense of
America, with respect to the African trade. We have liberty to impose
a tax or duty upon the importation of such persons as any of the
States now existing shall think proper to admit; and this liberty was
granted, I presume, upon two considerations--the first was, that until
the time arrived when they might abolish the importation of slaves,
they might have an opportunity of evidencing their sentiments, on the
policy and humanity of such a trade; the other was that they might be
taxed in due proportion with other articles imported; for if the
possessor will consider them as property, of course they are of value
and ought to be paid for. If gentlemen are apprehensive of oppression
from the weight of the tax, let them make an estimate of its
proportion, and they will find that it very little exceeds five per
cent ad valorem, so that they will gain very little by having them
thrown into that mass of articles, whilst by selecting them in the
manner proposed, we shall fulfil the prevailing expectation of our
fellow citizens, and perform our duty in executing the purposes of the
Constitution. It is to be hoped that by expressing a national
disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves
from reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility ever attendant on a
country filled with slaves.

I do not wish to say anything harsh, to the hearing of gentlemen who
entertain different sentiments from me, or different sentiments from
those I represent; but if there is any one point in which it is
clearly the policy of this nation, so far as we constitutionally can,
to vary the practice of obtaining under some of the State governments,
it is this; but it is certain a majority of the States are opposed to
this practice, therefore, upon principle, we ought to discountenance
it as far as is in our power.

If I was not afraid of being told that the representatives of the
several States, are the best able to judge of what is proper and
conducive to their particular prosperity, I should venture to say that
it is as much the interest of Georgia and South Carolina, as of any in
the Union. Every addition they receive to their number of slaves,
tends to weaken them and renders them less capable of self defence. In
case of hostilities with foreign nations, they will be the means of
inviting attack instead of repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty
of the general government to protect every part of the empire against
danger, as well internal as external; every thing therefore which
tends to increase this danger, though it may be a local affair, yet if
it involves national expense or safety, becomes of concern to every
part of the Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of
those charged with the general administration of the government. I
hope, in making these observations, I shall not be understood to mean
that a proper attention ought not to be paid to the local opinions and
circumstances of any part of the United States, or that the particular
representatives are not best able to judge of the sense of their
immediate constituents.

If we examine the proposed measure by the agreement there is between
it, and the existing State laws, it will show us that it is patronized
by a very respectable part of the Union. I am informed that South
Carolina has prohibited the importation of slaves for several years
yet to come; we have the satisfaction then of reflecting that we do
nothing more than their own laws do at this moment. This is not the
case with one State. I am sorry that her situation is such as to seem
to require a population of this nature, but it is impossible in the
nature of things, to consult the national good without doing what we
do not wish to do, to some particular part. Perhaps gentlemen contend
against the introduction of the clause, on too slight grounds. If it
does not conform with the title of the bill, alter the latter; if it
does not conform to the precise terms of the Constitution, amend it.
But if it will tend to delay the whole bill, that perhaps will be the
best reason for making it the object of a separate one. If this is the
sense of the committee I shall submit.

Mr. GERRY (of Mass.) thought all duties ought to be laid as equal as
possible. He had endeavored to enforce this principle yesterday, but
without the success he wished for, he was bound by the principles of
justice therefore to vote for the proposition; but if the committee
were desirous of considering the subject fully by itself, he had no
objection, but he thought when gentlemen laid down a principle, they
ought to support it generally.

Mr. BURKE (of S.C.) said, gentlemen were contending for nothing; that
the value of a slave, averaged about £80, and the duty on that sum at
five per cent, would be ten dollars, as congress could go no farther
than that sum, he conceived it made no difference whether they were
enumerated or left in the common mass.

Mr. MADISON, (of Va.) If we contend for nothing, the gentlemen who are
opposed to us do not contend for a great deal; but the question is,
whether the five per cent ad valorem, on all articles imported, will
have any operation at all upon the introduction of slaves, unless we
make a particular enumeration on this account; the collector may
mistake, for he would not presume to apply the term goods, wares, and
merchandise to any person whatsoever. But if that general definition
of goods, wares and merchandise are supposed to include African
Slaves, why may we not particularly enumerate them, and lay the duty
pointed out by the Constitution, which, as gentlemen tell us, is no
more than five per cent upon their value; this will not increase the
burden upon any, but it will be that manifestation of our sense,
expected by our constituents, and demanded by justice and humanity.

Mr. BLAND (of Va.) had no doubt of the propriety or good policy of
this measure. He had made up his mind upon it, he wished had never
been introduced into America; but if it was impossible at this time to
cure the evil, he was very willing to join in any measures that would
prevent its extending farther. He had some doubts whether the
prohibitory laws of the States were not in part repealed. Those who
had endeavored to discountenance this trade, by laying a duty on the
importation, were prevented by the Constitution from continuing such
regulation, which declares, that no State shall lay any impost or
duties on imports. If this was the case, and he suspected pretty
strongly that it was, the necessity of adopting the proposition of his
colleague was now apparent.

Mr. SHERMAN (of Ct.) said, the Constitution does not consider these
persons as a species of property; it speaks of them as persons, and
says, that a tax or duty may be imposed on the importation of them
into any State which shall permit the same, but they have no power to
prohibit such importation for twenty years. But Congress have power to
declare upon what terms persons coming into the United States shall be
entitled to citizenship; the rule of naturalization must however be
uniform. He was convinced there were others ought to be regulated in
this particular, the importation of whom was of an evil tendency, he
meant convicts particularly. He thought that some regulation
respecting them was also proper; but it being a different subject, it
ought to be taken up in a different manner.

Mr. MADISON (of Va.) was led to believe, from the observation that had
fell from the gentlemen, that it would be best to make this the
subject of a distinct bill: he therefore wished his colleague would
withdraw his motion, and move in the house for leave to bring in a
bill on the same principles.

Mr. PARKER (of Va.) consented to withdraw his motion, under a
conviction that the house was fully satisfied of its propriety. He
knew very well that these persons were neither goods, nor wares, but
they were treated as articles of merchandise. Although he wished to
get rid of this part of his property, yet he should not consent to
deprive other people of theirs by any act of his without their
consent.

The committee rose, reported progress, and the house adjourned.

FEBRUARY 11th, 1790.

Mr. LAWRANCE (of New York,) presented an address from the society of
Friends, in the City of New York; in which they set forth their desire
of co-operating with their Southern brethren.

Mr. HARTLEY (of Penn.) then moved to refer the address of the annual
assembly of Friends, held at Philadelphia, to a committee; he thought
it a mark of respect due so numerous and respectable a part of the
community.

Mr. WHITE (of Va.) seconded the motion.

Mr. SMITH, (of S.C.) However respectable the petitioners may be, I
hope gentlemen will consider that others equally respectable are
opposed to the object which is aimed at, and are entitled to an
opportunity of being heard before the question is determined. I
flatter myself gentlemen will not press the point of commitment
to-day, it being contrary to our usual mode of procedure.

Mr. FITZSIMONS (of Penn.) If we were now about to determine the final
question, the observation of the gentleman from South Carolina would
apply; but, sir, the present question does not touch upon the merits
of the case; it is merely to refer the memorial to a committee, to
consider what is proper to be done; gentlemen, therefore, who do not
mean to oppose the commitment to-morrow, may as well agree to it
to-day, because it will tend to save the time of the house.

Mr. JACKSON (of Geo.) wished to know why the second reading was to be
contended for to-day, when it was diverting the attention of the
members from the great object that was before the committee of the
whole? Is it because the feelings of the Friends will be hurt, to have
their affair conducted in the usual course of business? Gentlemen who
advocate the second reading to-day, should respect the feelings of the
members who represent that part of the Union which is principally to
be affected by the measure. I believe, sir, that the latter class
consists of as useful and as good citizens as the petitioners, men
equally friends to the revolution, and equally susceptible of the
refined sensations of humanity and benevolence. Why then should such
particular attention be paid to them, for bringing forward a business
of questionable policy? If Congress are disposed to interfere in the
importation of slaves, they can take the subject up without advisers,
because the Constitution expressly mentions all the power they can
exercise on the subject.

Mr. SHERMAN (of Conn.) suggested the idea of referring it to a
committee, to consist of a member from each State, because several
States had already made some regulations on this subject. The sooner
the subject was taken up he thought it would be the better.

Mr. PARKER, (of Va.) I hope, Mr. Speaker, the petition of these
respectable people, will be attended to with all the readiness the
importance of its object demands; and I cannot help expressing the
pleasure I feel in finding so considerable a part of the community
attending to matters of such momentous concern to the future
prosperity and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty,
as a citizen of the Union, to espouse their cause; and it is incumbent
upon every member of this house to sift the subject well, and
ascertain what can be done to restrain a practice so nefarious. The
Constitution has authorized us to levy a tax upon the importation of
such persons as the States shall authorize to be admitted. I would
willingly go to that extent; and if any thing further can be devised
to discountenance the trade, consistent with the terms of the
Constitution, I shall cheerfully give it my assent and support.

Mr. MADISON, (of Va.) The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr.
FITZSIMONS) has put this question on its proper ground. If gentlemen
do not mean to oppose the commitment to-morrow, they may as well
acquiesce in it to-day; and I apprehend gentlemen need not be alarmed
at any measure it is likely Congress should take; because they will
recollect, that the Constitution secures to the individual States the
right of admitting, if they think proper, the importation of slaves
into their own territory, for eighteen years yet unexpired; subject,
however, to a tax, if Congress are disposed to impose it, of not more
than ten dollars on each person.

The petition, if I mistake not, speaks of artifices used by
self-interested persons to carry on this trade; and the petition from
New York states a case that may require the consideration of Congress.
If anything is within the Federal authority to restrain such violation
of the rights of nations, and of mankind, as is supposed to be
practised in some parts of the United States, it will certainly tend
to the interest and honor of the community to attempt a remedy, and is
a proper subject for our discussion. It may be, that foreigners take
advantage of the liberty afforded them by the American trade, to
employ our slipping in the slave trade between Africa and the West
Indies, when they are restrained from employing their own by
restrictive laws of their nation. If this is the case, is there any
person of humanity that would not wish to prevent them? Another
consideration why we should commit the petition is, that we may give
no ground of alarm by a serious opposition, as if we were about to
take measures that were unconstitutional.

Mr. STONE (of Md.) feared that if Congress took any measures,
indicative of an intention to interfere with the kind of property
alluded to, it would sink it in value very considerably, and might be
injurious to a great number of the citizens, particularly in the
Southern States.

He thought the subject was of general concern, and that the
petitioners had no more right to interfere will it than any other
members of the community. It was an unfortunate circumstance, that it
was the property of sects to imagine they understood the rights of
human nature better than all the world beside; and that they would, in
consequence, be meddling with concerns in which they had nothing to
do.

As the petition relates to a subject of a general nature, it ought to
lie on the table, as information; he would never consent to refer
petitions, unless the petitioners were exclusively interested. Suppose
there was a petition to come before us from a society, praying us to
be honest in our transactions, or that we should administer the
Constitution according to its intention--what would you do with a
petition of this kind? Certainly it would remain on your table. He
would, nevertheless, not have it supposed, that the people had not a
right to advise and give their opinion upon public measures; but he
would not be influenced by that advice or opinion, to take up a
subject sooner than the convenience of other business would admit.
Unless he changed his sentiments, he would oppose the commitment.

Mr. BURKE (of S.C.) thought gentlemen were paying attention to what
did not deserve it. The men in the gallery had come here to meddle in
a business with which they had nothing to do; they were volunteering
it in the cause of others, who neither expected nor desired it. He had
a respect for the body of Quakers, but, nevertheless, he did not
believe they had more virtue, or religion, than other people, nor
perhaps so much, if they were examined to the bottom, notwithstanding
their outward pretences. If their petition is to be noticed, Congress
ought to wait till counter applications were made, and then they might
have the subject more fairly before them. The rights of the Southern
States ought not to be threatened, and their property endangered, to
please people who were to be unaffected by the consequences.

Mr. HARTLEY (of Penn.) thought the memorialists did not deserve to be
aspersed for their conduct, if influenced by motives of benignity,
they solicited the Legislature of the Union to repel, as far as in
their power, the increase of a licentious traffic. Nor do they merit
censure, because their behavior has the appearance of more morality
than other people's. But it is not for Congress to refuse to hear the
applications of their fellow citizens, while those applications
contain nothing unconstitutional or offensive. What is the object of
the address before us? It is intended to bring before this House a
subject of great importance to the cause of humanity; there are
certain facts to be enquired into, and the memorialists are ready to
give all the information in their power; they are waiting, at a great
distance from their homes, and wish to return; if, then, it will be
proper to commit the petition to-morrow, it will be equally proper
to-day, for it is conformable to our practice, beside, it will tend to
their conveniency.

Mr. LAWRANCE (of N.Y.) The gentleman from South Carolina says, the
petitioners are of a society not known in the laws or Constitution.
Sir, in all our acts, as well as in the Constitution, we have noticed
this Society; or why is it that we admit them to affirm, in cases
where others are called upon to swear? If we pay this attention to
them, in one instance, what good reason is there for contemning them
in another? I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. STONE,) carries
his apprehensions too far, when he fears that negro-property will fall
in value, by the suppression of the slave-trade; not that I suppose it
immediately in the power of Congress to abolish a traffic which is a
disgrace to human nature; but it appears to me, that, if the
importation was crushed, the value of a slave would be increased
instead of diminished; however, considerations of this kind have
nothing to do with the present question; gentlemen may acquiesce in
the commitment of the memorial, without pledging themselves to support
its object.

Mr. JACKSON, (of Ga.) I differ much in opinion with the gentleman last
up. I apprehend if, through the interference of the general
government, the slave trade was abolished, it would evince to the
people a disposition toward a total emancipation, and they would hold
their property in jeopardy. Any extraordinary attention of Congress to
this petition may have, in some degree, a similar effect. I would beg
to ask those, then, who are so desirous of freeing the negroes, if
they have funds sufficient to pay for them? If they have, they may
come forward on that business with some propriety; but, if they have
not, they should keep themselves quiet, and not interfere with a
business in which they are not interested. They may as well come
forward, and solicit Congress to interdict the West India trade,
because it is injurious to the morals of mankind; from thence we
import rum, which has a debasing influence upon the consumer. But,
sir, is the whole morality of the United States confined to the
Quakers? Are they the only people whose feelings are to be consulted
on this occasion? Is it to them we owe our present happiness? Was it
they who formed the Constitution? Did they, by their arms, or
contributions, establish our independence? I believe they were
generally opposed to that measure. Why, then, on their application,
shall we injure men, who, at the risk of their lives and fortunes,
secured to the community their liberty and property? If Congress pay
any uncommon degree of attention to their petition, it will furnish
just ground of alarm to the Southern States. But, why do these men set
themselves up, in such a particular manner, against slavery? Do they
understand the rights of mankind, and the disposition of Providence
better than others? If they were to consult that Book which claims our
regard, they will find that slavery is not only allowed, but
commended. Their Saviour, who possessed more benevolence and
commiseration than they pretend to, has allowed of it. And if they
fully examine the subject, they will find that slavery has been no
novel doctrine since the days of Cain. But be these things as they
may, I hope the House will order the petition to lie on the table, in
order to prevent alarming our Southern brethren.

Mr. SEDGWICK, (of Mass.) If it was a serious question, whether the
Memorial should be committed or not, I would not urge it at this time;
but that cannot be a question for a moment, if we consider our
relative situation with the people. A number of men,--who are
certainly very respectable, and of whom, as a society, it may be said
with truth, that they conform their moral conduct to their religious
tenets, as much as any people in the whole community,--come forward
and tell you, that you may effect two objects by the exercise of a
Constitutional authority which will give great satisfaction; on the
one hand you may acquire revenue, and on the other, restrain a
practice productive of great evil. Now, setting aside the religious
motives which influenced their application, have they not a right, as
citizens, to give their opinion of public measures? For my part I do
not apprehend that any State, or any considerable number of
individuals in any State, will be seriously alarmed at the commitment
of the petition, from a fear that Congress intend to exercise an
unconstitutional authority, in order to violate their rights; I
believe there is not a wish of the kind entertained by any member of
this body. How can gentlemen hesitate then to pay that respect to a
memorial which it is entitled to, according to the ordinary mode of
procedure in business? Why shall we defer doing that till to-morrow,
which we can do to-day? for the result, I apprehend, will be the same
in either case.

Mr. Smith, (of S.C.) The question, I apprehend, is, whether we will
take the petition up for a second reading, and not whether it shall be
committed? Now, I oppose this, because it is contrary to our usual
practice, and does not allow gentlemen time to consider of the merits
of the prayer; perhaps some gentlemen may think it improper to commit
it to so large a committee as has been mentioned; a variety of causes
may be supposed to show that such a hasty decision is improper;
perhaps the prayer of it is improper. If I understood it right, on its
first reading, though, to be sure, I did not comprehend perfectly all
that the petition contained, it prays that we should take measures for
the abolition of the slave trade; this is desiring an unconstitutional
act, because the constitution secures that trade to the States,
independent of congressional restrictions, for the term of twenty-one
years. If, therefore, it prays for a violation of constitutional
rights, it ought to be rejected, as an attempt upon the virtue and
patriotism of the house.

Mr. BOUDINOT, (of N.J.) It has been said that the Quakers have no
right to interfere in this business; I am surprised to hear this
doctrine advanced, after it has been so lately contended, and settled,
that the people have a right to assemble and petition for redress of
grievances; it is not because the petition comes from the society of
Quakers that I am in favor of the commitment, but because it comes
from citizens of the United States, who are as equally concerned in
the welfare and happiness of their country as others. There certainly
is no foundation for the apprehensions which seem to prevail in
gentlemen's minds. If the petitioners were so uninformed: as to
suppose that Congress could be guilty of a violation of the
Constitution, yet, I trust we know our duty better than to be led
astray by an application from any man, or set of men whatever. I do
not consider the merits of the main question to be before us; it will
be time enough to give our opinions upon that, when the committee have
reported. If it is in our power, by recommendation, or any other way,
to put a stop to the slave trade in America, I do not doubt of its
policy; but how far the Constitution will authorize us to attempt to
depress it, will be a question well worthy of our consideration.

Mr. SHERMAN (of Conn.) observed, that the petitioners from New York,
stated that they had applied to the legislature of that State, to
prohibit certain practices which they conceived to be improper, and
which tended to injure the well-being of the community; that the
legislature had considered the application, but had applied no remedy,
because they supposed that power was exclusively vested in the general
government, under the Constitution of the United States; it would,
therefore, be proper to commit that petition, in order to ascertain
what were the powers of the general government, in the case doubted by
the legislature of New York.

Mr. GERRY (of Mass.) thought gentlemen were out of order in entering
upon the merits of the main question at this time, when they were
considering the expediency of committing the petition; he should,
therefore, not follow them further in that track than barely to
observe, that it was the right of the citizens to apply for redress,
in every case they conceived themselves aggrieved in; and it was the
duty of Congress to afford redress as far as is in their power. That
their Southern brethren had been betrayed into the slave trade by the
first settlers, was to be lamented; they were not to be reflected on
for not viewing this subject in a different light, the prejudice of
education is eradicated with difficulty; but he thought nothing would
excuse the general government for not exerting itself to prevent, as
far as they constitutionally could, the evils resulting from such
enormities as were alluded to by the petitioners; and the same
considerations induced him highly to commend the part the society of
Friends had taken; it was the cause of humanity they had interested
themselves in, and he wished, with them, to see measures pursued by
every nation, to wipe off the indelible stain which the slave trade
had brought upon all who were concerned in it.

Mr. MADISON (of Va.) thought the question before the committee was no
otherwise important than as gentlemen made it so by their serious
opposition. Did they permit the commitment of the Memorial, as a
matter of course, no notice would be taken of it out of doors; it
could never be blown up into a decision of the question respecting the
discouragement of the African slave trade, nor alarm the owners with
an apprehension that the general government were about to abolish
slavery in all the States; such things are not contemplated by any
gentleman; but, to appearance, they decide the question more against
themselves than would be the case if it was determined on its real
merits, because gentlemen may be disposed to vote for the commitment
of a petition, without any intention of supporting the prayer of it.

Mr. WHITE (of Va.) would not have seconded the motion, if he had
thought it would have brought on a lengthy debate. He conceived that a
business of this kind ought to be decided without much discussion; it
had constantly been the practice of the house, and he did not suppose
there was any reason for a deviation.

Mr. PAGE (of Va.) said, if the memorial had been presented by any
individual, instead of the respectable body it was, he should have
voted in favor of a commitment, because it was the duty of the
legislature to attend to subjects brought before them by their
constituents; if, upon inquiry, it was discovered to be improper to
comply with the prayer of the petitioners, he would say so, and they
would be satisfied.

Mr. STONE (of Md.) thought the business ought to be left to take its
usual course; by the rules of the house, it was expressly declared,
that petitions, memorials, and other papers, addressed to the house,
should not be debated or decided on the day they were first read.

Mr. BALDWIN (of Ga.) felt at a loss to account why precipitation was
used on this occasion, contrary to the customary usage of the house;
he had not heard a single reason advanced in favor of it. To be sure
it was said the petitioners are a respectable body of men--he did not
deny it--but, certainly, gentlemen did not suppose they were paying
respect to them, or to the house, when they urged such a hasty
procedure; anyhow it was contrary to his idea of respect, and the idea
the house had always expressed, when they had important subjects under
consideration; and, therefore, he should be against the motion. He was
afraid that there was really a little volunteering in this business,
as it had been termed by the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HUNTINGTON (of Conn.) considered the petitioners as much
disinterested as any person in the United States; he was persuaded
they had an aversion to slavery; yet they were not singular in this,
others had the same; and he hoped when Congress took up the subject,
they would go as far as possible to prohibit the evil complained of.
But he thought that would better be done by considering it in the
light of revenue. When the committee of the whole, on the finance
business, came to the ways and means, it might properly be taken into
consideration, without giving any ground for alarm.

Mr. TUCKER, (of S.C.) I have no doubt on my mind respecting what ought
to be done on this occasion; so far from committing the memorial, we
ought to dismiss it without further notice. What is the purport of the
memorial? It is plainly this; to reprobate a particular kind of
commerce, in a moral view, and to request the interposition of
Congress to effect its abrogation. But Congress have no authority,
under the constitution, to do more than lay a duty of ten dollars upon
each person imported; and this is a political consideration, not
arising from either religion or morality, and is the only principle
upon which we can proceed to take it up. But what effect do these men
suppose will arise from their exertions? Will a duty of ten dollars
diminish the importation? Will the treatment be better than usual? I
apprehend it will not, nay, it may be worse. Because an interference
with the subject may excite a great degree of restlessness in the
minds of those it is intended to serve, and that may be a cause for
the masters to use more rigor towards them, than they would otherwise
exert; so that these men seem to overshoot their object. But if they
will endeavor to procure the abolition of the slave trade, let them
prefer their petitions to the State legislatures, who alone have the
power of forbidding the importation; I believe their applications
there would be improper; but if they are any where proper, it is
there. I look upon the address then to be ill-judged, however good the
intention of the framers.

Mr. SMITH (of S.C.) claimed it as a right, that the petition should
lay over till to-morrow.

Mr. BOUDINOT (of N.J.) said it was not unusual to commit petitions on
the day they were presented; and the rules of the house admitted the
practice, by the qualification which followed the positive order, that
petitions should not be decided on the day they were first read,
"unless where the house shall direct otherwise."

Mr. SMITH (of S.C.) declared his intention of calling the yeas and
nays, if gentlemen persisted in pressing the question.

Mr. CLYMER (of Penn.) hoped the motion would be withdrawn for the
present, and the business taken up in course to-morrow; because,
though he respected the memorialists, he also respected order and the
situation of the members.

Mr. FITZSIMONS (of Penn.) did not recollect whether he moved or
seconded the motion, but if he had, he should not withdraw it on
account of the threat of calling the yeas and nays.

Mr. BALDWIN (of Ga.) hoped the business would be conducted with temper
and moderation, and that gentlemen would concede and pass the subject
over for a day at least.

Mr. SMITH (of S.C.) had no idea of holding out a threat to any
gentleman. If the declaration of an intention to call the yeas and
nays was viewed by gentlemen in that light, he would withdraw that
call.

Mr. WHITE (of Va.) hereupon withdrew his motion. And the address was
ordered to lie on the table.

FEBRUARY 12th, 1790.

The following memorial was presented and read:

"To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: The
memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting the abolition of
slavery, the relief of free negroes unlawfully held in bondage, and
the improvement of the condition of the African race, respectfully
showeth: That from a regard for the happiness of mankind, an
association was formed several years since in this State, by a number
of her citizens, of various religious denominations, for promoting the
abolition of slavery, and for the relief of those unlawfully held in
bondage. A just and acute conception of the true principles of
liberty, as it spread through the land, produced accessions to their
numbers, many friends to their cause, and a legislative cooperation
with their views, which, by the blessing of Divine Providence, have
been successfully directed to the relieving from bondage a large
number of their fellow creatures of the African race. They have also
the satisfaction to observe, that, in consequence of that spirit of
philanthropy and genuine liberty which is generally diffusing its
beneficial influence, similar institutions are forming at home and
abroad. That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike
objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of
happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the
political creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. Your
memorialists, particularly engaged in attending to the distresses
arising from slavery, believe it their indispensable duty to present
this subject to your notice. They have observed with real
satisfaction, that many important and salutary powers are vested in
you for 'promoting the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty
to the people of the United States;' and as they conceive, that these
blessings ought rightfully to be administered without distinction of
color, to all descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves in
the pleasing expectation, that nothing which can be done for the
relief of the unhappy objects of their care, will be either omitted or
delayed. From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the
portion, and is still the birth-right of all men, and influenced by
the strong ties of humanity and the principles of their institution,
your memorialists conceived themselves bound to use all justifiable
endeavors to loosen the bands of slavery, and promote a general
enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. Under these impressions, they
earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery;
that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to
those unhappy men, who alone, in this land of freedom, are degraded
into perpetual bondage, and who, amidst the general joy of surrounding
freemen, are groaning in servile subjection; that you will devise
means for removing this inconsistency from the character of the
American people; that you will promote mercy and justice towards this
distressed race, and that you will step to the very verge of the power
vested in you, for discouraging every species of traffic in the
persons of our fellow-men.

"BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, _President._

"PHILADELPHIA, _February 3, 1790."_

Mr. HARTLEY (of Penn.) then called up the memorial presented
yesterday, from the annual meeting of Friends at Philadelphia, for a
second reading; whereupon the same was read a second time, and moved
to be committed.

Mr. TUCKER (of S.C.) was sorry the petition had a second reading, as
he conceived it contained an unconstitutional request, and from that
consideration he wished it thrown aside. He feared the commitment of
it would be a very alarming circumstance to the Southern States; for
if the object was to engage Congress in an unconstitutional measure,
it would be considered as an interference with their rights, the
people would become very uneasy under the government, and lament that
they ever put additional powers into their hands. He was surprised to
see another memorial on the same subject, and that signed by a man who
ought to have known the constitution better. He thought it a
mischievous attempt, as it respected the persons in whose favor it was
intended. It would buoy them up with hopes, without a foundation, and
as they could not reason on the subject, as more enlightened men
would, they might be led to do what they would be punished for, and
the owners of them, in their own defence, would be compelled to
exercise over them a severity they were not accustomed to. Do these
men expect a general emancipation of slaves by law? This would never
be submitted to by the Southern States without a civil war. Do they
mean to purchase their freedom? He believed their money would fall
short of the price. But how is it they are more concerned in this
business than others? Are they the only persons who possess religion
and morality? If the people are not so exemplary, certainly they will
admit the clergy are; why then do we not find them uniting in a body,
praying us to adopt measures for the promotion of religion and piety,
or any moral object? They know it would be an improper interference;
and to say the best of this memorial, it is an act of imprudence,
which he hoped would receive no countenance from the house.

Mr. SENEY (of Md.) denied that there was anything unconstitutional in
the memorial, at least, if there was, it had escaped his attention,
and he should be obliged to the gentleman to point it out. Its only
object was, that congress should exercise their constitutional
authority, to abate the horrors of slavery, as far as they could:
Indeed, he considered that all altercation on the subject of
commitment was at an end, as the house had impliedly determined
yesterday that it should be committed.

Mr. BURKE (of S.C.) saw the disposition of the house, and he feared
it would be referred to a committee, maugre all their opposition; but
he must insist that it prayed for an unconstitutional measure. Did it
not desire congress to interfere and abolish the slave trade, while
the constitution expressly stipulated that congress should exercise no
such power? He was certain the commitment would sound an alarm, and
blow the trumpet of sedition in the Southern States. He was sorry to
see the petitioners paid more attention to than the constitution;
however, he would do his duty, and oppose the business totally; and if
it was referred to a committee, as mentioned yesterday, consisting of
a member from each State, and he was appointed, he would decline
serving.

Mr. SCOTT, (of Penn.) I can't entertain a doubt but the memorial is
strictly agreeable to the constitution: it respects a part of the duty
particularly assigned to us by that instrument, and I hope we may, be
inclined to take it into consideration. We can, at present, lay our
hands upon a small duty of ten dollars. I would take this, and if it
is all we can do, we must be content. But I am sorry that the framers
of the constitution did not go farther and enable us to interdict it
for good and all; for I look upon the slave-trade to be one of the
most abominable things on earth; and if there was neither God nor
devil, I should oppose it upon the principles of humanity and the law
of nature. I cannot, for my part, conceive how any person can be said
to acquire a property in another; is it by virtue of conquest? What
are the rights of conquest? Some have dared to advance this monstrous
principle, that the conqueror is absolute master of his conquest; that
he may dispose of it as his property, and treat it as he pleases; but
enough of those who reduce men to the state of transferable goods, or
use them like beasts of burden; who deliver them up as the property or
patrimony of another man. Let us argue on principles countenanced by
reason and becoming humanity; the petitioners view the subject in a
religious light, but I do not stand in need of religious motives to
induce me to reprobate the traffic in human flesh; other
considerations weigh with me to support the commitment of the
memorial, and to support every constitutional measure likely to bring
about its total abolition. Perhaps, in our legislative capacity, we
can go no further than to impose a duty of ten dollars, but I do not
know how far I might go, if I was one of the judges of the United
States, and those people were to come before me and claim their
emancipation; but I am sure I would go as far as I could.

Mr. JACKSON (of Ga.) differed with the gentleman last up, and supposed
the master had a qualified property in his slave; he said the contrary
doctrine would go to the destruction of every species of personal
service. The gentleman said he did not stand in need of religion to
induce him to reprobate slavery, but if he is guided by that evidence,
which the Christian system is founded upon, he will find that religion
is not against it; he will see, from Genesis to Revelation, the
current setting strong that way. There never was a government on the
face of the earth, but what permitted slavery. The purest sons of
freedom in the Grecian republics, the citizens of Athens and
Lacedaemon all held slaves. On this principle the nations of Europe
are associated; it is the basis of the feudal system. But suppose all
this to have been wrong, let me ask the gentleman, if it is policy to
bring forward a business at this moment, likely to light up a flame of
civil discord, for the people of the Southern States will resist one
tyranny as soon as another; the other parts of the continent may bear
them down by force of arms, but they will never suffer themselves to
be divested of their property without a struggle. The gentleman says,
if he was a federal judge, he does not know to what length he would go
in emancipating these people; but, I believe his judgment would be of
short duration in Georgia; perhaps even the existence of such a judge
might be in danger.

Mr. SHERMAN (of Conn.) could see no difficulty in committing the
memorial; because it was probable the committee would understand their
business, and perhaps they might bring in such a report as would be
satisfactory to gentlemen on both sides of the House.

Mr. BALDWIN (of Ga.) was sorry the subject had ever been brought
before Congress, because it was of a delicate nature, as it respected
some of the States. Gentlemen who had been present at the formation of
this Constitution, could not avoid the recollection of the pain and
difficulty which the subject caused in that body; the members from the
Southern States were so tender upon this point, that they had well
nigh broken up without coming to any determination; however, from the
extreme desire of preserving the Union, and obtaining an efficient
government, they were induced mutually, to concede, and the
Constitution jealously guarded what they agreed to. If gentlemen look
over the footsteps of that body, they will find the greatest degree
of caution used to imprint them, so as not to be easily eradicated;
but the moment we go to jostle on that ground, said he, I fear we
shall feel it tremble under our feet. Congress have no power to
interfere with the importation of slaves, beyond what is given in the
9th section of the first article of the Constitution; every thing else
is interdicted to them in the strongest terms. If we examine the
Constitution, we shall find the expressions, relative to this subject,
cautiously expressed, and more punctiliously guarded than any other
part. "The migration or importation of such persons, shall not be
prohibited by Congress." But lest this should not have secured the
object sufficiently, it is declared in the same section, "That no
capitation or direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the
census;" this was intended to prevent Congress from laying any special
tax upon negro slaves, as they might, in this way, so burthen the
possessors of them, as to induce a general emancipation. If we go on
to the 5th article, we shall find the 1st and 5th clauses of the 9th
section of the 1st article restrained from being altered before the
year 1808.

Gentlemen have said, that this petition does not pray for an abolition
of the slave-trade; I think, sir, it prays for nothing else, and
therefore we have no more to do with it, than if it prayed us to
establish an order of nobility, or a national religion.

Mr. SYLVESTER (of N.Y.) said that he had always been in the habit of
respecting the society called Quakers; he respected them for their
exertions in the cause of humanity, but he thought the present was not
a time to enter into a consideration of the subject, especially as he
conceived it to be a business in the province of the State
legislatures.

Mr. LAWRANCE (of N.Y.) observed that the subject would undoubtedly
come under the consideration of the house; and he thought, that as it
was now before them, that the present time was as proper as any; he
was therefore for committing the memorial; and when the prayer of it
had been properly examined, they could see how far Congress may
constitutionally interfere; as they knew the limits of their power on
this, as well as on every other occasion, there was no just
apprehension to be entertained that they would go beyond them. Mr.
Smith (of S.C.) insisted that it was not in the power of the House to
brunt the prayer of the petition, which event to the total abolishment
of the slave-trade, and it was therefore unnecessary to commit it. He
observed, that in the Southern States, difficulties had arisen on
adopting the Constitution, inasmuch as it was apprehended, that
Congress might take measures under it for abolishing the slave-trade.

Perhaps the petitioners, when they applied to this House, did not
think their object unconstitutional, but now they are told that if is,
they will be satisfied with the answer, and press it no further. If
their object had been for Congress to lay a duty of ten dollars per
head on the importation of slaves, they would have said so, but that
does not appear to have been the case; the commitment of the petition,
on that ground, cannot be contended; if they will not be content with
that, shall it be committed to investigate facts? The petition speaks
of none; for what purpose then shall it be committed? If gentlemen can
assign no good reason for the measure, they will not support it, when
they are told that it will create great jealousies and alarm in the
Southern States; for I can assure them, that there is no point on
which they are more jealous and suspicious, than on a business with
which they think the government has nothing to do.

When we entered into this Confederacy, we did it from political, not
from moral motives, and I do not think my constituents want to learn
morals from the petitioners; I do not believe they want improvement in
their moral system; if they do, they can get it at home.

The gentleman from Georgia, has justly stated the jealousy of the
Southern States. On entering into this government, they apprehended
that the other States, not knowing the necessity the citizens of the
Southern States were under to hold this species of property, would,
from motives of humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general
emancipation; and had they not seen that the Constitution provided
against the effect of such a disposition, I may be bold to say, they
never would have adopted it. And notwithstanding all the calumny's
with which some gentlemen have viewed the subject, they will find,
that the discussion alone will create great alarm. We have been told,
that if the discussion will create alarm, we ought to have avoided it,
by saying nothing; but it was not for that purpose that we were sent
here; we look upon this measure as an attack upon the palladium of the
property of our country; it is therefore our duty to oppose it by
every means in our power. Gentlemen should consider that when we
entered into a political connexion with the other States, that this
property was there; it was acquired under a former government,
conformably to the laws and Constitution; therefore anything that will
tend to deprive them of that property, must be an ex post facto law,
and as such is forbid by our political compact.

I said the States would never have entered into the confederation,
unless their property had been guaranteed to them, for such is the
state of agriculture in that county, that without slaves it must be
depopulated. Why will these people then make use of arguments to
induce the slave to turn his hand against his master? We labor under
difficulties enough from the ravages of the late war. A gentleman can
hardly come from that country, with a servant or two, either to this
place or Philadelphia, but what there are persons trying to seduce his
servants to leave him; and, when they have done this, the poor
wretches are obliged to rob their master in order to obtain a
subsistence; all those, therefore, who are concerned in this
seduction, are accessaries to the robbery.

The reproaches which they cast upon the owners of negro property, is
charging them with the want of humanity; I believe the proprietors are
persons of as much humanity as any part of the continent and are as
conspicuous for their good morals as their neighbors. It was said
yesterday, that the Quakers were a society known to the laws, and the
Constitution, but they are no more so than other religious societies;
they stood exactly in the same situation; their memorial, therefore,
relates to a matter in which they are no more interested than any
other sect, and can only be considered as a piece of advice; it is
customary to refer a piece of advice to a committee, but if it is
supposed to pray for what they think a moral purpose, is that
sufficient to induce us to commit it? What may appear a moral virtue
in their eyes, may not be so in reality. I have heard of a sect of
Shaking Quakers, who, I presume, suppose their tenets of a moral
tendency; I am informed one of them forbids to intermarry, yet in
consequence of their shakings and concussions, you may see them with a
numerous offspring about them. Now, if these people were to petition
Congress to pass a law prohibiting matrimony, I ask, would gentlemen
agree to refer such a petition? I think if they would reject one of
that nature, as improper, they ought also to reject this.

Mr. PAGE (of Va.) was in favor of the commitment; he hoped that the
designs of the respectable memorialists would not be stopped at the
threshold, in order to preclude a fair discussion of the prayer of the
memorial. He observed that gentlemen had founded their arguments upon
a misrepresentation; for the object of the memorial was not declared
to be the total abolition, of the slave trade; but that Congress would
consider, whether it be not in reality within their power to exercise
justice and mercy, which, if adhered to, they cannot doubt must
produce the abolition of the slave trade. If then the prayer contained
nothing unconstitutional, he trusted the meritorious effort would not
be frustrated. With respect to the alarm that was apprehended, he
conjectured there was none; but there might be just cause, if the
memorial was not taken into consideration. He placed himself in the
case of a slave, and said, that on hearing that Congress had refused
to listen to the decent suggestions of a respectable part of the
community, he should infer, that the general government (from which
was expected great good would result to every class of citizens) had
shut their ears against the voice of humanity, and he should despair
of any alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in
prospect; if anything could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke
like this, impressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. But if
he was told, that application was made in his behalf and that Congress
were willing to hear what could be urged in favor of discouraging the
practice of importing his fellow-wretches, he would trust in their
justice and humanity, and wait the decision patiently. He presumed
that these unfortunate people would reason in the same way; and he,
therefore, conceived the most likely way to prevent danger, was to
commit the petition. He lived in a State which had the misfortune of
having in her bosom a great number of slaves, he held many of them
himself, and was as much interested in the business, he believed, as
any gentleman in South Carolina or Georgia, yet, if he was determined
to hold them in eternal bondage, he should feel no uneasiness or alarm
on account of the present measure, because he should rely upon the
virtue of Congress, that they would not exercise any unconstitutional
authority.

Mr. MADISON (of Va.) The debate has taken a serious turn, and it will
be owing to this alone if an alarm is created; for had the memorial
been treated in the usual way, it would have been considered as a
matter of course, and a report might have been made, so as to have
given general satisfaction.

If there was the slightest tendency by the commitment to break in upon
the Constitution, he would object to it; but he did not see upon what
ground such an event was to be apprehended. The petition prayed, in
general terms, for the interference of Congress, so far as they were
constitutionally authorized; but even if its prayer was, in some
degree, unconstitutional, it might be committed, as was the case on
Mr. Churchman's petition, one part of which was supposed to apply for
an unconstitutional interference by the general government.

He admitted that Congress was restricted by the Constitution from
taking measures to abolish the slave trade; yet there were a variety
of ways by which they could countenance the abolition, and they might
make some regulations respecting the introduction of them into the new
States, to be formed out of the Western Territory, different from what
they could in the old settled States. He thought the object well
worthy of consideration.

Mr. GERRY (of Mass.) thought the interference of Congress fully
compatible with the Constitution, and could not help lamenting the
miseries to which the natives of Africa were exposed by this inhuman
commerce; and said that he never contemplated the subject, without
reflecting what his own feelings would be, in case himself, his
children, or friends, were placed in the same deplorable
circumstances. He then adverted to the flagrant acts of cruelty which
are committed in carrying on that traffic; and asked whether it can be
supposed, that Congress has no power to prevent such transactions? He
then referred to the Constitution, and pointed out the restrictions
laid on the general government respecting the importation of slaves.
It was not, he presumed, in the contemplation of any gentleman in this
house to violate that part of the Constitution; but that we have a
right to regulate this business, is as clear as that we have any
rights whatever; nor has the contrary been shown by any person who has
spoken on the occasion. Congress can, agreeable to the Constitution,
lay a duty of ten dollars on imported slaves; they may do this
immediately. He made a calculation of the value of the slaves in the
Southern States, and supposed they might be worth ten millions of
dollars; Congress have a right, if they see proper, to make a proposal
to the Southern States to purchase the whole of them, and their
resources in the Western Territory may furnish them with means. He did
not intend to suggest a measure of this kind, he only instanced these
particulars, to show that Congress certainly have a right to
intermeddle in the business. He thought that no objection had been
offered, of any force, to prevent the commitment of the memorial.

Mr. BOUDINOT (of N.J.) had carefully examined the petition, and found
nothing like what was complained of by gentlemen, contained in it; he,
therefore, hoped they would withdraw their opposition, and suffer it
to be committed.

Mr. SMITH (of S.C.) said, that as the petitioners had particularly
prayed Congress to take measures for the annihilation of the slave
trade, and that was admitted on all hands to be beyond their power,
and as the petitioners would not be gratified by a tax of ten dollars
per head, which was all that was within their power, there was, of
consequence, no occasion for committing it.

Mr. STONE (of Md.) thought this memorial a thing of course; for there
never was a society, of any considerable extent, which did not
interfere with the concerns of other people, and this kind of
interference, whenever it has happened, has never failed to deluge the
country in blood: on this principle he was opposed to the commitment.

The question on the commitment being about to be put, the yeas and
nays were called for, and are as follows:--

Yeas.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Brown, Cadwallader, Clymer,
Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gale, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Griffin,
Grout, Hartley, Hathorne, Heister, Huntington, Lawrance, Lee, Leonard,
Livermore, Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Parker, Partridge,
Renssellaer, Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Sinnickson,
Smith of Maryland, Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, Wadsworth, White, and
Wynkoop--93.

Noes.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Bourke, Coles, Huger, Jackson, Mathews,
Sylvester, Smith of S.C., Stone, and Tucker--11.

Whereupon it was determined in the affirmative; and on motion, the
petition of the Society of Friends, at New York, and the memorial from
the Pennsylvania Society, for the abolition of slavery, were also
referred to a committee.



_Debate on Committee's Report, March 1790._

ELIOT'S DEBATES.

Mr. TUCKER moved to modify the first paragraph by striking out all the
words after the word opinion, and to insert the following: that the
several memorials proposed to the consideration of this house, a
subject on which its interference would be unconstitutional, and even
its deliberations highly injurious to some of the States in the Union.

Mr. JACKSON rose and observed, that he had been silent on the subject
of the reports coming before the committee, because he wished the
principles of the resolutions to be examined fairly, and to be decided
on their true grounds. He was against the propositions generally, and
would examine the policy, the justice and the use of them, and he
hoped, if he could make them appear in the same light to others as
they did to him by fair argument, that the gentlemen in opposition
were not so determined in their opinions as not to give up their
present sentiments.

With respect to the policy of the measure, the situation of the slaves
here, their situation in their native States, and the disposal of them
in case of emancipation, should be considered. That slavery was an
evil habit, he did not mean to controvert; but that habit was already
established, and there were peculiar situations in countries which
rendered that habit necessary. Such situations the States of South
Carolina and Georgia were in--large tracts of the most fertile lands
on the continent remained uncultivated for the want of population. It
was frequently advanced on the floor of Congress, how unhealthy those
climates were, and how impossible it was for northern constitutions to
exist there. What, he asked, is to be done with this uncultivated
territory? Is it to remain a waste? Is the rice trade to be banished
from our coasts? Are Congress willing to deprive themselves of the
revenue arising from that trade, and which is daily increasing, and to
throw this great advantage into the hands of other countries?

Let us examine the use or the benefit of the resolutions contained in
the report. I call upon gentlemen to give me one single instance in
which they can be of service. They are of no use to Congress. The
powers of that body are already defined, and those powers cannot be
amended, confirmed or diminished by ten thousand resolutions. Is not
the first proposition of the report fully contained in the
Constitution? Is not that the guide and rule of this legislature. A
multiplicity of laws is reprobated in any society, and tend but to
confound and perplex. How strange would a law appear which was to
confirm a law; and how much more strange must it appear for this body
to pass resolutions to confirm the Constitution under which they sit!
This is the case with others of the resolutions.

A gentleman from Maryland (Mr. STONE,) very properly observed, that
the Union had received the different States with all their ill habits
about them. This was one of these habits established long before the
Constitution, and could not now be remedied. He begged Congress to
reflect on the number on the continent who were opposed to this
Constitution, and on the number which yet remained in the Southern
States. The violation of this compact they would seize on with
avidity; they would make a handle of it to cover their designs against
the government, and many good federalists, who would be injured by the
measure, would be induced to join them: his heart was truly federal,
and it always had been so, and he wished those designs frustrated. He
begged Congress to beware before they went too far: he called on them
to attend to the interests of two whole States, as well as to the
memorials of a society of Quakers, who came forward to blow the
trumpet of sedition, and to destroy that Constitution which they had
not in the least contributed by personal service or supply to
establish.

He seconded Mr. TUCKER'S motion.

Mr. SMITH (of S.C.) said, the gentlemen from Massachusetts, (Mr.
GERRY,) had declared that it was the opinion of the select committee,
of which he was a member, that the memorial of the Pennsylvania
society, required Congress to violate the Constitution. It was not
less astonishing to see Dr. FRANKLIN taking the lead in a business
which looks so much like a persecution of the Southern inhabitants,
when he recollected the parable he had written some time ago, with a
view of showing the impropriety of one set of men persecuting others
for a difference of opinion. The parable was to this effect: an old
traveller, hungry and weary, applied to the patriarch Abraham for a
night's lodging. In conversation, Abraham discovered that the stranger
differed with him on religious points, and turned him out of doors. In
the night God appeared unto Abraham, and said, where is the stranger?
Abraham answered, I found that he did not worship the true God, and so
I turned him out of doors. The Almighty thus rebuked the patriarch:
Have I borne with him three-score and ten years, and couldst thou not
bear with him one night? Has the Almighty, said Mr. SMITH, borne with
us for more than three-score years and ten: he has even made our
country opulent, and shed the blessings of affluence and prosperity on
our land, notwithstanding all its slaves, and must we now be ruined on
account of the tender consciences of a few scrupulous individuals who
differ from us on this point?

Mr. BOUDINOT agreed with the general doctrines of Mr. S., but could
not agree that the clause in the Constitution relating to the want of
power in Congress to prohibit the importation of such persons as any
of the States, _now existing_, shall think proper to admit, prior to
the year 1808, and authorizing a tax or duty on such importation not
exceeding ten dollars for each person, did not extend to negro slaves.
Candor required that he should acknowledge that this was the express
design of the Constitution, and therefore Congress could not interfere
in prohibiting the importation or promoting the emancipation of them,
prior to that period. Mr. BOUDINOT observed, that he was well informed
that the tax or duty of ten dollars was provided, instead of the five
per cent ad valorem, and was so expressly understood by all parties in
the Convention; that therefore it was the interest and duty of
Congress to impose this tax, or it would not be doing justice to the
States, or equalizing the duties throughout the Union. If this was not
done, merchants might bring their whole capitals into this branch of
trade, and save paying any duties whatever. Mr. BOUDINOT observed,
that the gentleman had overlooked the prophecy of St. Peter, where he
foretells that among other damnable heresies, "Through covetousness
shall they with feigned words make merchandize of you."

[NOTE.--This petition, with others of a similar object, was committed
to a select committee; that committee made a report; the report was
referred to a committee of the whole House, and discussed on four
successive days; it was then reported to the House with amendments,
and by the House ordered to be inscribed in its Journals, and then
laid on the table.

That report, as amended in committee, is in the following words:

The committee to whom were referred sundry memorials from the people
called Quakers, and also a memorial from the Pennsylvania Society for
promoting the abolition of slavery, submit the following report, (as
amended in committee of the whole.)

"First: That the migration or importation of such persons as any of
the States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be
prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808."

"Secondly: That Congress have no power to interfere in the
emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within any of the
States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any
regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require."

"Thirdly: That Congress have authority to restrain the citizens of the
United States from carrying on the African Slave trade, for the
purpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing by
proper regulations for the humane treatment, during their passage, of
slaves imported by the said citizens into the States admitting such
importations."

"Fourthly: That Congress have also authority to prohibit foreigners
from fitting out vessels in any part of the United States for
transporting persons from Africa to any foreign port."]



ADDRESS

OF THE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

OF

THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY

TO THE

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:

1. 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 hail
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
villainy that the sun has witnessed in his circuit, since God said,
"Let there be light." It assumes that to be practicable, which is
impossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union with
injustice, and safety with bloodguiltiness. 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 possess? _Why cling to the
falsehood, that they were no 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[9] who was a prominent member of that body:

[Footnote 9: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.]


"The Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion to 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 their turn, _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--

"It was said that we had just assumed a place among 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
scarcely had risen from our knees, from supplicating his aid 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
putting it out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade,
even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States
power and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly and
wantonly sport 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 then 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 it ought to be considered 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 sanction, and encouragement,
ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and
vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal
eye the poor _African slave_ and his _American master_![10]

[Footnote 10: How terribly and justly has this guilty nation been
scourged, since these words were spoken, on account of slavery and the
slave trade!]


"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 rather 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 which are 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 us 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; that, from this consideration, it was
of the utmost importance it should have a power to restrain the
importation of slaves, since in proportion as the number of slaves
were increased in any State, in the same proportion the State is
weakened and exposed to foreign invasion or domestic insurrection; and
by so much less will it be able to protect itself against either, and
therefore will by so much the more, want aid from, and be a burden to,
the Union.

"It was further said, that, as in this system, we were giving the
general government a 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
should prohibit the government from interfering with the slave trade,
than which nothing could so materially affect both our national honor
and interest.

"These reasons influenced me, both on the committee and in convention,
most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as it now makes
a part of the system."[11]

[Footnote 11: 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 chose to do evil that good might
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, and 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 be _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 all the 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 burthens 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 imagine
or foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden under the mask of
this concession.'--'The House of Representatives of the U. 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 member 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 ascendancy 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 4, 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
stoodst 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 saith 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 any of 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, 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.' THIS CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED TO
ENABLE 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 interpose 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 all the other
inhabitants are at the mercy of prowling kidnappers, because there are
multitudes of white as well as black slaves on Southern plantations,
and slavery is no longer fastidious with regard to the color of its
prey.

As soon as that appalling decision of the Supreme Court was
enunciated, in the name of the Constitution, the people of the North
should have risen _en masse_, if for no other cause, and declared the
Union at an end; and they would have done so, if they had not lost
their manhood, and their reverence for justice and liberty.

In the 4th Sect. of Art. IV., the United States guarantee to protect
every State in the Union "against _domestic violence_." By the 8th
Section of Article I., Congress is empowered "to provide for calling
forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, _suppress
insurrections_, and repel invasions." These provisions, however
strictly they may apply to cases of disturbance among the white
population, were adopted with special reference to the slave
population, for the purpose of keeping them in their chains by the
combined military force of the country; and were these repealed, and
the South left to manage her slaves as best she could, a servile
insurrection would ere long be the consequence, as general as it would
unquestionably be successful. Says Mr. Madison, respecting these
clauses:--

"On application of the legislature or executive, as the case may be,
the militia of the other States are to be called to suppress domestic
insurrections. Does this bar the States from calling forth their own
militia? No; but it gives them a _supplementary_ security to suppress
insurrections and domestic violence."

The answer to Patrick Henry's objection, as urged against the
Constitution in the Virginia convention, that there was no power left
to the _States_ to quell an insurrection of slaves, as it was wholly
vested in Congress, George Nicholas asked:--

"Have they it now? If they have, does the constitution take it away?
If it does, it must be in one of the three clauses which have been
mentioned by the worthy member. The first clause gives the general
government power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it
away from the States? No! but it _gives an additional security_; for,
beside the power in the State governments to use their own militia, it
will be _the duty of the general government_ to aid them WITH THE
STRENGTH OF THE UNION, when called for."

This solemn guaranty of security to the slave system, caps the climax
of national barbarity, and stains with human blood the garments of all
the people. In consequence of it, that system has multiplied its
victims from seven hundred thousand to nearly three millions--a vast
amount of territory has been purchased, in order to give it extension
and perpetuity--several new slave States have been admitted into the
Union--the slave trade has been made one of the great branches of
American commerce--the slave population, though over-worked, starved,
lacerated, branded, maimed, and subjected to every form of deprivation
and every species of torture, have been overawed and crushed,--or,
whenever they have attempted to gain their liberty by revolt, they
have been shot down and quelled by the strong arm of the national
government; as, for example, in the case of Nat Turner's insurrection
in Virginia, when the naval and military forces of the government were
called into active service. Cuban bloodhounds have been purchased with
the money of the people, and imported and used to hunt slave fugitives
among the everglades of Florida. A merciless warfare has been waged
for the extermination or expulsion of the Florida Indians, because
they gave succor to these poor hunted fugitives--a warfare which has
cost the nation several thousand lives, and forty millions of dollars.
But the catalogue of enormities is too long to be recapitulated in the
present address.

We have thus demonstrated that the compact between the North and the
South embraces every variety of wrong and outrage,--is at war with God
and man, cannot be innocently supported, and deserves to be
immediately annulled. In behalf of the Society which we represent, we
call upon all our fellow-citizens, who believe it is right to obey God
rather than man, to declare themselves peaceful revolutionists, and to
unite with us under the stainless banner of Liberty, having for its
motto--"EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL--NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS!"

It is pleaded that the Constitution provides for its own amendment;
and we ought to use the elective franchise to effect this object.
True, there is such a proviso; but, until the amendment be made, that
instrument is binding as it stands. Is it not to violate every moral
instinct, and to sacrifice principle to expediency, to argue that we
may swear to steal, oppress and murder by wholesale, because it may be
necessary to do so only for the time being, and because there is some
remote probability that the instrument which requires that we should
be robbers, oppressors and murderers, may at some future day be
amended in these particulars? Let us not palter with our consciences
in this manner--let us not deny that the compact was conceived in sin
and brought forth in iniquity--let us not be so dishonest, even to
promote a good object, as to interpret the Constitution in a manner
utterly at variance with the intentions and arrangements of the
contracting parties; but, confessing the guilt of the nation,
acknowledging the dreadful specifications in the bond, washing our
hands in the waters of repentance from all further participation in
this criminal alliance, and resolving that we will sustain none other
than a free and righteous government, let us glory in the name of
revolutionists, unfurl the banner of disunion, and consecrate our
talents and means to the overthrow of all that is tyrannical in the
land,--to the establishment of all that is free, just, true and
holy,--to the triumph of universal love and peace. If, in utter
disregard of the historical facts which have been cited, it is still
asserted, that the Constitution needs no amendment to make it a free
instrument, adapted to all the exigencies of a free people, and was
never intended to give any strength or countenance to the slave
system--the indignant spirit of insulted Liberty replies;--"What
though the assertion be true? Of what avail is a mere piece of
parchment? In itself, though it be written all over with words of
truth and freedom--Though its provisions be as impartial and just as
words can express, or the imagination paint--though it be as pure as
the Gospel, and breathe only the spirit of Heaven--it is powerless; it
has no executive vitality: it is a lifeless corpse, even though
beautiful in death. I am famishing for lack of bread! How is my
appetite relieved by holding up to my gaze a painted loaf? I am
manacled, wounded, bleeding, dying! What consolation is it to know,
that they who are seeking to destroy my life, profess in words to be
my friends?" If the liberties of the people have been betrayed--if
judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off, and
truth has fallen in the streets, and equity cannot enter--if the
princes of the land are roaring lions, the judges evening wolves, the
people light and treacherous persons, the priests covered with
pollution--if we are living under a frightful despotism, which scoffs
at all constitutional restraints, and wields the resources of the
nation to promote its own bloody purposes--tell us not that the forms
of freedom are still left to us! "Would such tameness and submission
have freighted the May-Flower for Plymouth Rock? Would it have
resisted the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, or any of those entering wedges
of tyranny with which the British government sought to rive the
liberties of America? The wheel of the Revolution would have rusted on
its axle, if a spirit so weak had been the only power to give it
motion. Did our fathers say, when their rights and liberties were
infringed--"_Why, what is done cannot be undone_. That is the first
thought." No, it was the last thing they thought of: or, rather, it
never entered their minds at all. They sprang to the conclusion at
once--"_What is done_ SHALL _be undone_. That is our FIRST and ONLY
thought."

  "Is water running in our veins? Do we remember still Old Plymouth
  Rock, and Lexington, and famous Bunker Hill? The debt we owe our
  fathers' graves? and to the yet unborn, Whose heritage ourselves must
  make a thing of pride or scorn?

  Gray Plymouth Rock hath yet a tongue, and Concord is not dumb; And
  voices from our fathers' graves and from the future come: They call on
  us to stand our ground--they charge us still to be Not only free from
  chains ourselves, but foremost to make free!"

It is of little consequence who is on the throne, if there be behind
it a power mightier than the throne. It matters not what is the theory
of the government, if the practice of the government be unjust and
tyrannical. We rise in rebellion against a despotism incomparably more
dreadful than that which induced the colonists to take up arms against
the mother country; not on account of a three-penny tax on tea, but
because fetters of living iron are fastened on the limbs of millions
of our countrymen, and our most sacred rights are trampled in the
dust. As citizens of the State, we appeal to the State in vain for
protection and redress. As citizens of the United States, we are
treated as outlaws in one half of the country, and the national
government consents to our destruction. We are denied the right of
locomotion, freedom of speech, the right of petition, the liberty of
the press, the right peaceably to assemble together to protest against
oppression and plead for liberty--at least in thirteen States of the
Union. If we venture, as avowed and unflinching abolitionists, to
travel South of Mason and Dixon's line, we do so at the peril of our
lives. If we would escape torture and death, on visiting any of the
slave States, we must stifle our conscientious convictions, bear no
testimony against cruelty and tyranny, suppress the struggling
emotions of humanity, divest ourselves of all letters and papers
of an anti-slavery character, and do homage to the slaveholding
power--or run the risk of a cruel martyrdom! These are appalling
and undeniable facts. Three millions of the American people are
crushed under the American Union! They are held as slaves--trafficked
as merchandise--registered as goods and chattels! The government gives
them no protection--the government is their enemy--the government
keeps them in chains! There they lie bleeding--we are prostrate by
their side--in their sorrows and sufferings we participate--their
stripes are inflicted on our bodies, their shackles are fastened on
our limbs, their cause is ours! The Union which grinds them to the
dust rests upon us, and with them we will struggle to overthrow it!
The Constitution, which subjects them to hopeless bondage, is one that
we cannot swear to support! Our motto is, "NO UNION WITH
SLAVEHOLDERS," either religious or political. They are the fiercest
enemies of mankind, and the bitterest foes of God! We separate from
them not in anger, not in malice, not for a selfish purpose, not to do
them an injury, not to cease warning, exhorting, reproving them for
their crimes, not to leave the perishing bondman to his fate--O no!
But to clear our skirts of innocent blood--to give the oppressor no
countenance--to signify our abhorrence of injustice and cruelty--to
testify against an ungodly compact--to cease striking hands with
thieves and consenting with adulterers--to make no compromise with
tyranny--to walk worthily of our high profession--to increase our
moral power over the nation--to obey God and vindicate the Gospel of
his Son--to hasten the downfall of slavery in America, and throughout
the world!

We are not acting under a blind impulse. We have carefully counted the
cost of this warfare, and are prepared to meet its consequences. It
will subject us to reproach, persecution, infamy--it will prove a
fiery ordeal to all who shall pass through it--it may cost us our
lives. We shall be ridiculed as fools, scorned as visionaries, branded
as disorganizers, reviled as madmen, threatened and perhaps punished
as traitors. But we shall bide our time. Whether safety or peril,
whether victory or defeat, whether life or death be ours, believing
that our feet are planted on an eternal foundation, that our position
is sublime and glorious, that our faith in God is rational and
steadfast, that we have exceeding great and precious promises on which
to rely, THAT WE ARE IN THE RIGHT, we shall not falter nor be
dismayed, "though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be
carried into the midst of the sea,"--though our ranks be thinned to
the number of "three hundred men." Freemen! are you ready for the
conflict? Come what may, will you sever the chain that binds you to a
slaveholding government, and declare your independence? Up, then, with
the banner of revolution! Not to shed blood--not to injure the person
or estate of any oppressor--not by force and arms to resist any
law--not to countenance a servile insurrection--not to wield any
carnal weapons! No--ours must be a bloodless strife, excepting _our_
blood be shed--for we aim, as did Christ our leader, not to destroy
men's lives, but to save them--to overcome evil with good--to conquer
through suffering for righteousness' sake--to set the captive free by
the potency of truth!

Secede, then, from the government. Submit to its exactions, but pay
it no allegiance, and give it no voluntary aid. Fill no offices under
it. Send no senators or representatives to the National or State
legislature; for what you cannot conscientiously perform yourself, you
cannot ask another to perform as your agent. Circulate a declaration
of DISUNION FROM SLAVEHOLDERS, throughout the country. Hold mass
meetings--assemble in conventions--nail your banners to the mast!

Do you ask what can be done, if you abandon the ballot box? What did
the crucified Nazarene do without the elective franchise? What did
the apostles do? What did the glorious army of martyrs and confessors
do? What did Luther and his intrepid associates do? What can women
and children do? What has Father Matthew done for teetotalism? What
has Daniel O'Connell done for Irish repeal? "Stand, having your loins
girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate of
righteousness," and arrayed in the whole armor of God!

The form of government that shall succeed the present government of
the United States, let time determine. It would he a waste of time to
argue that question, until the people are regenerated and turned from
their iniquity. Ours is no anarchical movement, but one of order and
obedience. In ceasing from oppression, we establish liberty. What is
now fragmentary, shall in due time be crystallized, and shine like a
gem set in the heavens, for a light to all coming ages.

Finally--we believe that the effect of this movement will be,--First,
to create discussion and agitation throughout the North; and these
will lead to a general perception of its grandeur and importance.

Secondly, to convulse the slumbering South like an earthquake, and
convince her that her only alternative is, to abolish slavery, or be
abandoned by that power on which she now relies for safety.

Thirdly, to attack the slave power in its most vulnerable point, and
to carry the battle to the gate.

Fourthly, to exalt the moral sense, increase the moral power, and
invigorate the moral constitution of all who heartily espouse it.

We reverently believe that, in withdrawing from the American Union, we
have the God of justice with us. We know that we have our enslaved
countrymen with us. We are confident that all free hearts will be
with us. We are certain that tyrants and their abettors will be
against us.

In behalf of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery
Society,

WM. LLOYD GARRISON, _President_.

WENDELL PHILLIPS,     }_Secretaries_.
MARIA WESTON CHAPMAN, }

Boston, May 20, 1844.



LETTER FROM FRANCIS JACKSON.

BOSTON, 4th July, 1844.

_To His Excellency George N. Briggs:_

SIR--Many years since, I received from the Executive of the
Commonwealth a commission as Justice of the Peace. I have held the
office that it conferred upon me till the present time, and have found
it a convenience to myself, and others. It might continue to be so,
could I consent longer to hold it. But paramount considerations
forbid, and I herewith transmit to you my commission, respectfully
asking you to accept my resignation.

While I deem it a duty to myself to take this step, I feel called on
to state the reasons that influence me.

In entering upon the duties of the office in question, I complied with
the requirements of the law, by taking an oath "_to support the
Constitution of the United States_." I regret that I ever took that
oath. Had I then as maturely considered its full import, and the
obligations under which it is understood, and meant to lay those who
take it, as I have done since, I certainly never would have taken it,
seeing, as I now do, that the Constitution of the United States
contains provisions calculated and intended to foster, cherish, uphold
and perpetuate _slavery_. It pledges the country to guard and protect
the slave system so long as the slaveholding States choose to retain
it. It regards the slave code as lawful in the States which enact it.
Still more, "it has done that, which, until its adoption, was never
before done for African slavery. It took it out of its former category
of municipal law and local life; adopted it as a national institution,
spread around it the broad and sufficient shield of national law, and
thus gave to slavery a national existence." Consequently, the oath to
support the Constitution of the United States is a solemn promise to
do that which is morally wrong; that which is a violation of the
natural rights of man, and a sin in the sight of God.

I am not in this matter, constituting myself a judge of others. I do
not say that no honest man can take such an oath, and abide by it. I
only say, that _I_ would not now deliberately take it; and that,
having inconsiderately taken it; I can no longer suffer it to lie upon
my soul. I take back the oath, and ask you, sir, to receive back the
commission, which was the occasion of my taking it.

I am aware that my course in this matter is liable to be regarded as
singular, if not censurable; and I must, therefore, be allowed to make
a more specific statement of those _provisions of the Constitution_
which support the enormous wrong, the heinous sin of slavery.

The very first Article of the Constitution takes slavery at once under
its legislative protection, as a basis of representation in the
popular branch of the National Legislature. It regards slaves under
the description "of all other _persons_"--as of only three-fifths of
the value of free persons; thus to appearance undervaluing them in
comparison with freemen. But its dark and involved phraseology seems
intended to blind us to the consideration, that those underrated
slaves are merely a _basis_, not the _source_ of representation; that
by the laws of all the States where they live, they are regarded not
as _persons_, but as _things_; that they are not the _constituency_ of
the representative, but his property; and that the necessary effect of
this provision of the Constitution is, to take legislative power out
of the hands of _men_, as such, and give it to the mere possessors of
goods and chattels. Fixing upon thirty thousand persons, as the
smallest number that shall send one member into the House of
Representatives, it protects slavery by distributing legislative power
in a free and in a slave State thus: To a congressional district in
South Carolina, containing fifty thousand slaves, claimed as the
property of five hundred whites, who hold, on an average, one hundred
apiece, it gives one Representative in Congress; to a district in
Massachusetts containing a population of thirty thousand five hundred,
one Representative is assigned. But inasmuch as a slave is never
permitted to vote, the fifty thousand persons in a district in
Carolina form no part of "the constituency;" _that_ is found only in
the five hundred free persons. Five hundred freemen of Carolina could
send one Representative to Congress, while it would take thirty
thousand five hundred freemen of Massachusetts, to do the same thing:
that is, one slaveholder in Carolina is clothed by the Constitution
with the same political power and influence in the Representatives
Hall at Washington, as sixty Massachusetts men like you and me, who
"eat their bread in the sweat of their own brows."

According to the census of 1830, and the _ratio_ of representation
based upon that, slave property added twenty-five members to the House
of Representatives. And as it has been estimated, (as an
approximation to the truth,) that the two and a half million slaves in
the United States are held as property by about two hundred and fifty
thousand persons--giving an average of ten slaves to each slaveholder,
those twenty-five Representatives, each chosen, at most by only ten
thousand voters, and probably by less than three-fourths of that
number, were the representatives not only of the two hundred and fifty
thousand persons who chose them, but of property which, five years
ago, when slaves were lower in market, than at present, were
estimated, by the man who is now the most prominent candidate for the
Presidency, at twelve hundred millions of dollars--a sum, which, by
the natural increase of five years, and the enhanced value resulting
from a more prosperous state of the planting interest, cannot now be
less than fifteen hundred millions of dollars. All this vast amount of
property, as it is "peculiar," is also identical in its character. In
Congress, as we have seen, it is animated by one spirit, moves in one
mass, and is wielded with one aim; and when we consider that tyranny
is always timid, and despotism distrustful, we see that this vast
money power would be false to itself, did it not direct all its eyes
and hands, and put forth all its ingenuity and energy, to one
end--self-protection and self-perpetuation. And this it has ever done.
In all the vibrations of the political scale, whether in relation to a
Bank or Sub-Treasury, Free Trade or a Tariff, this immense power has
moved, and will continue to move, in one mass, for its own protection.

While the weight of the slave influence is thus felt in the House of
Representatives, "in the Senate of the Union," says JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,
"the proportion of slaveholding power is still 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
fifty-two members of the federal Senate, twenty-six are owners of
slaves, and are as effectually representatives of that interest, as
the eighty-eight members elected by them to the House"

The dominant power which the Constitution gives to the slave interest,
as thus seen and exercised in the _Legislative Halls_ of our nation,
is equally obvious and obtrusive in every other department of the
National government.

In the _Electoral colleges_, the same cause produces the same
effect--the same power is wielded for the same purpose, as in the
Halls of Congress. Even the preliminary nominating conventions, before
they dare name a candidate for the highest office in the gift of the
people, must ask of the Genius of slavery, to what votary she will
show herself propitious. This very year, we see both the great
political parties doing homage to the slave power, by nominating each
a slaveholder for the chair of State. The candidate of one party
declares, "I should have opposed, and would continue to oppose, any
scheme whatever of emancipation, either gradual or immediate;" and
adds, "It is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, that either
of the two great parties of this country has any design or aim at
abolition. I should deeply lament it, if it were true."[12]

[Footnote 12: Henry Clay's speech in the United States Senate in 1839,
and confirmed at Raleigh, N.C. 1844.]


The other party nominates a man who says, "I have no hesitation in
declaring that I am in favor of the immediate re-annexation of Texas
to the territory and government of the United States."

Thus both the political parties, and the candidates of both, vie with
each other, in offering allegiance to the slave power, as a condition
precedent to any hope of success in the struggle for the executive
chair; a seat that, for more than three-fourths of the existence of
our constitutional government, has been occupied by a slaveholder.

The same stern despotism overshadows even the sanctuaries of
_justice_. Of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United
States, five are slaveholders, and of course, must be faithless to
their own interest, as well as recreant to the power that gives them
place, or must, so far as _they_ are concerned, give both to law and
constitution such a construction as shall justify the language of John
Quincy Adams, when he says--"The legislative, executive, and judicial
authorities, are all in their hands--for 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."

Thus by merely adverting but briefly to the theory and the practical
effect of this clause of the Constitution, that I have sworn to
support, it is seen that it throws the political power of the nation
into the hands of the slaveholders; a body of men, which, however it
may be regarded by the Constitution as "persons," is in fact and
practical effect, a vast moneyed corporation, bound together by an
indissoluble unity of interest, by a common sense of a common danger;
counselling at all times for its common protection; wielding the whole
power, and controlling the destiny of the nation.

If we look into the legislative halls, slavery is seen in the chair of
the presiding officer of each; and controlling the action of both.
Slavery occupies, by prescriptive right, the Presidential chair. The
paramount voice that comes from the temple of national justice, issues
from the lips of slavery. The army is in the hands of slavery, and at
her bidding, must encamp in the everglades of Florida, or march from
the Missouri to the borders of Mexico, to look after her interests in
Texas.

The navy, even that part that is cruising off the coast of Africa, to
suppress the foreign slave trade, is in the hands of slavery.

Freemen of the North, who have even dared to lift up their voice
against slavery, cannot travel through the slave States, but at the
peril of their lives.

The representatives of freemen are forbidden, on the floor of
Congress, to remonstrate against the encroachments of slavery, or to
pray that she would let her poor victims go.

I renounce my allegiance to a Constitution that enthrones such a
power, wielded for the purpose of depriving me of my rights, of
robbing my countrymen of their liberties, and of securing its own
protection, support and perpetuation.

Passing by that clause of the Constitution, which restricted Congress
for twenty years, from passing any law against the African slave
trade, and which gave authority to raise a revenue on the stolen sons
of Africa, I come to that part of the fourth article, which guarantees
protection against "_domestic violence_," which pledges to the South
the military force of the country, to protect the masters against
their insurgent slaves, and binds us, and our children, to shoot down
our fellow-countrymen, who may rise, in emulation of our revolutionary
fathers, to vindicate their inalienable "right to life, _liberty_, and
the pursuit of happiness,"--this clause of the Constitution, I say
distinctly, I never will support.

That part of the Constitution which provides for the surrender of
fugitive slaves, I never have supported and never will. I will join in
no slave-hunt. My door shall stand open, as it has long stood, for the
panting and trembling victim of the slave-hunter. When I shut it
against him, may God shut the door of his mercy against me! Under this
clause of the Constitution, and designed to carry it into effect,
slavery has demanded that laws should be passed, and of such a
character, as have left the free citizen of the North without
protection for his own liberty. The question, whether a man seized in
a free State as a slave, _is_ a slave or not, the law of Congress does
not allow a jury to determine: but refers it to the decision of a
Judge of a United States' Court, or even of the humblest State
magistrate, it may be, upon the testimony or affidavit of the party
most deeply interested to support the claim. By virtue of this law,
freemen have been seized and dragged into perpetual slavery--and
should I be seized by a slave-hunter in any part of the country where
I am not personally known, neither the Constitution nor laws of the
United States would shield me from the same destiny.

These, sir, are the specific parts of the Constitution of the United
States, which in my opinion are essentially vicious, hostile at once
to the liberty and to the morals of the nation. And these are the
principal reasons of my refusal any longer to acknowledge my
allegiance to it, and of my determination to revoke my oath to support
it. I cannot, in order to keep the law of man, break the law of God,
or solemnly call him to witness my promise that I will break it.

It is true that the Constitution provides for its own amendment, and
that by this process, all the guarantees of Slavery may be expunged.
But it will be time enough to swear to support it when this is done.
It cannot be right to do so, until these amendments are made.

It is also true that the framers of the Constitution did studiously
keep the words "Slave" and "Slavery" from its face. But to do our
constitutional fathers justice, while they forebore--from very
shame--to give the word "Slavery" a place in the Constitution, they
did not forbear--again to do them justice--to give place in it to the
_thing_. They were careful to wrap up the idea, and the substance of
Slavery, in the clause for the surrender of the fugitive, though they
sacrificed justice in doing so.

There is abundant evidence that this clause touching "persons held to
service or labor," not only operates practically, under the Judicial
construction, for the protection of the slave interest; but that it
was _intended_ so to operate by the farmers of the Constitution. The
highest Judicial authorities--Chief Justice SHAW, of the Supreme Court
of Massachusetts, in the LATIMER case, and Mr. Justice STORY, in the
Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of _Prigg_ vs. _The
State of Pennsylvania_,--tell us, I know not on what evidence, that
without this "compromise," this security for Southern slaveholders,
"the Union could not have been formed." And there is still higher
evidence, not only that the framers of the Constitution meant by this
clause to protect slavery, but that they did this, knowing that
slavery was wrong. Mr. MADISON[13] informs us that the clause in
question, as it came of the hands of Dr. JOHNSON, the chairman of the
"committee on style," read thus: "No person legally held to service,
or labor, in one State, escaping into another, shall," &c. and that
the word "legally" was struck out, and the words "under the laws
thereof" inserted after the word "State," in compliance with the wish
of some, who thought the term _legal_ equivocal, and favoring the idea
that slavery was legal "_in a moral view_." A conclusive proof that,
although future generations might apply that clause to other kinds of
"service or labor," when slavery should have died out, or been killed
off by the young spirit of liberty, which was _then_ awake and at work
in the land; still, slavery was what they were wrapping up in
"equivocal" words; and wrapping it up for its protection and safe
keeping: a conclusive proof that the framers of the Constitution were
more careful to protect themselves in the judgment of coming
generations, from the charge of ignorance, than of sin; a conclusive
proof that they knew that slavery was _not_ "legal in a moral view,"
that it was a violation of the moral law of God; and yet knowing and
confessing its immorality, they dared to make this stipulation for its
support and defence.

[Footnote 13: Madison Papers, p. 1589.]


This language may sound harsh to the ears of those who think it a part
of their duty, as citizens, to maintain that whatever the patriots of
the Revolution did, was right; and who hold that we are bound to _do_
all the iniquity that they covenanted for us that we _should_ do. But
the claims of truth and right are paramount to all other claims.

With all our veneration for our constitutional fathers, we must
admit,--for they have left on record their own confession of it,--that
in this part of their work they _intended_ to hold the shield of their
protection over a wrong, knowing that it was a wrong. They made a
"compromise" which they had no right to make--a compromise of moral
principle for the sake of what they probably regarded as "political
expediency." I am sure they did not know--no man could know, or can
now measure, the extent, or the consequences of the wrong that they
were doing. In the strong language of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,[14] in
relation to the article fixing the basis of representation, "Little
did the members of the Convention, from the free States, imagine or
foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden under the mask of this
concession."

[Footnote 14: See his Report on the Massachusetts Resolutions.]


I verily believe that, giving all due consideration to the benefits
conferred upon this nation by the Constitution, its national unity,
its swelling masses of wealth, its power, and the external prosperity
of its multiplying millions; yet the moral injury that has been done,
by the countenance shown to slavery; by holding over that tremendous
sin the shield of the Constitution, and thus breaking down in the eyes
of the nation the barrier between right and wrong; by so tenderly
cherishing slavery as, in less than the life of a man, to multiply her
children from half a million to nearly three millions; by enacting
oaths from those who occupy prominent stations in society, that they
will violate at once the rights of man and the law of God; by
substituting itself as a rule of right, in place of the moral laws of
the universe;--thus in effect, dethroning the Almighty in the hearts
of this people and setting up another sovereign in his stead--more
than outweighs it all. A melancholy and monitory lesson this, to all
time-serving and temporizing statesmen! A striking illustration of the
_impolicy_ of sacrificing _right_ to any considerations of expediency!
Yet, what better than the evil effects that we have seen, could the
authors of the Constitution have reasonably expected, from the
sacrifice of right, in the concessions they made to slavery? Was it
reasonable in them to expect that, after they had introduced a vicious
element into the very Constitution of the body politic which they were
calling into life, it would not exert its vicious energies? Was it
reasonable in them to expect that, after slavery had been corrupting
the public morals for a whole generation, their children would have
too much virtue to _use_ for the defence of slavery, a power which
they themselves had not too much virtue to _give_? It is dangerous for
the sovereign power of a State to license immorality; to hold the
shield of its protection over anything that is not "legal in a moral
view." Bring into your house a benumbed viper, and lay it down upon
your warm hearth, and soon it will not ask you into which room it may
crawl. Let Slavery once lean upon the supporting arm, and bask in the
fostering smile of the State, and you will soon see, as we now see,
both her minions and her victims multiply apace, till the politics,
the morals, the liberties, even the religion of the nation, are
brought completely under her control.

To me, it appears that the virus of slavery, introduced into the
Constitution of our body politic, by a few slight punctures, has now
so pervaded and poisoned the whole system of our National Government,
that literally there is no health in it. The only remedy that I can
see for the disease, is to be found in the _dissolution of the
patient_.

The Constitution of the United States, both in theory and practice, is
so utterly broken down by the influence and effects of slavery, so
imbecile for the highest good of the nation, and so powerful for evil,
that I can give no voluntary assistance in holding it up any longer.

Henceforth it is dead to me, and I to it. I withdraw all profession of
allegiance to it, and all my voluntary efforts to sustain it. The
burdens that it lays upon me, while it is held up by others, I shall
endeavor to bear patiently, yet acting with reference to a higher law,
and distinctly declaring, that while I retain my own liberty, I will
be a party to no compact, which helps to rob any other man of his.

Very respectfully, your friend,

FRANCIS JACKSON


FROM

MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH

AT NIBLO'S GARDENS.

"We have slavery, already, amongst us. The Constitution found it among
us; it recognized it and gave it SOLEMN GUARANTIES. To the full extent
of these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in justice, and by the
Constitution. All the stipulations, contained in the Constitution, _in
favor of the slaveholding States_ which are already in the Union,
ought to be fulfilled, and so far as depends on me, shall be
fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit, and to the exactness of
their letter." !!!

       *     *     *     *     *

EXTRACTS FROM

JOHN Q. ADAMS'S ADDRESS

AT NORTH BRIDGEWATER, NOVEMBER 6, 1844.

The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the
restoration of credit and reputation, to the country--the revival of
commerce, navigation, and ship-building--the acquisition of the means
of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection and
encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the country.
All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was insufficient to
propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to the adoption of the
Constitution. What they specially wanted was _protection_.--Protection
from the powerful and savage tribes of Indians within their borders,
and who were harassing them with the most terrible of wars--and
protection from their own negroes--protection from their
insurrections--protection from their escape--protection even to the
trade by which they were brought into the country--protection, shall I
not blush to say, protection to the very bondage by which they were
held. Yes! it cannot be denied--the slaveholding lords of the South
prescribed, as a condition of their assent to the Constitution, three
special provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over
their slaves. The first was the immunity for twenty years of
preserving the African slave-trade; the second was the stipulation to
surrender fugitive slaves--an engagement positively prohibited by the
laws of God, delivered from Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction fatal to
the principles of popular representation, of a representation for
slaves--for articles of merchandise, under the name of persons.

The reluctance with which the freemen of the North submitted to the
dictation of these conditions, is attested by the awkward and
ambiguous language in which they are expressed. The word slave is most
cautiously and fastidiously excluded from the whole instrument. A
stranger, who should come from a foreign land, and read the
Constitution of the United States, would not believe that slavery or a
slave existed within the borders of our country. There is not a word
in the Constitution _apparently_ bearing upon the condition of
slavery, nor is there a provision but would be susceptible of
practical execution, if there were not a slave in the land.

The delegates from South Carolina and Georgia distinctly avowed that,
without this guarantee of protection to their property in slaves, they
would not yield their assent to the Constitution; and the freemen of
the North, reduced to the alternative of departing from the vital
principle of their liberty, or of forfeiting the Union itself, averted
their faces, and with trembling hand subscribed the bond.

Twenty years passed away--the slave markets of the South were
saturated with the blood of African bondage, and from midnight of the
31st of December, 1807, not a slave from Africa was suffered ever more
to be introduced upon our soil. But the internal traffic was still
lawful, and the _breeding_ States soon reconciled themselves to a
prohibition which gave them the monopoly of the interdicted trade, and
they joined the full chorus of reprobation, to punish with death the
slave-trader from Africa, while they cherished and shielded and
enjoyed the precious profits of the American slave-trade exclusively
to themselves.

Perhaps this unhappy result of their concession had not altogether
escaped the foresight of the freemen of the North; but their intense
anxiety for the preservation of the whole Union, and the habit already
formed of yielding to the somewhat peremptory and overbearing tone
which the relation of master and slave welds into the nature of the
lord, prevailed with them to overlook this consideration, the internal
slave-trade having scarcely existed, while that with Africa had been
allowed. But of one consequence which has followed from the slave
representation, pervading the whole organic structure of the
Constitution, they certainly were not prescient; for if they had been,
never--no, never would they have consented to it.

The representation, ostensibly of slaves, under the name of persons,
was in its operation an exclusive grant of power to one class of
proprietors, owners of one species of property, to the detriment of
all the rest of the community. This species of property was odious in
its nature, held in direct violation of the natural and inalienable
rights of man, and of the vital principles of Christianity; it was all
accumulated in one geographical section of the country, and was all
held by wealthy men, comparatively small in numbers, not amounting to
a tenth part of the free white population of the States in which it
was concentrated.

In some of the ancient, and in some modern republics, extraordinary
political power and privileges have been invested in the owners of
horses but then these privileges and these powers have been granted
for the equivalent of extraordinary duties and services to the
community, required of the favored class. The Roman knights
constituted the cavalry of their armies, and the bushels of rings
gathered by Hannibal from their dead bodies, after the battle of
Cannae, amply prove that the special powers conferred upon them were
no gratuitous grants. But in the Constitution of the United States,
the political power invested in the owners of slaves is entirely
gratuitous. No extraordinary service is required of them; they are, on
the contrary, themselves grievous burdens upon the community, always
threatened with the danger of insurrections, to be smothered in the
blood of both parties, master and slave, and always depressing the
condition of the poor free laborer, by competition with the labor of
the slave. The property in horses was the gift of God to man, at the
creation of the world; the property in slaves is property acquired and
held by crimes, differing in no moral aspect from the pillage of a
freebooter, and to which no lapse of time can give a prescriptive
right. You are told that this is no concern of yours, and that the
question of freedom and slavery is exclusively reserved to the
consideration of the separate States. But if it be so, as to the mere
question of right between master and slave, it is of tremendous
concern to you that this little cluster of slave-owners should
possess, besides their own share in the representative hall of the
nation, the exclusive privilege of appointing two-fifths of the whole
number of the representatives of the people. This is now your
condition, under that delusive ambiguity of language and of principle,
which begins by declaring the representation in the popular branch of
the legislature a representation of persons, and then provides that
one class of persons shall have neither part nor lot in the choice of
their representatives; but their elective franchise shall be
transferred to their masters, and the oppressors shall represent the
oppressed. The same perversion of the representative principle
pollutes the composition of the colleges of electors of President and
Vice President of the United States, and every department of the
government of the Union is thus tainted at its source by the gangrene
of slavery.

Fellow-citizens,--with a body of men thus composed, for legislators
and executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been your
legislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation are much
greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free. You have
at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union. Your
influence on the legislation and the administration of the government
ought to be in the proportion of three to two--But how stands the
fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence exercised by the
slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers, here is an
intrusive influence in every department, by a representation nominally
of persons, but really of property, ostensibly of slaves, but
effectively of their masters, overbalancing your superiority of
numbers, adding two-fifths of supplementary power to the two-fifths
fairly secured to them by the compact, CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE
WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AT HOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to
the sordid private interest and oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of
slaves.

From the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United
States, the institution of domestic slavery has been becoming more and
more the abhorrence of the civilized world. But in proportion as it
has been growing odious to all the rest of mankind, it has been
sinking deeper and deeper into the affections of the holders of slaves
themselves. The cultivation of cotton and of sugar, unknown in the
Union at the establishment of the Constitution, has added largely to
the pecuniary value of the slave. Aud the suppression of the African
slave-trade as piracy upon pain of death, by securing the benefit of a
monopoly to the virtuous slaveholders of the ancient dominion, has
turned her heroic tyrannicides into a community of slave-breeders for
sale, and converted the land of GEORGE WASHINGTON, PATRICK HENRY,
RICHARD HENRY LEE, and THOMAS JEFFERSON, into a great barracoon--a
cattle-show of human beings, an emporium, of which the staple articles
of merchandise are the flesh and blood, the bones and sinews of
immortal man.

Of the increasing abomination of slavery in the unbought hearts of men
at the time when the Constitution of the United States was formed,
what clearer proof could be desired, than that the very same year in
which that charter of the land was issued, the Congress of the
Confederation, with not a tithe of the powers given by the people to
the Congress of the new compact, actually abolished slavery for ever
throughout the whole Northwestern territory, without a remonstrance or
a murmur. But in the articles of confederation, there was no guaranty
for the property of the slaveholder--no double representation of him
in the Federal councils--no power of taxation--no stipulation for the
recovery of fugitive slaves. But when the powers of _government_ came
to be delegated to the Union, the South--that is, South Carolina and
Georgia--refused their subscription to the parchment, till it should
be saturated with the infection of slavery, which no fumigation could
purify, no quarantine could extinguish. The freemen of the North gave
way, and the deadly venom of slavery was infused into the Constitution
of freedom. Its first consequence has been to invert the first
principle of Democracy, that the will of the majority of numbers shall
rule the land. By means of the double representation, the minority
command the whole, and a KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW AND
PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF THE COUNTRY. To acquire this superiority of a
large majority of freemen, a persevering system of engrossing nearly
all the seats of power and place, is constantly for a long series of
years pursued, and you have seen, in a period of fifty-six years, the
Chief-magistracy of the Union held, during forty-four of them, by the
owners of slaves. The Executive department, the Army and Navy, the
Supreme Judicial Court and diplomatic missions abroad, all present the
same spectacle;--an immense majority of power in the hands of a very
small minority of the people--millions made for a fraction of a few
thousands.

       *     *     *     *     *

From that day (1830,) SLAVERY, SLAVEHOLDING, SLAVE-BREEDING AND
SLAVE-TRADING, HAVE FORMED THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE POLICY OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and of the slaveholding States, at home and
abroad; and at the very time when a new census has exhibited a large
increase upon the superior numbers of the free States, it has
presented the portentous evidence of increased influence and
ascendancy of the slave-holding power.

Of the prevalence of that power, you have had continual and conclusive
evidence in the suppression for the space of ten years of the right of
petition, guarantied, if there could be a guarantee against slavery,
by the first article amendatory of the Constitution.










No. 12.

ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

CHATTEL PRINCIPLE

THE ABHORRENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES; OR,
NO REFUGE FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

BY BERIAH GREEN.

NEW YORK

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
NO. 143 NASSAU STREET

1839

This No. contains 4-1/2 sheet--Postage under 100 miles, 7 cts. over
100, 10 cts.

Please Read and circulate.



THE NEW TESTAMENT AGAINST SLAVERY.

  "THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST."

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? In 1776 THOMAS
JEFFERSON, supported by a noble band of patriots and surrounded by
the American people, opened his lips in the authoritative declaration:
"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, 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." And from the inmost heart of the multitudes
around, and in a strong and clear voice, broke forth the unanimous
and decisive answer: Amen--such truths we do indeed hold to be
self-evident. And animated and sustained by a declaration, so
inspiring and sublime, they rushed to arms, and as the result of
agonizing efforts and dreadful sufferings, achieved under God the
independence of their country. The great truth, whence they derived
light and strength to assert and defend their rights, they made the
foundation of their republic. And in the midst of this republic,
must we prove, that He, who was the Truth, did not contradict
"the truths" which He Himself; as their Creator, had made
self-evident to mankind?

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, according to
those laws which make it what it is, is American slavery? In the
Statute-book of South Carolina thus it is written:[1] "Slaves shall
be deemed, held, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels
personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their
executors, administrators and assigns, to all intents, construction
and purposes whatever." The very root of American slavery consists
in the assumption, that law has reduced men to chattels. But this
assumption is, and must be, a gross falsehood. Men and cattle are
separated from each other by the Creator, immutably, eternally, and
by an impassable gulf. To confound or identify men and cattle must
be to lie most wantonly, impudently, and maliciously. And must we
prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of palpable, monstrous
falsehood?

[Footnote 1: Stroud's Slave Laws, p. 23.]


Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? How can a system,
built upon a stout and impudent denial of self-evident truth--a
system of treating men like cattle--operate? Thomas Jefferson shall
answer. Hear him. "The whole commerce between master and slave is a
perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most
unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on
the other. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the
lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller
slaves, gives loose to his worst passions, and thus nursed, educated,
and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with
odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy, who can retain his
manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances."[2] Such is the
practical operation of a system, which puts men and cattle into the
same family and treats them alike. And must we prove, that Jesus
Christ is not in favor of a school where the worst vices in their
most hateful forms are systematically and efficiently taught and
practiced? Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, in
1818, did the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church affirm
respecting its nature and operation? "Slavery creates a paradox in
the moral system--it exhibits rational, accountable, and immortal
beings, in such circumstances as scarcely to leave them the power of
moral action. It exhibits them as dependent on the will of others,
whether they shall receive religious instruction; whether they shall
know and worship the true God; whether they shall enjoy the
ordinances of the gospel; whether they shall perform the duties and
cherish the endearments of husbands and wives, parents and children,
neighbors and friends; whether they shall preserve their chastity
and purity, or regard the dictates of justice and humanity. Such are
some of the consequences of slavery; consequences not imaginary, but
which connect themselves with its very existence. The evils to which
the slave is _always_ exposed, _often take place_ in their very
worst degree and form; and where all of them do not take place,
still the slave is deprived of his natural rights, degraded as a
human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into the hands of
a master who may inflict upon him all the hardship and injuries
which inhumanity and avarice may suggest."[3] Must we prove, that
Jesus Christ is not in favor of such things?

[Footnote 2: Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832, pp. 169, 170.]

[Footnote 3: Minutes of the General assembly for 1818, p. 29.]


Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? It is already widely
felt and openly acknowledged at the South, that they cannot support
slavery without sustaining the opposition of universal Christendom.
And Thomas Jefferson declared, "I tremble for my country when I
reflect that God is just; that his justice can not sleep forever;
that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a
revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is
among possible events; that it may become practicable by
supernatural influences! The Almighty has no attribute which can
take sides with us in such a contest."[4] And must we prove, that
Jesus Christ is not in favor of what universal Christendom is
impelled to abhor, denounce, and oppose; is not in favor of what
every attribute of Almighty God is armed against?

[Footnote 4: Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832, pp. 170, 171.]


               "YE HAVE DESPISED THE POOR."

It is no man of straw, with whom, in making out such proof, we are
called to contend. Would to God we had no other antagonist! Would to
God that our labor of love could be regarded as a work of
supererogation! But we may well be ashamed and grieved to find it
necessary to "stop the mouths" of grave and learned ecclesiastics,
who from the heights of Zion have undertaken to defend the
institution of slavery. We speak not now of those, who amidst the
monuments of oppression are engaged in the sacred vocation; who, as
ministers of the Gospel, can "prophesy smooth things" to such as
pollute the altar of Jehovah with human sacrifices; nay, who
themselves bind the victim and kindle the sacrifice. That they
should put their Savior to the torture, to wring from his lips
something in favor of slavery, is not to be wondered at. They
consent to the murder of the children; can they respect the rights
of the Father? But what shall we say of distinguished theologians of
the north--professors of sacred literature at our oldest divinity
schools--who stand up to defend, both by argument and authority,
southern slavery! And from the Bible! Who, Balaam-like, try a
thousand expedients to force from the mouth of Jehovah a sentence
which they know the heart of Jehovah abhors! Surely we have here
something more mischievous and formidable than a man of straw. More
than two years ago, and just before the meeting of the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian church, appeared an article in the
Biblical Repertory,[5] understood to be from the pen of the
Professor of Sacred Literature at Princeton, in which an effort is
made to show, that slavery, whatever may be said of any abuses of
it, is not a violation of the precepts of the Gospel. This article,
we are informed, was industriously and extensively distributed among
the members of the General Assembly--a body of men, who by a
frightful majority seemed already too much disposed to wink at the
horrors of slavery. The effect of the Princeton Apology on the
southern mind, we have high authority for saying, has been most
decisive and injurious. It has contributed greatly to turn the
public eye off from the sin--from the inherent and necessary evils
of slavery to incidental evils, which the abuse of it might be
expected to occasion. And how few can be brought to admit, that
whatever abuses may prevail nobody knows where or how, any such
thing is chargeable upon them! Thus our Princeton prophet has done
what he could to lay the southern conscience asleep upon ingenious
perversions of the sacred volume!

[Footnote 5: For April, 1836. The General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church met in the following May, at Pittsburgh, where,
in pamphlet form, this article was distributed. The following
appeared upon the title page:

         PITTSBURGH:
         1836.
         _For gratuitous distribution_.
]


About a year after this, an effort in the same direction was jointly
made by Dr. Fisk and Professor Stuart. In a letter to a Methodist
clergyman, Mr. Merrit, published in Zion's Herald, Dr. Fisk gives
utterance to such things as the following:--

"But that you and the public may see and feel, that you have the
ablest and those who are among the honestest men of this age,
arrayed against you, be pleased to notice the following letter from
Prof. Stuart. I wrote to him, knowing as I did his integrity of
purpose, his unflinching regard for truth, as well as his deserved
reputation as a scholar and biblical critic, proposing the following
questions:--"

1. Does the New Testament directly or indirectly teach, that slavery
existed in the primitive church?

2. In 1 Tim. vi. 2, And they that have believing masters, &c., what
is the relation expressed or implied between "they" (servants) and
"believing masters?" And what are your reasons for the construction
of the passage?

3. What was the character of ancient and eastern slavery?--
Especially what (legal) power did this relation give the master over
the slave?





PROFESSOR STUART'S REPLY.


  ANDOVER, 10th Apr., 1837

  REV. AND DEAR SIR,--Yours is before me. A sickness of three
  month's standing (typhus fever) in which I have just escaped death,
  and which still confines me to my house, renders it impossible for me
  to answer your letter at large.

  1. The precepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor of
  slaves and of their masters, beyond all question, recognize the
  existence of slavery. The masters are in part "believing masters," so
  that a precept to them, how they are to behave as masters,
  recognizes that the relation may still exist, _salva fide et salva
  ecclesia_, ("without violating the Christian faith or the church.")
  Otherwise, Paul had nothing to do but to cut the band asunder at once.
  He could not lawfully and properly temporize with a _malum in se_,
  ("that which is in itself sin.")

  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. The relation did exist, may
  exist. The _abuse_ of it is the essential and fundamental wrong.
  Not that the theory of slavery is in itself right. No; "Love thy
  neighbor as thyself," "Do unto others that which ye would that others
  should do unto you," decide against this. But the relation once
  constituted and continued, is not such a _malum in se_ as calls
  for immediate and violent disruption at all hazards. So Paul did not
  counsel.

  2. 1 Tim. vi. 2, expresses the sentiment, that slaves, who are
  Christians and have Christian masters, are not, on that account, and
  because _as Christians they are brethren_, to forego the reverence
  due to them as masters. That is, the relation of master and slave is
  not, as a matter of course, abrogated between all Christians. Nay,
  servants should in such a case, _a fortiori_, do their duty
  cheerfully. This sentiment lies on the very face of the case. What
  the master's duty in such a case may be in respect to _liberation_,
  is another question, and one which the apostle does not here treat of.

  3. Every one knows, who is acquainted with Greek or Latin antiquities,
  that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more unqualified
  and at looser ends than among Christian nations. Slaves were
  _property_ in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about
  their _relation_. Their treatment depended, as it does now, on the
  temper of their masters. The power of the master over the slave was,
  for a long time, that of _life and death_. Horrible cruelties at
  length mitigated it. In the apostle's day, it was at least as great
  as among us.

  After all the spouting and vehemence on this subject, which have been
  exhibited, the _good old Book_ remains the same. Paul's conduct
  and advice are still safe guides. Paul knew well that Christianity
  would ultimately destroy slavery, as it certainly will. He knew,
  too, that it would destroy monarchy and aristocracy from the earth:
  for it is fundamentally a doctrine of _true liberty and equality_.
  Yet Paul did not expect slavery or anarchy to be ousted in a day; and
  gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor _ad interim_.

  With sincere and paternal regard,

  Your friend and brother,

  M. STUART.


  --This, sir, is doctrine that will stand, because it is _Bible
  doctrine_. The abolitionists, then, are on a wrong course. They have
  traveled out of the record; and if they would succeed, they must
  take a different position, and approach the subject in a different
  manner.

  Respectfully yours,

  W. FISK



          "SO THEY WRAP [SNARL] IT UP."

What are we taught here? That in the ecclesiastical organizations
which grew up under the hands of the apostles, slavery was admitted
as a relation that did not violate the Christian faith; that the
relation may now in like manner exist; that "the abuse of it is the
essential and fundamental wrong;" and of course, that American
Christians may hold their own brethren in slavery without incurring
guilt or inflicting injury. Thus, according to Prof. Stuart, Jesus
Christ has not a word to say against "the peculiar institutions" of
the South. If our brethren there do not "abuse" the privilege of
enacting unpaid labor, they may multiply their slaves to their
hearts' content, without exposing themselves to the frown of the
Savior or laying their Christian character open to the least
suspicion. Could any trafficker in human flesh ask for greater
latitude! And to such doctrines, Dr. Fisk eagerly and earnestly
subscribes. He goes further. He urges it on the attention of his
brethren, as containing important truth, which they ought to embrace.
According to him, it is "_Bible doctrine_," showing, that "the
abolitionists are on a wrong course," and must, "if they would
succeed, take a different position."

We now refer to such distinguished names, to show, that in attempting
to prove that Jesus Christ is not in favor of American slavery, we
contend with something else than a man of straw. The ungrateful task,
which a particular examination of Professor Stuart's letter lays
upon us, we hope fairly to dispose of in due season. Enough has now
been said to make it clear and certain, that American slavery has its
apologists and advocates in the northern pulpit; advocates and
apologists, who fall behind few if any of their brethren in the
reputation they have acquired, the stations they occupy, and the
general influence they are supposed to exert.

Is it so? Did slavery exist in Judea, and among the Jews, in its
worst form, during the Savior's incarnation? If the Jews held slaves,
they must have done in open and flagrant violation of the letter and
the spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Whoever has any doubts of
this may well resolve his doubts in the light of the Argument
entitled "The Bible against Slavery." If, after a careful and
thorough examination of that article, he can believe that
slaveholding prevailed during the ministry of Jesus Christ among the
Jews and in accordance with the authority of Moses, he would do the
reading public an important service to record the grounds of his
belief--especially in a fair and full refutation of that Argument.
Till that is done, we hold ourselves excused from attempting to
prove what we now repeat, that if the Jews during our Savior's
incarnation held slaves, they must have done so in open and flagrant
violation of the letter and spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Could
Christ and the Apostles every where among their countrymen come in
contact with slaveholding, being as it was a gross violation of that
law which their office and their profession required them to honor
and enforce, without exposing and condemning it?

In its worst forms, we are told, slavery prevailed over the whole
world, not excepting Judea. As, according to such ecclesiastics as
Stuart, Hodge and Fisk, slavery in itself is not bad at all, the term
"_worst_" could be applied only to "_abuses_" of this innocent
relation. Slavery accordingly existed among the Jews, disfigured and
disgraced by the "worst abuses" to which it is liable. These abuses
in the ancient world, Professor Stuart describes as "horrible
cruelties." And in our own country, such abuses have grown so rank,
as to lead a distinguished eye-witness--no less a philosopher and
statesman than Thomas Jefferson--to say, that they had armed against
us every attribute of the Almighty. With these things the Savior
every where came in contact, among the people to whose improvement
and salvation he devoted his living powers, and yet not a word, not
a syllable, in exposure and condemnation of such "horrible cruelties"
escaped his lips! He saw--among the "covenant people" of Jehovah he
saw, the babe plucked from the bosom of its mother; the wife torn
from the embrace of her husband; the daughter driven to the market
by the scourge of her own father;--he saw the word of God sealed up
from those who, of all men, were especially entitled to its
enlightening, quickening influence;--nay, he saw men beaten for
kneeling before the throne of heavenly mercy;--such things he saw
without a word of admonition or reproof! No sympathy with them who
suffered wrong--no indignation at them who inflicted wrong, moved
his heart!

From the alleged silence of the Savior, when in contact with slavery
among the Jews, our divines infer, that it is quite consistent with
Christianity. And they affirm, that he saw it in its worst forms;
that is, he witnessed what Professor Stuart ventures to call
"horrible cruelties." But what right have these interpreters of the
sacred volume to regard any form of slavery which the Savior found,
as "worst," or even bad? According to their inference--which they
would thrust gag-wise into the mouths of abolitionists--his silence
should seal up their lips. They ought to hold their tongues. They
have no right to call any form of slavery bad--an abuse; much less,
horribly cruel! Their inference is broad enough to protect the most
brutal driver amidst his deadliest inflictions!



  "THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS;
     I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL."

And did the Head of the new dispensation, then, fall so far behind
the prophets of the old in a hearty and effective regard for
suffering humanity? The forms of oppression which they witnessed,
excited their compassion and aroused their indignation. In terms the
most pointed and powerful, they exposed, denounced, threatened. They
could not endure the creatures, "who used their neighbors' service
without wages, and gave him not for his work;"[6] who imposed
"heavy burdens"[7] upon their fellows, and loaded them with
"the bands of wickedness;" who, "hiding themselves from their own
flesh," disowned their own mothers' children. Professions of piety
joined with the oppression of the poor, they held up to universal
scorn and execration, as the dregs of hypocrisy. They warned the
creature of such professions, that he could escape the wrath of
Jehovah only by heart-felt repentance. And yet, according to the
ecclesiastics with whom we have to do, the Lord of these prophets
passed by in silence just such enormities as he commanded them to
expose and denounce! Every where, he came in contact with slavery in
its worst forms--"horrible cruelties" forced themselves upon his
notice; but not a word of rebuke or warning did he utter. He saw
"a boy given for a harlot, and a girl sold for wine, that they might
drink,"[8] without the slightest feeling of displeasure, or any mark
of disapprobation! To such disgusting and horrible conclusions, do
the arguings which, from the haunts of sacred literature, are
inflicted on our churches, lead us! According to them, Jesus Christ,
instead of shining as the light of the world, extinguished the
torches which his own prophets had kindled, and plunged mankind into
the palpable darkness of a starless midnight! O savior, in pity to
thy suffering people, let thy temple be no longer used as a
"den of thieves!"

[Footnote 6: Jeremiah, xxii. 13.]

[Footnote 7: Isaiah, lviii. 6, 7.]

[Footnote 8: Joel, iii. 3.]



  "THOU THOUGHTEST THAT I WAS ALTOGETHER SUCH AN ONE AS THYSELF."

In passing by the worst forms of slavery, with which he every where
came in contact among the Jews, the Savior must have been
inconsistent with himself. He was commissioned to preach glad
tidings to the poor; to heal the broken-hearted; to preach
deliverance to the captives; to set at liberty them that are bruised;
to preach the year of Jubilee. In accordance with this commission,
he bound himself, from the earliest date of his incarnation, to the
poor, by the strongest ties; himself "had not where to lay his head;"
he exposed himself to misrepresentation and abuse for his
affectionate intercourse with the outcasts of society; he stood up
as the advocate of the widow, denouncing and dooming the heartless
ecclesiastics, who had made her bereavement a source of gain; and in
describing the scenes of the final judgment, he selected the very
personification of poverty, disease and oppression, as the test by
which our regard for him should be determined. To the poor and
wretched; to the degraded and despised, his arms were ever open.
They had his tenderest sympathies. They had his warmest love. His
heart's blood he poured out upon the ground for the human family,
reduced to the deepest degradation, and exposed to the heaviest
inflictions, as the slaves of the grand usurper. And yet, according
to our ecclesiastics, that class of sufferers who had been reduced
immeasurably below every other shape and form of degradation and
distress; who had been most rudely thrust out of the family of Adam,
and forced to herd with swine; who, without the slightest offence,
had been made the footstool of the worst criminals; whose "tears
were their meat night and day," while, under nameless insults and
killing injuries they were continually crying, O Lord, O Lord:--this
class of sufferers, and this alone, our biblical expositors,
occupying the high places of sacred literature, would make us
believe the compassionate Savior coldly overlooked. Not an emotion
of pity; not a look of sympathy; not a word of consolation, did his
gracious heart prompt him to bestow upon them! He denounces
damnation upon the devourer of the widow's house. But the monster,
whose trade it is to make widows and devour them and their babes, he
can calmly endure! O Savior, when wilt thou stop the mouths of such
blasphemers!


  "IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH."

It seems that though, according to our Princeton professor,
"the subject" of slavery "is hardly alluded to by Christ in any
of his personal instructions,"[9] he had a way of "treating it."
What was that?  Why, "he taught the true nature, DIGNITY, EQUALITY,
and destiny of men," and "inculcated the principles of justice and
love."[10] And according to Professor Stuart, the maxims which our
Savior furnished, "decide against" "the theory of slavery." All, then,
that these ecclesiastical apologists for slavery can make of the
Savior's alleged silence is, that he did not, in his personal
instructions, "_apply his own principles to this particular form of
wickedness_." For wicked that must be, which the maxims of the
Savior decide against, and which our Princeton professor assures
us the principles of the gospel, duly acted on, would speedily
extinguish.[11] How remarkable it is, that a teacher should
"hardly allude to a subject in any of his personal instructions,"
and yet inculcate principles which have a direct and vital bearing
upon it!--should so conduct, as to justify the inference, that
"slaveholding is not a crime,"[12] and at the same time lend its
authority for its "speedy extinction!"

[Footnote 9: Pittsburg pamphlet, (already alluded to,) p.9.]

[Footnote 10: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.]

[Footnote 11: The same, p. 34.]

[Footnote 12: The same, p. 13.]


Higher authority than sustains _self-evident truths_ there cannot
be. As forms of reason, they are rays from the face of Jehovah.
Not only are their presence and power self-manifested, but they
also shed a strong and clear light around them. In their light,
other truths are visible. Luminaries themselves, it is their
office to enlighten. To their authority, in every department of
thought, the same mind bows promptly, gratefully, fully. And by their
authority, he explains, proves, and disposes of whatever engages his
attention and engrosses his powers as a reasonable and reasoning
creature.  For what, when thus employed and when most successful, is
the utmost he can accomplish?  Why, to make the conclusions which he
would establish and commend, _clear in the light of reason_;--in
other words, to evince that _they are reasonable_. He expects that
those with whom he has to do will acknowledge the authority of
principle--will see whatever is exhibited in the light of reason. If
they require him to go further, and, in order to convince them, to
do something more than show that the doctrines he maintains, and the
methods he proposes, are accordant with reason--are illustrated and
supported with "self-evident truths"--they are plainly "beside
themselves." They have lost the use of reason. They are not to be
argued with. They belong to the mad-house.



      "COME NOW, LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD."

Are we to honor the Bible, which Professor Stuart quaintly calls
"the good old book," by turning away from "self-evident truths" to
receive its instructions? Can these truths be contradicted or denied
there? Do we search for something there to obscure their clearness,
or break their force, or reduce their authority? Do we long to find
something there, in the form of premises or conclusions, of arguing
or of inference, in broad statement or blind hints, creed-wise or
fact-wise, which may set us free from the light and power of first
principles? And what if we were to discover what we were thus in
search of?--something directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly
prejudicial to the principles, which reason, placing us under the
authority of, makes self-evident? In what estimation, in that case,
should we be constrained to hold the Bible? Could we longer honor
it as the book of God? _The book of God opposed to the authority of_
REASON! Why, before what tribunal do we dispose of the claims of the
sacred volume to divine authority? The tribunal of reason. _This
every one acknowledges the moment he begins to reason on the subject_.
And what must reason do with a book, which reduces the authority of
its own principles--breaks the force of self-evident truths? Is he
not, by way of eminence, the apostle of infidelity, who, as a
minister of the gospel or a professor of sacred literature, exerts
himself, with whatever arts of ingenuity or show of piety, to exalt
the Bible at the expense of reason? Let such arts succeed and such
piety prevail, and Jesus Christ is "crucified afresh and put to an
open shame."

What saith the Princeton professor? Why, in spite of "general
principles," and "clear as we may think the arguments against
DESPOTISM, there have been thousands of ENLIGHTENED _and good men_,
who _honestly_ believe it to be of all forms of government the best
and most acceptable to God."[13] Now these "good men" must have been
thus warmly in favor of despotism, in consequence of, or in
opposition to, their being "enlightened." In other words, the light,
which in such abundance they enjoyed, conducted them to the position
in favor of despotism, where the Princeton professor so heartily
shook hands with them, or they must have forced their way there in
despite of its hallowed influence. Either in accordance with, or in
resistance to the light, they became what he found them--the
advocates of despotism. If in resistance to the light--and he says
they were "enlightened men"--what, so far as the subject with which
alone he and we are now concerned, becomes of their "honesty" and
"goodness?" Good and honest resisters of the light, which was freely
poured around them! Of such, what says Professor Stuart's "good old
Book?" Their authority, where "general principles" command the least
respect, must be small indeed. But if in accordance with the light,
they have become the advocates of despotism, then is despotism
"the best form of government and most acceptable to God." It is
sustained by the authority of reason, by the word of Jehovah, by the
will of Heaven! If this be the doctrine which prevails at certain
theological seminaries, it must be easy to account for the spirit
which they breathe, and the general influence which they exert. Why
did not the Princeton professor place this "general principle" as a
shield, heaven-wrought and reason approved, over that cherished form
of despotism which prevails among the churches of the South, and
leave the "peculiar institutions" he is so forward to defend, under
its protection?

[Footnote 13: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12.]


What is the "general principle" to which, whatever may become of
despotism, with its "honest" admirers and "enlightened" supporters,
human governments should be universally and carefully adjusted?
Clearly this--_that as capable of, man is entitled to, self
government_. And this is a specific form of a still more
general principle, which may well be pronounced self-evident--_that
every thing should be treated according to its nature_. The mind
that can doubt this, must be incapable of rational conviction.
Man, then,--it is the dictate of reason, it is the voice of
Jehovah--must be treated as _a man_. What is he? What are his
distinctive attributes? The Creator impressed his own image on him.
In this were found the grand peculiarities of his character. Here
shone his glory. Here REASON manifests its laws. Here the WILL puts
forth its volitions. Here is the crown of IMMORTALITY. Why such
endowments? Thus furnished--the image of Jehovah--is he not capable
of self-government? And is he not to be so treated? _Within the
sphere where the laws of reason place him_, may he not act according
to his choice--carry out his own volitions?--may he not enjoy life,
exult in freedom, and pursue as he will the path of blessedness? If
not, why was he so created and endowed? Why the mysterious, awful
attribute of will? To be a source, profound as the depths of hell,
of exquisite misery, of keen anguish, of insufferable torment! Was man,
formed "according to the image of Jehovah," to be crossed, thwarted,
counteracted; to be forced in upon himself; to be the sport of
endless contradictions; to be driven back and forth forever between
mutually repellant forces; and all, all "at the discretion of
another!"[14] How can man be treated according to his nature, as
endowed with reason or will, if excluded from the powers and
privileges of self-government?--if "despotism" be let loose upon
him, to "deprive him of personal liberty, oblige him to serve at the
discretion of another" and with the power of "transferring" such
"authority" over him and such claim upon him, to "another master?"
If "thousands of enlightened and good men" can so easily be found,
who are forward to support "despotism" as "of all governments the
best and most acceptable to God," we need not wonder at the
testimony of universal history, that "the whole creation groaneth
and travaileth in pain together until now." Groans and travail pangs
must continue to be the order of the day throughout "the whole
creation," till the rod of despotism be broken, and man be treated
as man--as capable of, and entitled to, self-government.

[Footnote 14: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12.]


But what is the despotism whose horrid features our smooth professor
tries to hide beneath an array of cunningly selected words and
nicely-adjusted sentences? It is the despotism of American
slavery--which crushes the very life of humanity out of its victims,
and transforms them to cattle! At its touch, they sink from men to
things! "Slaves," saith Professor Stuart, "were _property_ in Greece
and Rome. That decides all questions about their _relation_." Yes,
truly. And slaves in republican America are _property_; and as that
easily, clearly, and definitely settles "all questions about their
_relation_," why should the Princeton professor have put himself
to the trouble of weaving a definition equally ingenious and
inadequate--at once subtle and deceitful. Ah, why? Was he willing thus
to conceal the wrongs of his mother's children even from himself? If
among the figments of his brain, he could fashion slaves, and make
them something else than property, he knew full well that a very
different pattern was in use among the southern patriarchs. Why did
he not, in plain words and sober earnest, and good faith, describe
the thing as it was, instead of employing honied words and courtly
phrases, to set forth with all becoming vagueness and ambiguity,
what might possibly be supposed to exist in the regions of fancy.


   "FOR RULERS ARE NOT A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL."

But are we, in maintaining the principle of self-government, to
overlook the unripe, or neglected, or broken powers of any of our
fellow-men with whom we may be connected?--or the strong passions,
vicious propensities, or criminal pursuits of others? Certainly not.
But in providing for their welfare, we are to exert influences and
impose restraints suited to their character. In wielding those
prerogatives which the social of our nature authorizes us to employ
for their benefit, we are to regard them as they are in truth, not
things, not cattle, not articles of merchandize, but men, our
fellow-men--reflecting, from however battered and broken a surface,
reflecting with us the image of a common Father. And the great
principle of self-government is to be the basis, to which the whole
structure of discipline under which they may be placed, should be
adapted. From the nursery and village school on to the work-house
and state-prison, this principle is ever and in all things to be
before the eyes, present in the thoughts, warm on the heart.
Otherwise, God is insulted, while his image is despised and abused.
Yes, indeed; we remember, that in carrying out the principle of
self-government, multiplied embarrassments and obstructions grow out
of wickedness on the one hand and passion on the other. Such
difficulties and obstacles we are far enough from overlooking. But
where are they to be found? Are imbecility and wickedness, bad
hearts and bad heads, confined to the bottom of society? Alas, the
weakest of the weak, and the desperately wicked, often occupy the
high places of the earth, reducing every thing within their reach to
subserviency to the foulest purposes. Nay, the very power they have
usurped, has often been the chief instrument of turning their heads,
inflaming their passions, corrupting their hearts. All the world
knows, that the possession of arbitrary power has a strong tendency
to make men shamelessly wicked and insufferably mischievous. And
this, whether the vassals over whom they domineer, be few or many.
If you cannot trust man with himself, will you put his fellows
under his control?--and flee from the inconveniences incident to
self-government, to the horrors of despotism?


"THOU THAT PREACHEST A MAN SHOULD NOT STEAL, DOST THOU STEAL."

Is the slaveholder, the most absolute and shameless of all despots,
to be entrusted with the discipline of the injured men who he
himself has reduced to cattle?--with the discipline with which they
are to be prepared to wield the powers and enjoy the privileges of
freemen? Alas, of such discipline as _he_ can furnish, in the
relation of owner to property, they have had enough. From this
sprang the very ignorance and vice, which in the view of many, lie
in the way of their immediate enfranchisement. He it is, who has
darkened their eyes and crippled their powers. And are they to look
to him for illumination and renewed vigor!--and expect "grapes from
thorns and figs from thistles!" Heaven forbid! When, according to
arrangements which had usurped the sacred name of law, he consented
to receive and use them as property, he forfeited all claims to the
esteem and confidence, not only of the helpless sufferers themselves,
but also of every philanthropist. In becoming a slaveholder, he
became the enemy of mankind. The very act was a declaration of war
upon human nature. What less can be made of the process of turning
men to cattle? It is rank absurdity--it is the height of madness, to
propose to employ _him_ to train, for the places of freemen, those
whom he has wantonly robbed of every right--whom he has stolen from
themselves. Sooner place Burke, who used to murder for the sake of
selling bodies to the dissector, at the head of a hospital. Why,
what have our slaveholders been about these two hundred years? Have
they not been constantly and earnestly engaged in the work of
education?--training up their human cattle? And how? Thomas
Jefferson shall answer. "The whole commerce between master and slave,
is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most
unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on
the other." Is this the way to fit the unprepared for the duties and
privileges of American citizens? Will the evils of the dreadful
process be diminished by adding to its length? What, in 1818, was
the unanimous testimony of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church? Why, after describing a variety of influences growing out of
slavery, most fatal to mental and moral improvement, the General
Assembly assure us, that such "consequences are not imaginary, but
connect themselves WITH THE VERY EXISTENCE[15] of slavery. The evils to
which the slave is _always_ exposed, _often_ take place in fact, and
IN THEIR VERY WORST DEGREE AND FORM; and where all of them do not
take place," "still the slave is deprived of his natural right,
degraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into
the hands of a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships and
injuries which inhumanity and avarice may suggest." Is this the
condition in which our ecclesiastics would keep the slave, at least
a little longer, to fit him to be restored to himself?

[Footnote 15: The words here marked as emphatic, were so distinguished
by ourselves.]


                    "AND THEY STOPPED THEIR EARS."

The methods of discipline under which, as slaveholders; the Southrons
now place their human cattle, they with one consent and in great
wrath, forbid us to examine. The statesman and the priest unite in
the assurance, that these methods are none of our business. Nay, they
give us distinctly to understand, that if we come among them to take
observations, and make inquiries, and discuss questions, they will
dispose of us as outlaws. Nothing will avail to protect us from
speedy and deadly violence! What inference does all this warrant?
Surely, not that the methods which they employ are happy and worthy
of universal application. If so, why do they not take the praise,
and give us the benefit of their wisdom, enterprise, and success? Who,
that has nothing to hide, practices concealment? "He that doeth
truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they
are wrought in God." Is this the way of slaveholders? Darkness they
court--they will have darkness. Doubtless "because their deeds are
evil." Can we confide in methods for the benefit of our enslaved
brethren, which it is death for us to examine? What good ever came,
what good can we expect, from deeds of darkness?

Did the influence of the masters contribute any thing in the West
Indies to prepare the apprentices for enfranchisement? Nay, verily.
All the world knows better. They did what in them lay, to turn back
the tide of blessings, which, through emancipation, was pouring in
upon the famishing around them. Are not the best minds and hearts in
England now thoroughly convinced, that slavery, under no modification,
can be a school for freedom?

We say such things to the many who allege, that slaves cannot at
once be entrusted with the powers and privileges of self-government.
However this may be, they cannot be better qualified under the
_influence of slavery_. _That must be broken up_ from which their
ignorance, and viciousness, and wretchedness proceeded. That which
can only do what it has always done, pollute and degrade, must not
be employed to purify and elevate. _The lower their character and
condition, the louder, clearer, sterner, the just demand for
immediate emancipation_. The plague-smitten sufferer can derive no
benefit from breathing a little longer an infected atmosphere.

In thus referring to elemental principles--in thus availing ourselves
of the light of self-evident truths--we bow to the authority and tread
in the foot-prints of the great Teacher. He chid those around him for
refusing to make the same use of their reason in promoting their
spiritual, as they made in promoting their temporal welfare. He gives
them distinctly to understand, that they need not go out of themselves
to form a just estimation of their position, duties, and prospects,
as standing in the presence of the Messiah. "Why, EVEN OF YOURSELVES,"
he demands of them, "judge ye not what is _right_?"[16] How could
they, unless they had a clear light, and an infallible standard within
them, whereby, amidst the relations they sustained and the interests
they had to provide for, they might discriminate between truth and
falsehood, right and wrong, what they ought to attempt and what they
ought to eschew? From this pointed, significant appeal of the Savior,
it is clear and certain, that in human consciousness may be found
self-evident truths, self-manifested principles; that every man,
studying his own consciousness, is bound to recognize their presence
and authority, and in sober earnest and good faith to apply them to
the highest practical concerns of "life and godliness." It is in
obedience to the Bible, that we apply self-evident truths, and walk
in the light of general principles. When our fathers proclaimed
these truths, and at the hazard of their property, reputation, and
life, stood up in their defence, they did homage to the sacred
Scriptures--they honored the Bible. In that volume, not a syllable
can be found to justify that form of infidelity, which in the abused
name of piety, reproaches us for practising the lessons which nature
teacheth. These lessons, the Bible requires us[17] reverently to listen
to, earnestly to appropriate, and most diligently and faithfully to
act upon in every direction, and on all occasions.

[Footnote 16: Luke, xii. 57.]

[Footnote 17: Cor. xi. 14.]

Why, our Savior goes so far in doing honor to reason, as to encourage
men universally to dispose of the characteristic peculiarities and
distinctive features of the Gospel in the light of its principles.
"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether
it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."[18] Natural religion--the
principles which nature reveals, and the lessons which nature teaches--he
thus makes a test of the truth and authority of revealed religion. So
far was he, as a teacher, from shrinking from the clearest and most
piercing rays of reason--from calling off the attention of those around
him from the import, bearings, and practical application of general
principles. And those who would have us escape from the pressure of
self-evident truths, by betaking ourselves to the doctrines and precepts
of Christianity, whatever airs of piety they may put on, do foul dishonor
to the Savior of mankind.

[Footnote 18: John, vii. 17.]

And what shall we say of the Golden Rule, which, according to the
Savior, comprehends all the precepts of the Bible? "Whatsoever ye
would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is
the law and the prophets."

According to this maxim, in human consciousness, universally, may be
found,

  1. The standard whereby, in all the relations and circumstances of
  life, we may determine what Heaven demands and expects of us.

  2. The just application of this standard, is practicable for, and
  obligatory upon, every child of Adam.

  3. The qualification requisite to a just application of this rule to
  all the cases in which we can be concerned, is simply this--_to
  regard all the members of the human family as our brethren, our
  equals_.

In other words, the Savior here teaches us, that in the principles
and laws of reason, we have an infallible guide in all the relations
and circumstances of life; that nothing can hinder our following
this guide, but the bias of _selfishness_; and that the moment, in
deciding any moral question, we place _ourselves in the room of our
brother_, before the bar of reason, we shall see what decision ought
to be pronounced. Does this, in the Savior, look like fleeing
self-evident truths!--like decrying the authority of general
principles!--like exalting himself at the expense of reason!--like
opening a refuge in the Gospel for those whose practice is at
variance with the dictates of humanity!

What then is the just application of the Golden Rule--that
fundamental maxim of the Gospel, giving character to, and shedding
light upon, all its precepts and arrangements--to the subject of
slavery?--_that we must "do to" slaves as we would be done by_, AS
SLAVES, _the_ RELATION _itself being justified and continued_? Surely
not. A little reflection will enable us to see, that the Golden Rule
reaches farther in its demands, and strikes deeper in its influences
and operations. The _natural equality_ of mankind lies at the very
basis of this great precept. It obviously requires _every man to
acknowledge another self in every other man_. With my powers and
resources, and in my appropriate circumstances, I am to recognize in
any child of Adam who may address me, another self in his
appropriate circumstances and with his powers and resources. This is
the natural equality of mankind; and this the Golden Rule requires
us to admit, defend, and maintain.

                "WHY DO YE NOT UNDERSTAND MY SPEECH;
                EVEN BECAUSE YE CANNOT HEAR MY WORD."

They strangely misunderstand and grossly misrepresent this doctrine,
who charge upon it the absurdities and mischiefs which _any
"levelling system"_ cannot but produce. In all its bearings,
tendencies, and effects, it is directly contrary and powerfully
hostile to any such system. EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, the doctrine asserts;
and this necessarily opens the way for _variety of condition_. In
other words, every child of Adam has, from the Creator, the
inalienable right of wielding, within reasonable limits, his own
powers, and employing his own resources, according to his own
choice;--the right, while he respects his social relations, to promote
as he will his own welfare. But mark--HIS OWN powers and resources,
and NOT ANOTHER'S, are thus inalienably put under his control. The
Creator makes every man free, in whatever he may do, to exert HIMSELF,
and not another. Here no man may lawfully cripple or embarrass
another. The feeble may not hinder the strong, nor may the strong
crush the feeble. Every man may make the most of himself, in his own
proper sphere. Now, as in the constitutional endowments; and natural
opportunities, and lawful acquisitions of mankind, infinite variety
prevails, so in exerting each HIMSELF, in his own sphere, according
to his own choice, the variety of human condition can be little less
than infinite. Thus equality of rights opens the way for variety of
condition.

But with all this variety of make, means, and condition, considered
individually, the children of Adam are bound together by strong ties
which can never be dissolved. They are mutually united by the social
of their nature. Hence mutual dependence and mutual claims. While
each is inalienably entitled to assert and enjoy his own personality
as a man, each sustains to all and all to each, various relations.
While each owns and honors the individual, all are to own and honor
the social of their nature. Now, the Golden Rule distinctly
recognizes, lays its requisitions upon, and extends its obligations
to, the whole nature of man, in his individual capacities and social
relations. What higher honor could it do to man, as _an individual_,
than to constitute him the judge, by whose decision, when fairly
rendered, all the claims of his fellows should be authoritatively
and definitely disposed of? "Whatsoever YE WOULD" have done to you,
so do ye to others. Every member of the family of Adam, placing
himself in the position here pointed out, is competent and
authorized to pass judgment on all the cases in social life in which
he may be concerned. Could higher responsibilities or greater
confidence be reposed in men individually? And then, how are their
_claims upon each other_ herein magnified! What inherent worth and
solid dignity are ascribed to the social of their nature! In every
man with whom I may have to do, I am to recognize the presence of
_another self_, whose case I am to make _my own_. And thus I am to
dispose of whatever claims he may urge upon me.

Thus, in accordance with the Golden Rule, mankind are naturally
brought, in the voluntary use of their powers and resources, to
promote each other's welfare. As his contribution to this great
object, it is the inalienable birthright of every child of Adam,
to consecrate whatever he may possess. With exalted powers and large
resources, he has a natural claim to a correspondent field of effort.
If his "abilities" are small, his task must be easy and his burden
light. Thus the Golden Rule requires mankind mutually to serve each
other. In this service, each is to exert _himself_--employ _his own_
powers, lay out his own resources, improve his own opportunities. A
division of labor is the natural result. One is remarkable for his
intellectual endowments and acquisitions; another, for his wealth;
and a third, for power and skill in using his muscles. Such
attributes, endlessly varied and diversified, proceed from the basis
of a _common character_, by virtue of which all men and each--one as
truly as another--are entitled, as a birthright, to "life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness." Each and all, one as well as another,
may choose his own modes of contributing his share to the general
welfare, in which his own is involved and identified. Under one
great law of mutual dependence and mutual responsibility, all are
placed--the strong as well as the weak, the rich as much as the poor,
the learned no less than the unlearned. All bring their wares, the
products of their enterprise, skill and industry, to the same market,
where mutual exchanges are freely effected. The fruits of muscular
exertion procure the fruits of mental effort. John serves Thomas
with his hands, and Thomas serves John with his money. Peter wields
the axe for James, and James wields the pen for Peter. Moses, Joshua,
and Caleb, employ their wisdom, courage, and experience, in the
service of the community, and the community serve Moses, Joshua, and
Caleb, in furnishing them with food and raiment, and making them
partakers of the general prosperity. And all this by mutual
understanding and voluntary arrangement. And all this according to
the Golden Rule.

What then becomes of _slavery_--a system of arrangements in which
one man treats his fellow, not as another self, but as a thing--a
chattel--an article of merchandize, which is not to be consulted in
any disposition which may be made of it;--a system which is built on
the annihilation of the attributes of our common nature--in which
man doth to others what he would sooner die than have done to himself?
The Golden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other. If
one stands, the other must fall. The one strikes at the very root of
the other. The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of THE RELATION
ITSELF, in which slavery consists. It lays its demands upon every
thing within the scope of _human action_. To "whatever MEN DO." it
extends its authority. And the relation itself, in which slavery
consists, is the work of human hands. It is what men have done to
each other--contrary to nature and most injurious to the general
welfare. This RELATION, therefore, the Golden Rule condemns.
Wherever its authority prevails, this relation must be annihilated.
Mutual service and slavery--like light and darkness, life and
death--are directly opposed to, and subversive of, each other. The
one the Golden Rule cannot endure; the other it requires, honors,
and blesses.




  "LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR."

Like unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment--"_Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself_." "A certain lawyer," who seems
to have been fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of human
obligations, once demanded of the Savior, within what limits the
meaning of the word "neighbor" ought to be confined. "And who is my
neighbor?" The parable of the good Samaritan set that matter in the
clearest light, and made it manifest and certain, that every man
whom we could reach with our sympathy and assistance, was our
neighbor, entitled to the same regard which we cherished for
ourselves. Consistently with such obligations, can _slavery,
as a_ RELATION, be maintained? Is it then a _labor of love_--such
love as we cherish for ourselves--to strip a child of Adam of all the
prerogatives and privileges which are his inalienable birthright? To
obscure his reason, crush his will, and trample on his
immortality?--To strike home to the inmost of his being, and break the
heart of his heart?--To thrust him out of the human family, and
dispose of him as a chattel--as a thing in the hands of an owner, a
beast under the lash of a driver? All this, apart from every thing
incidental and extraordinary, belongs to the RELATION, in which
slavery, as such, consists. All this--well fed or ill fed,
underwrought or overwrought, clothed or naked, caressed or kicked,
whether idle songs break from his thoughtless tongue or "tears be his
meat night and day," fondly cherished or cruelly murdered;--_all this_
ENTERS VITALLY INTO THE RELATION ITSELF, _by which every slave_, AS A
SLAVE, _is set apart from the rest of the human family_. Is it an
exercise of love, to place our "neighbor" under the crushing
weight, the killing power, of such a relation?--to apply the
murderous steel to the very vitals of his humanity?

  "YE THEREFORE APPLAUD AND DELIGHT IN THE DEEDS OF YOUR FATHERS;
  FOR THEY KILLED THEM, AND YE BUILD THEIR SEPULCHRES."[19]

The slaveholder may eagerly and loudly deny, that any such thing is
chargeable upon him. He may confidently and earnestly allege, that
he is not responsible for the state of society in which he is placed.
Slavery was established before he began to breathe. It was his
inheritance. His slaves are his property by birth or testament. But
why will he thus deceive himself? Why will he permit the cunning and
rapacious spiders, which in the very sanctuary of ethics and
religion are laboriously weaving webs from their own bowels, to
catch him with their wretched sophistries?--and devour him, body,
soul, and substance? Let him know, as he must one day with shame and
terror own, that whoever holds slaves is himself responsible for
_the relation_, into which, whether reluctantly or willingly, he
thus enters. _The relation cannot be forced upon him_. What though
Elizabeth countenanced John Hawkins in stealing the natives of
Africa?--what though James, and Charles, and George, opened a market
for them in the English colonies?--what though modern Dracos have
"framed mischief by law," in legalizing man-stealing and
slaveholding?--what though your ancestors, in preparing to go
"to their own place," constituted you the owner of the "neighbors"
whom they had used as cattle?--what of all this, and as much more like
this, as can be drawn from the history of that dreadful process by
which men are "deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be
_chattels personal_?" Can all this force you to put the cap upon the
climax--to clinch the nail by doing that, without which nothing in
the work of slave-making would be attempted? _The slaveholder is the
soul of the whole system_. Without him, the chattel principle is a
lifeless abstraction. Without him, charters, and markets, and laws,
and testaments, are empty names. And does _he_ think to escape
responsibility? Why, kidnappers, and soul-drivers, and law-makers,
are nothing but his _agents_. He is the guilty _principal_. Let him
look to it.

[Footnote 19: You join with them in their bloody work. They murder,
and you bury the victims.]


But what can he do? Do? Keep his hands off his "neighbor's" throat.
Let him refuse to finish and ratify the process by which the chattel
principle is carried into effect. Let him refuse, in the face of
derision, and reproach, and opposition. Though poverty should fasten
its bony hand upon him, and persecution shoot forth its forked tongue;
whatever may betide him--scorn, flight, flames--let him promptly and
steadfastly refuse. Better the spite and hate of men than the wrath
of Heaven! "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it
from thee; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members
should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

Professor Stewart admits, that the Golden Rule and the second great
commandment "decide against the theory of slavery, as being in
itself right." What, then, is their relation to the particular
precepts, institutions, and usages, which are authorized and
enjoined in the New Testament? Of all these, they are the summary
expression--the comprehensive description. No precept in the Bible,
enforcing our mutual obligations, can be more or less than _the
application of these injunctions to specific relations or particular
occasions and conditions_. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New,
do prophets teach or laws enjoin, any thing which the Golden Rule
and the second great command do not contain.  Whatever they forbid,
no other precept can require; and whatever they require, no other
precept can forbid. What, then, does he attempt, who turns over the
sacred pages to find something in the way of permission or command,
which may set him free from the obligations of the Golden Rule? What
must his objects, methods, spirit be, to force him to enter upon
such inquiries?--to compel him to search the Bible for such a purpose?
Can he have good intentions, or be well employed? Is his frame of
mind adapted to the study of the Bible?--to make its meaning plain
and welcome? What must he think of God, to search his word in quest
of gross inconsistencies, and grave contradictions! Inconsistent
legislation in Jehovah! Contradictory commands! Permissions at war
with prohibitions! General requirements at variance with particular
arrangements!

What must be the moral character of any institution which the Golden
Rule decides against?--which the second great command condemns?
_It cannot but be wicked_, whether newly established or long
maintained. However it may be shaped, turned, colored--under every
modification and at all times--_wickedness must be its proper
character. It must be_, IN ITSELF, _apart from its circumstances_,
IN ITS ESSENCE, _apart from its incidents_, SINFUL.


            "THINK NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES,
              WE HAVE ABRAHAM FOR OUR FATHER."

In disposing of those precepts and exhortations which have a
specific bearing upon the subject of slavery, it is greatly important,
nay, absolutely essential, that we look forth upon the objects
around us from the right post of observation. Our stand we must take
at some central point, amidst the general maxims and fundamental
precepts, the known circumstances and characteristic arrangements,
of primitive Christianity. Otherwise, wrong views and false
conclusions will be the result of our studies. We cannot, therefore,
be too earnest in trying to catch the general features and prevalent
spirit of the New Testament institutions and arrangements. For to
what conclusions must we come, if we unwittingly pursue our
inquiries under the bias of the prejudice, that the general maxims
of social life which now prevail in this country, were current, on
the authority of the Savior, among the primitive Christians! That,
for instance, wealth, station, talents, are the standard by which our
claims upon, and our regard for, others, should be modified?--That
those who are pinched by poverty, worn by disease, tasked in
menial labors, or marked by features offensive to the taste of the
artificial and capricious, are to be excluded from those refreshing
and elevating influences which intelligence and refinement may be
expected to exert; that thus they are to constitute a class by
themselves, and to be made to know and keep their place at the very
bottom of society? Or, what if we should think and speak of the
primitive Christians, as if they had the same pecuniary resources as
Heaven has lavished upon the American churches?--as if they were as
remarkable for affluence, elegance, and splendor? Or, as if they had
as high a position and as extensive an influence in politics and
literature?--having directly or indirectly, the control over the
high places of learning and of power?

If we should pursue our studies and arrange our arguments--if we
should explain words and interpret language--under such a bias, what
must inevitably be the results? What would be the worth of our
conclusions? What confidence could be reposed in any instruction we
might undertake to furnish? And is not this the way in which the
advocates and apologists of slavery dispose of the bearing which
primitive Christianity has upon it? They first ascribe, unwittingly,
perhaps, to the primitive churches; the character, relations, and
condition of American Christianity, and amidst the deep darkness and
strange confusion thus produced, set about interpreting the language
and explaining the usages of the New Testament!



                "SO THAT YE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE."

Among the lessons of instruction which our Savior imparted, having a
general bearing on the subject of slavery, that in which he sets up
the _true standard of greatness_, deserves particular attention. In
repressing the ambition of his disciples, he held up before them the
methods by which alone healthful aspirations for eminence could be
gratified, and thus set the elements of true greatness in the
clearest light. "Ye know, that they which are accounted to rule over
the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them; and their great ones
exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but
whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister; _and
whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all_." In
other words, through the selfishness and pride of mankind, the maxim
widely prevails in the world, that it is the privilege, prerogative,
and mark of greatness, TO EXACT SERVICE; that our superiority to
others, while it authorizes us to relax the exertion of our own
powers, gives us a fair title to the use of theirs; that "might,"
while it exempts us from serving, "gives the right" to be served.
The instructions of the Savior open the way to greatness for us in
the opposite direction. Superiority to others, in whatever it may
consist, gives us a claim to a wider field of exertion, and demands
of us a larger amount of service. We can be great only as we _are
useful_. And "might gives right" to bless our fellow men, by
improving every opportunity and employing every faculty,
affectionately, earnestly, and unweariedly, in their service. Thus
the greater the man, the more active, faithful, and useful the
servant.

The Savior has himself taught us how this doctrine must be applied.
He bids us improve every opportunity and employ every power, even
through the most menial services, in blessing the human family. And
to make this lesson shine upon our understandings and move our hearts,
he embodied in it a most instructive and attractive example. On a
memorable occasion, and just before his crucifixion, he discharged
for his disciples the most menial of all offices--taking, _in
washing their feet_, the place of the lowest servant. He took great
pains to make them understand, that only by imitating this example
could they honor their relations to him as their Master; that thus
only would they find themselves blessed. By what possibility could
slavery exist under the influence of such a lesson, set home by such
an example? _Was it while washing the disciples' feet, that our
Savior authorized one man to make a chattel of another_?

To refuse to provide for ourselves by useful labor, the apostle Paul
teaches us to regard as a grave offence. After reminding the
Thessalonian Christians, that in addition to all his official
exertions he had with his own muscles earned his own bread, he calls
their attention to an arrangement which was supported by apostolical
authority, "that if any would not work, neither should he eat." In
the most earnest and solemn manner, and as a minister of the Lord
Jesus Christ, he commanded and exhorted those who neglected useful
labor, "_with quietness to work and eat their own bread_." What must
be the bearing of all this upon slavery? Could slavery be maintained
where every man eat the bread which himself had earned?--where
idleness was esteemed so great a crime, as to be reckoned worthy of
starvation as a punishment? How could unrequited labor be exacted,
or used, or needed? Must not every one in such a community
contribute his share to the general welfare?--and mutual service and
mutual support be the natural result?

The same apostle, in writing to another church, describes the true
source whence the means of liberality ought to be derived. "Let him
that stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his
hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that
needeth." Let this lesson, as from the lips of Jehovah, be proclaimed
throughout the length and breadth of South Carolina. Let it be
universally welcomed and reduced to practice. Let thieves give up
what they had stolen to the lawful proprietors, cease stealing, and
begin at once to "labor, working with their hands," for necessary
and charitable purposes. Could slavery, in such a case, continue to
exist? Surely not! Instead of exacting unpaid services from others,
every man would be busy, exerting himself not only to provide for
his own wants, but also to accumulate funds, "that he might have to
give to" the needy. Slavery must disappear, root and branch, at once
and forever.

In describing the source whence his ministers should expect their
support, the Savior furnished a general principle, which has an
obvious and powerful bearing on the subject of slavery. He would
have them remember, while exerting themselves for the benefit of
their fellow men, that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." He has
thus united wages with work. Whoever renders the one is entitled to
the other. And this manifestly according to a mutual understanding
and a voluntary arrangement. For the doctrine that I may force you
to work for me for whatever consideration I may please to fix upon,
fairly opens the way for the doctrine, that you, in turn, may force
me to render you whatever wages you may choose to exact for any
services you may see fit to render. Thus slavery, even as
involuntary servitude, is cut up by the root. Even the Princeton
professor seems to regard it as a violation of the principle which
unites work with wages.

The apostle James applies this principle to the claims of manual
laborers--of those who hold the plough and thrust in the sickle. He
calls the rich lordlings who exacted sweat and withheld wages, to
"weeping and howling," assuring them that the complaints of
the injured laborer had entered into the ear of the Lord of Hosts,
and that, as a result of their oppression, their riches were
corrupted, and their garments moth-eaten; their gold and silver were
cankered; that the rust of them should be a witness against them,
and should eat their flesh as it were fire; that, in one word, they
had heaped treasures together for the last days, when "miseries were
coming upon them," the prospect of which might well drench them in
tears and fill them with terror. If these admonitions and warnings
were heeded there, would not "the South" break forth into "weeping
and wailing, and gnashing of teeth?" What else are its rich men about,
but withholding by a system of fraud, his wages from the laborer,
who is wearing himself out under the impulse of fear, in cultivating
their fields and producing their luxuries! Encouragement and support
do they derive from James, in maintaining the "peculiar institution"
which they call patriarchal, and boast of as the "corner-stone" of
the republic?

In the New Testament, we have, moreover, the general injunction,
"_Honor all men_." Under this broad precept, every form of humanity
may justly claim protection and respect. The invasion of any human
right must do dishonor to humanity, and be a transgression of this
command. How then, in the light of such obligations, must slavery be
regarded? Are those men honored, who are rudely excluded from a
place in the human family, and shut up to the deep degradation and
nameless horrors of chattelship? _Can they be held as slaves, and at
the same time be honored as men_?

How far, in obeying this command, we are to go, we may infer from
the admonitions and instructions which James applies to the
arrangements and usages of religious assemblies. Into these he can
not allow "respect of persons" to enter. "My brethren," he exclaims,
"have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory,
with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a
man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel; and there come in also
a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth
the gay clothing, and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place;
and say to the poor, stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool;
are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil
thoughts?" _If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are
convinced of the law as transgressors_. On this general principle,
then, religious assemblies ought to be regulated--that every man is
to be estimated, not according to his _circumstances_--not according
to anything incidental to his _condition_; but according to his _moral
worth_--according to the essential features and vital elements of his
_character_. Gold rings and gay clothing, as they qualify no man for,
can entitle no man to, a "good place" in the church. Nor can the
"vile raiment of the poor man," fairly exclude him from any sphere,
however exalted, which his heart and head may fit him to fill. To
deny this, in theory or practice, is to degrade a man below a thing;
for what are gold rings, or gay clothing, or vile raiment, but things,
"which perish with the using?" And this must be "to commit sin, and
be convinced of the law as transgressor."

In slavery, we have "respect of persons," strongly marked, and
reduced to system. Here men are despised not merely for "the vile
raiment," which may cover their scarred bodies. This is bad enough.
But the deepest contempt of humanity here grows out of birth or
complexion. Vile raiment may be, often is, the result of indolence,
or improvidence, or extravagance. It may be, often is, an index of
character. But how can I be responsible for the incidents of my
birth?--how for my complexion? To despise or honor me for these, is to
be guilty of "respect of persons" in its grossest form, and with its
worst effects. It is to reward or punish me for what I had nothing
to do with; for which, therefore, I cannot, without the greatest
injustice, be held responsible. It is to poison the very fountains
of justice, by confounding all moral distinctions. What, then, so
far as the authority of the New Testament is concerned, becomes of
slavery, which cannot be maintained under any form nor for a single
moment, without "respect of persons" the most aggravated and
unendurable? And what would become of that most pitiful, silly, and
wicked arrangement in so many of our churches, in which worshippers
of a dark complexion are to be sent up to the negro pew?[20]

[Footnote 20: In Carlyle's Review of the Memoirs of Mirabeau, we
have the following anecdote illustrative of the character of a
"grandmother" of the Count. "Fancy the dame Mirabeau sailing stately
towards the church font; another dame striking in to take precedence
of her; the dame Mirabeau despatching this latter with a box on the
ear, and these words, '_Here, as in the army_, THE BAGGAGE _goes
last_!'" Let those who justify the negro-pew arrangement, throw
a stone at this proud woman--if they dare.]

Nor are we permitted to confine this principle to religious
assemblies. It is to pervade social life everywhere. Even where
plenty, intelligence and refinement, diffuse their brightest rays,
the poor are to be welcomed with especial favor. "Then said he to
him that bade him, when thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not
thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich
neighbors, lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made
thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor and the maimed,
the lame and the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot
recompense thee, but thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection
of the just."

In the high places of social life then--in the parlor, the
drawing-room, the saloon--special reference should be had, in every
arrangement, to the comfort and improvement of those who are least
able to provide for the cheapest rites of hospitality. For these,
ample accommodations must be made, whatever may become of our
kinsmen and rich neighbors. And for this good reason, that while
such occasions signify little to the latter, to the former they are
pregnant with good--raising their drooping spirits, cheering their
desponding hearts, inspiring them with life, and hope, and joy. The
rich and the poor thus meeting joyfully together, cannot but
mutually contribute to each other's benefit; the rich will be led to
moderation, sobriety, and circumspection, and the poor to industry,
providence, and contentment. The recompense must be great and sure.

A most beautiful and instructive commentary on the text in which
these things are taught, the Savior furnished in his own conduct. He
freely mingled with those who were reduced to the very bottom of
society. At the tables of the outcasts of society he did not
hesitate to be a cheerful guest, surrounded by publicans and sinners.
And when flouted and reproached by smooth and lofty ecclesiastics,
as an ultraist and leveler, he explained and justified himself by
observing, that he had only done what his office demanded. It was
his to seek the lost, to heal the sick, to pity the wretched;--in a
word, to bestow just such benefits as the various necessities of
mankind made appropriate and welcome. In his great heart, there was
room enough for those who had been excluded from the sympathy of
little souls. In its spirit and design, the gospel overlooked
none--least of all, the outcasts of a selfish world.

Can slavery, however modified, be consistent with such a gospel?--a
gospel which requires us, even amidst the highest forms of social
life, to exert ourselves to raise the depressed by giving our
warmest sympathies to those who have the smallest share in the favor
of the world?

Those who are in "bonds" are set before us as deserving an especial
remembrance. Their claims upon us are described as a modification of
the Golden Rule--as one of the many forms to which its obligations
are reducible. To them we are to extend the same affectionate regard
as we would covet for ourselves, if the chains upon their limbs were
fastened upon ours. To the benefits of this precept, the enslaved
have a natural claim of the greatest strength. The wrongs they
suffer spring from a persecution which can hardly be surpassed in
malignancy. Their birth and complexion are the occasion of the
insults and injuries which they can neither endure nor escape. It is
for _the work of God_, and not their own deserts, that they are
loaded with chains. _This is persecution_.

Can I regard the slave as another self--can I put myself in his
place--and be indifferent to his wrongs? Especially, can I, thus
affected, take sides with the oppressor? Could I, in such a state of
mind as the gospel requires me to cherish, reduce him to slavery or
keep him in bonds? Is not the precept under hand naturally
subversive of every system and every form of slavery?

The general descriptions of the church, which are found here and
there in the New Testament, are highly instructive in their bearing
on the subject of slavery. In one connection, the following words
meet the eye: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond
nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus."[21] Here we have--

  1. A clear and strong description of the doctrine of _human
  equality_. "Ye are all ONE;"--so much alike, so truly placed on
  common ground, all wielding each his own powers with such freedom,
  _that one is the same as another_.

  2. This doctrine, self-evident in the light of reason, is affirmed on
  divine authority. "IN CHRIST JESUS, _ye are all one_." The natural
  equality of the human family is a part of the gospel. For--

  3. All the human family are included in this description. Whether
  men or women, whether bond or free, whether Jews or Gentiles, all
  are alike entitled to the benefit of this doctrine. Whether
  Christianity prevails, the _artificial_ distinctions which grow out
  of birth, condition, sex, are done away. _Natural_ distinctions are
  not destroyed. _They_ are recognized, hallowed, confirmed. The
  gospel does not abolish the sexes, forbid a division of labor, or
  extinguish patriotism. It takes woman from beneath the feet, and
  places her by the side of man; delivers the manual laborer from
  "the yoke," and gives him wages for his work; and brings the Jew and
  the Gentile to embrace each other with fraternal love and confidence.
  Thus it raises all to a common level, gives to each the free use of
  his own powers and resources, binds all together in one dear and
  loving brotherhood. Such, according to the description of the apostle,
  was the influence, and such the effect of primitive Christianity.
  "Behold the picture!" Is it like American slavery, which, in all its
  tendencies and effects, is destructive of all oneness among brethren?

[Footnote 21: Gal. iii. 28.]


"Where the spirit of the Lord is," exclaims the same apostle, with
his eye upon the condition and relations of the church, "_where the
spirit of the Lord is_, THERE IS LIBERTY." Where, then, may we
reverently recognize the presence, and bow before the manifested
power, of this spirit? _There_, where the laborer may not choose how
he shall be employed!--in what way his wants shall be supplied!--with
whom he shall associate!--who shall have the fruit of his exertions!
_There_, where he is not free to enjoy his wife and children!
_There_, where his body and his soul, his very "destiny,"[22]
are placed altogether beyond his control! _There_, where every
power is crippled, every energy blasted, every hope crushed! _There_,
where in all the relations and concerns of life, he is legally
treated as if he had nothing to do with the laws of reason, the
light of immortality, or the exercise of will! Is the spirit of the
Lord _there_, where liberty is decried and denounced, mocked at and
spit upon, betrayed and crucified! In the midst of a church which
justified slavery, which derived its support from slavery, which
carried on its enterprises by means of slavery, would the apostle
have found the fruits of the Spirit of the Lord! Let that Spirit
exert his influences, and assert his authority, and wield his power,
and slavery must vanish at once and for ever.

[Footnote 22: "The legislature (of South Carolina) from time to time,
has passed many restricted and penal acts, with a view to bring
under direct control and subjection the DESTINY of the black
population." See the Remonstrance of James S. Pope and 352 others
against home missionary efforts for the benefit of the enslaved--a
most instructive paper.]


In more than one connection, the apostle James describes Christianity
as "_the law of liberty_." It is, in other words, the law under
which liberty cannot but live and flourish--the law in which liberty
is clearly defined, strongly asserted, and well protected. As the law
of liberty, how can it be consistent with the law of slavery? The
presence and the power of this law are felt wherever the light of
reason shines. They are felt in the uneasiness and conscious
degradation of the slave, and in the shame and remorse which the
master betrays in his reluctant and desperate efforts to defend
himself. This law it is which has armed human nature against the
oppressor. Wherever it is obeyed, "every yoke is broken."

In these references to the New Testament we have a _general
description_ of the primitive church, and the _principles_ on which
it was founded and fashioned. These principles bear the same
relation to Christian _history_ as to Christian _character_, since
the former is occupied with the development of the latter. What then
is Christian character but Christian principle _realized_, acted out,
bodied forth, and animated? Christian principle is the soul, of
which Christian character is the expression--the manifestation. It
comprehends in itself, as a living seed, such Christian character,
under every form, modification, and complexion. The former is,
therefore, the test and interpreter of the latter. In the light of
Christian principle, and in that light only we can judge of and
explain Christian character. Christian history is occupied with the
forms, modifications, and various aspects of Christian character.
The facts which are there recorded serve to show, how Christian
principle has fared in this world--how it has appeared, what it has
done, how it has been treated. In these facts we have the various
institutions, usages, designs, doings, and sufferings of the church
of Christ. And all these have of necessity, the closest relation to
Christian principle. They are the production of its power. Through
them, it is revealed and manifested. In its light, they are to be
studied, explained, and understood. Without it they must be as
unintelligible and insignificant as the letters of a book scattered
on the wind.

In the principles of Christianity, then, we have a comprehensive and
faithful account of its objects, institutions, and usages--of how it
must behave, and act, and suffer, in a world of sin and misery. For
between the principles which God reveals, on the one hand, and the
precepts he enjoins, the institutions he establishes, and the usages
he approves, on the other, there must be consistency and harmony.
Otherwise we impute to God what we must abhor in man--practice at war
with principle. Does the Savior, then, lay down the _principle_ that
our standing in the church must depend upon the habits formed within
us, of readily and heartily subserving the welfare of others; and
permit us _in practice_ to invade the rights and trample on the
happiness of our fellows, by reducing them to slavery. Does he,
_in principle_ and by example, require us to go all lengths in
rendering mutual service, or comprehending offices that most menial,
as well as the most honorable; and permit us _in practice_ to EXACT
service of our brethren, as if they were nothing better than
"articles of merchandize!" Does he require us _in principle_
"to work with quietness and eat our own bread;" and permit us
_in practice_ to wrest from our brethren the fruits of their
unrequited toil? Does he _in principle_ require us, abstaining from
every form of theft, to employ our powers in useful labor, not only
to provide for ourselves but also to relieve the indigence of others;
and permit us _in practice_, abstaining from every form of labor, to
enrich and aggrandize ourselves with the fruits of man-stealing?
Does he require us _in principle_ to regard "the laborer as worthy
of his hire"; and permit us _in practice_ to defraud him of his wages?
Does he require us _in principle_ to honor ALL men; and permit us
_in practice_ to treat multitudes like cattle? Does he _in
principle_ prohibit "respect of persons;" and permit us _in practice_
to place the feet of the rich upon the necks of the poor? Does he
_in principle_ require us to sympathize with the bondman as
another self; and permit us _in practice_ to leave him unpitied and
unhelped in the hands of the oppressor? _In principle_, "where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" _in practice_, is _slavery_
the fruit of the Spirit? _In principle_, Christianity is the law of
liberty; _in practice_, it is the law of slavery? Bring practice in
these various respects into harmony with principle, and what becomes
of slavery? And if, where the divine government is concerned,
practice is the expression of principle, and principle the standard
and interpreter of practice, such harmony cannot but be maintained
and must be asserted. In studying, therefore, fragments of history
and sketches of biography--in disposing of references to institutions,
usages, and facts in the New Testament, this necessary harmony
between principle and practice in the government _of God_, should be
continually present to the thoughts of the interpreter. Principles
assert what practice must be. Whatever principle condemns, God
condemns. It belongs to those weeds of the dung-hill which, planted
by "an enemy," his hand will assuredly "root up." It is most certain
then, that if slavery prevailed in the first ages of Christianity,
it could nowhere have prevailed under its influence and with its
sanction.

       *       *       *       *       *

The condition in which in its efforts to bless mankind, the
primitive church was placed, must have greatly assisted the early
Christians in understanding and applying the principles of the gospel.
Their _Master_ was born in great obscurity, lived in the deepest
poverty, and died the most ignominious death. The place of his
residence, his familiarity with the outcasts of society, his
welcoming assistance and support from female hands, his casting his
beloved mother, when he hung upon the cross, upon the charity of a
disciple--such things evince the depth of his poverty, and show to
what derision and contempt he must have been exposed. Could such an
one, "despised and rejected of men--a man of sorrows and acquainted
with grief," play the oppressor, or smile on those who made
merchandize of the poor!

And what was the history of the _apostles_, but an illustration of
the doctrine, that "it is enough for the disciple, that he be as his
Master?" Were they lordly ecclesiastics, abounding with wealth,
shining with splendor, bloated with luxury! Were they ambitious of
distinction, fleecing, and trampling, and devouring "the flocks,"
that they themselves might "have the pre-eminence!" Were they
slaveholding bishops! Or did they derive their support from the
wages of iniquity and the price of blood! Can such inferences be
drawn from the account of their condition, which the most gifted and
enterprising of their number has put upon record? "Even unto this
present hour, we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and _are
buffetted_, and have _no certain dwelling place, and labor working
with our own hands_. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we
suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are made as _the filth of
the world_, and are THE OFFSCOURING OF ALL THINGS unto this day."[23]
Are these the men who practised or countenanced slavery? _With
such a temper, they_ WOULD NOT; _in such circumstances, they_ COULD
NOT. Exposed to "tribulation, distress, and persecution;" subject to
famine and nakedness, to peril and the sword; "killed all the day
long; accounted as sheep for the slaughter,"[24] they would have made
but a sorry figure at the _great-house_ or slave-market.

[Footnote 23: 1 Cor. iv. 11-13.]

[Footnote 24: Rom. viii. 35, 36.]


Nor was the condition of the brethren, generally, better than that of
the apostles. The position of the apostles doubtless entitled them to
the strongest opposition, the heaviest reproaches, the fiercest
persecution. But derision and contempt must have been the lot of
Christians generally. Surely we cannot think so ill of primitive
Christianity as to suppose that believers, generally, refused to
share in the trials and sufferings of their leaders; as to suppose
that while the leaders submitted to manual labor, to buffeting, to be
reckoned the filth of the world, to be accounted as sheep for the
slaughter, his brethren lived in affluence, ease, and honor!
despising manual labor and living upon the sweat of unrequited toil!
But on this point we are not left to mere inference and conjecture.
The apostle Paul in the plainest language explains the ordination of
Heaven. "But _God hath_ CHOSEN the foolish things of the world to
confound the wise; and God hath CHOSEN the weak things of the world
to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world,
and things which are despised hath God CHOSEN, yea, and THINGS WHICH
ARE NOT, to bring to nought things that are."[25] Here we may well
notice,

  1. That it was not by _accident_, that the primitive churches were
  made up of such elements, but the result of the DIVINE CHOICE--an
  arrangement of His wise and gracious Providence. The inference is
  natural, that this ordination was co-extensive with the triumphs of
  Christianity. It was nothing new or strange, that Jehovah had
  concealed his glory "from the wise and prudent, and had revealed it
  unto babes," or that "the common people heard him gladly," while
  "not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,
  had been called."

  2. The description of character, which the apostle records, could be
  adapted only to what are reckoned the _very dregs of humanity_. The
  foolish and the weak, the base and the contemptible, in the
  estimation of worldly pride and wisdom--these were they whose broken
  hearts were reached, and moulded, and refreshed by the gospel; these
  were they whom the apostle took to his bosom as his own brethren.

[Footnote 25: 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.]


That _slaves_ abounded at Corinth, may easily be admitted. _They_
have a place in the enumeration of elements of which, according to
the apostle, the church there was composed. The most remarkable
class found there, consisted of "THINGS WHICH ARE NOT"--mere nobodies,
not admitted to the privileges of men, but degraded to a level with
"goods and chattels;" of whom _no account_ was made in such
arrangements of society as subserved the improvement, and dignity,
and happiness of MANKIND. How accurately the description applies to
those who are crushed under the chattel principle!

The reference which the apostle makes to the "deep poverty of the
churches of Macedonia,"[26] and this to stir up the sluggish
liberality of his Corinthian brethren, naturally leaves the
impression, that the latter were by no means inferior to the former
in the gifts of Providence. But, pressed with want and pinched by
poverty as were the believers in "Macedonia and Achaia, it pleased
them to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which were
at Jerusalem."[27] Thus it appears, that Christians everywhere were
familiar with contempt and indigence, so much so, that the apostle
would dissuade such as had no families from assuming the
responsibilities of the conjugal relation![28]

[Footnote 26: 2 Cor. viii. 2.]

[Footnote 27: Rom. xviii. 18-25.]

[Footnote 28: Cor. vii. 26, 27.]

Now, how did these good people treat each other? Did the few among
them, who were esteemed wise, mighty, or noble, exert their
influence and employ their power in oppressing the weak, in disposing
of the "things that are not," as marketable commodities!--kneeling
with them in prayer in the evening, and putting them up at auction
the next morning! Did the church sell any of the members to swell
the "certain contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem!" Far
other wise--as far as possible! In those Christian communities where
the influence of the apostles was most powerful, and where the
arrangements drew forth their highest commendations, believers
treated each other as _brethren_, in the strongest sense of that
sweet word. So warm was their mutual love, so strong the public
spirit, so open-handed and abundant the general liberality, that
they are set forth as "_having all things common_."[29] Slaves and
their holders here? Neither the one nor the other could, in that
relation to each other, have breathed such an atmosphere. The appeal
of the kneeling bondman, "Am I not a man and a brother," must here
have met with a prompt and powerful response.

[Footnote 29: Acts, iv. 32.]


The _tests_ by which our Savior tries the character of his professed
disciples, shed a strong light upon the genius of the gospel. In one
connection,[30] an inquirer demands of the Savior, "What good thing
shall I do that I may have eternal life?" After being reminded of the
obligations which his social nature imposed upon him, he ventured,
while claiming to be free from guilt in his relations to mankind, to
demand, "what lack I yet?" The radical deficiency under which his
character labored, the Savior was not long or obscure in pointing out.
"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the
poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me."
On this passage it is natural to suggest--

  1. That we have here a _test of universal application_. The
  rectitude and benevolence of our Savior's character forbid us to
  suppose, that he would subject this inquirer, especially as he was
  highly amiable, to a trial, where eternal life was at stake,
  _peculiarly_ severe. Indeed, the test seems to have been only a fair
  exposition of the second great command, and of course it must be
  applicable to all who are placed under the obligations of that
  precept. Those who cannot stand this test, as their character is
  radically imperfect and unsound, must, with the inquirer to whom
  our Lord applied it, be pronounced unfit for the kingdom of heaven.

  2. The least that our Savior can in that passage be understood to
  demand is, that we disinterestedly and heartily devote ourselves to
  the welfare of mankind, "the poor" especially. We are to put
  ourselves on a level with _them_, as we must do "in selling that we
  have" for their benefit--in other words, in employing our powers and
  resources to elevate their character, condition, and prospects. This
  our Savior did; and if we refuse to enter into sympathy and
  co-operation with him, how can we be his _followers_? Apply this
  test to the slaveholder. Instead of "selling that he hath" for the
  benefit of the poor, he BUYS THE POOR, and exacts their sweat with
  stripes, to enable him to "clothe himself in purple and fine linen,
  and fare sumptuously every day;" or, HE SELLS THE POOR to support
  the gospel and convert the heathen!

[Footnote 30: Luke, xviii. 18-25.]


What, in describing the scenes of the final judgment, does our Savior
teach us? _By what standard_ must our character be estimated, and the
retributions of eternity be awarded? A standard, which both the
righteous and the wicked will be surprised to see erected. From the
"offscouring of all things," the meanest specimen of humanity will
be selected--a "stranger" in the hands of the oppressor, naked,
hungry, sickly; and this stranger, placed in the midst of the
assembled universe, by the side of the sovereign Judge, will be
openly acknowledged as his representative. "Glory, honor, and
immortality," will be the reward of those who had recognized and
cheered their Lord through his outraged poor. And tribulation,
anguish, and despair, will seize on "every soul of man" who had
neglected or despised them. But whom, within the limits of our
country, are we to regard especially as the representatives of our
final Judge? Every feature of the Savior's picture finds its
appropriate original in our enslaved countrymen.


  1. They are the LEAST of his brethren.

  2. They are subject to thirst and hunger, unable to command a cup
     of water or a crumb of bread.

  3. They are exposed to wasting sickness, without the ability to
     procure a nurse or employ a physician.

  4. They are emphatically "in prison," restrained by chains, goaded
     with whips, tasked, and under keepers. Not a wretch groans in any
     cell of the prisons of our country, who is exposed to a confinement
     so vigorous and heartbreaking as the law allows theirs to be
     continually and permanently.

  5. And then they are emphatically, and peculiarly, and exclusively,
     STRANGERS--_strangers_ in the land which gave them birth. Whom
     else do we constrain to remain aliens in the midst of our free
     institutions? The Welch, the Swiss, the Irish? The Jews even?
     Alas, it is the _negro_ only, who may not strike his roots into
     our soil. Every where we have conspired to treat him as a
     stranger--every where he is forced to feel himself a stranger. In
     the stage and steamboat, in the parlor and at our tables, in the
     scenes of business and in the scenes of amusement--even in the
     church of God and at the communion table, he is regarded as a
     stranger. The intelligent and religious are generally disgusted
     and horror-struck at the thought of his becoming identified with
     the citizens of our republic--so much so, that thousands of them
     have entered into a conspiracy to send him off "out of sight," to
     find a home on a foreign shore!--and justify themselves by openly
     alleging, that a "single drop" of his blood, in the veins of any
     human creature, must make him hateful to his fellow
     citizens!--That nothing but banishment from "our coasts," can
     redeem him from the scorn and contempt to which his "stranger"
     blood has reduced him among his own mother's children!

Who, then, in this land "of milk and honey," is "hungry and athirst,"
but the man from whom the law takes away the last crumb of bread and
the smallest drop of water?

Who "naked," but the man whom the law strips of the last rag of
clothing?

Who "sick," but the man whom the law deprives of the power of
procuring medicine or sending for a physician?

Who "in prison," but the man who, all his life, is under the control
of merciless masters and cruel keepers!

Who a "stranger," but the man who is scornfully denied the cheapest
courtesies of life--who is treated as an alien in his native country?

There is one point in this awful description which deserves
particular attention. Those who are doomed to the left hand of the
Judge, are not charged with inflicting _positive_ injuries on their
helpless, needy, and oppressed brother. Theirs was what is often
called _negative_ character. What they _had done_ is not described
in the indictment. Their _neglect_ of duty, what they _had_ NOT
_done_, was the ground of their "everlasting punishment." The
representative of their Judge, they had seen a hungered and they
gave him no meat, thirsty and they gave him no drink, a stranger and
they took him not in, naked and they clothed him not, sick and in
prison and they visited him not. In as much as they did NOT yield to
the claims of suffering humanity--did NOT exert themselves to bless
the meanest of the human family, they were driven away in their
wickedness. But what if the indictment had run thus: I was a
hungered and ye snatched away the crust which might have saved me
from starvation; I was thirsty and ye dashed to the ground the
"cup of cold water," which might have moistened my parched lips; I
was a stranger and ye drove me from the hovel which might have
sheltered me from the piercing wind; I was sick and ye scourged me
to my task; in prison and you sold me for my jail-fees--to what
depths of hell must not those who were convicted under such charges
be consigned! And what is the history of American slavery but one
long indictment, describing under ever-varying forms and hues just
such injuries!

Nor should it be forgotten, that those who incurred the displeasure
of their Judge, took far other views than he, of their own past
history. The charges which he brought against them, they heard with
great surprise. They were sure that they had never thus turned away
from his necessities. Indeed, when had they seen him thus subject to
poverty, insult, and oppression? Never. And as to that poor
friendless creature, whom they left unpitied and unhelped in the
hands of the oppressor, and whom their Judge now presented as his
own representative, they never once supposed, that _he_ had any
claims on their compassion and assistance. Had they known, that he
was destined to so prominent a place at the final judgment, they
would have treated him as a human being, in despite of any social,
pecuniary, or political considerations. But neither their _negative
virtue_ nor their _voluntary ignorance_ could shield them from the
penal fire which their selfishness had kindled.

Now amidst the general maxims, the leading principles, the "great
commandments" of the gospel; amidst its comprehensive descriptions
and authorized tests of Christian character, we should take our
position in disposing of any particular allusions to such forms and
usages of the primitive churches as are supported by divine authority.
The latter must be interpreted and understood in the light of the
former. But how do the apologists and defenders of slavery proceed?
Placing themselves amidst the arrangements and usages which grew out
of the _corruptions_ of Christianity, they make these the standard
by which the gospel is to be explained and understood! Some Recorder
or Justice. without the light of inquiry or the aid of a jury,
consigns the negro whom the kidnapper has dragged into his presence
to the horrors of slavery. As the poor wretch shrieks and faints,
Humanity shudders and demands why such atrocities are endured. Some
"priest" or "Levite," "passing by on the other side," quite
self-possessed and all complacent, reads in reply from his broad
phylactery, _Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon_! Yes, echoes the
negro-hating mob, made up of "gentlemen of property and standing"
together with equally gentle-men reeking from the gutter; _Yes--Paul
sent back Onesimus to Philemon_! And Humanity, brow-beaten, stunned
with noise and tumult, is pushed aside by the crowd! A fair specimen
this of the manner in which modern usages are made to interpret the
sacred Scriptures?

Of the particular passages in the New Testament on which the
apologists for slavery especially rely, the epistle to Philemon
first demands our attention.

  1. This letter was written by the apostle Paul while a "prisoner of
  Jesus Christ" at Rome.

  2. Philemon was a benevolent and trustworthy member of the church at
  Colosse, at whose house the disciples of Christ held their assemblies,
  and who owed his conversion, under God, directly or indirectly to
  the ministry of Paul.

  3. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon; under a relation which it
  is difficult with accuracy and certainty to define. His condition,
  though servile, could not have been like that of an American slave;
  as, in that case, however he might have "wronged" Philemon, he could
  not also have "owed him ought."[31] The American slave is, according
  to law, as much the property of his master as any other chattel; and
  can no more "owe" his master than can a sheep or a horse. The basis
  of all pecuniary obligations lies in some "value received." How can
  "an article of merchandise" stand on this basis and sustain
  commercial relations to its owner? There is no _person_ to offer or
  promise. _Personality is swallowed up in American slavery_!

  4. How Onesimus found his way to Rome it is not easy to determine.
  He and Philemon appear to have parted from each other on ill terms.
  The general character of Onesimus, certainly, in his relation to
  Philemon, had been far from attractive, and he seems to have left
  him without repairing the wrongs he had done him or paying the debts
  which he owed him. At Rome, by the blessing of God upon the
  exertions of the apostle, he was brought to reflection and repentance.

  5. In reviewing his history in the light of Christian truth, he
  became painfully aware of the injuries he had inflicted on Philemon.
  He longed for an opportunity for frank confession and full
  restitution. Having, however, parted with Philemon on ill terms, he
  knew not how to appear in his presence. Under such embarrassments,
  he naturally sought sympathy and advice of Paul. _His_ influence
  upon Philemon, Onesimus knew must be powerful, especially as an
  apostle.

  6. A letter in behalf of Onesimus was therefore written by the
  apostle to Philemon. After such salutations, benedictions, and
  thanksgiving as the good character and useful life of Philemon
  naturally drew from the heart of Paul, he proceeds to the object of
  the letter. He admits that Onesimus had behaved ill in the service
  of Philemon; not in running away, for how they had parted with each
  other is not explained; but in being unprofitable and in refusing to
  pay the debts[32] which he had contracted. But his character had
  undergone a radical change. Thenceforward fidelity and usefulness
  would be his aim and mark his course. And as to any pecuniary
  obligations which he had violated, the apostle authorized Philemon
  to put them on his account.[33] Thus a way was fairly opened to the
  heart of Philemon. And now what does the apostles ask?

  7. He asks that Philemon would receive Onesimus, How? "Not as a
  _servant_, but above a _servant_."[34] How much above? Philemon was
  to receive him as "a son" of the apostle--"as a brother
  beloved"--nay, if he counted Paul a partner, an equal, he was to
  receive Onesimus as he would receive _the apostle himself_.[35] _So
  much_ above a servant was he to receive him!

  8. But was not this request to be so interpreted and complied with
  as to put Onesimus in the hands of Philemon as "an article of
  merchandise," CARNALLY, while it raised him to the dignity of a
  "brother beloved," SPIRITUALLY? In other words, might not Philemon
  consistently with the request of Paul have reduced Onesimus to a
  chattel, as A MAN, while he admitted him fraternally to his bosom,
  as a CHRISTIAN? Such gibberish in an apostolic epistle! Never. As if,
  however to guard against such folly, the natural product of mist and
  moonshine, the apostle would have Onesimus raised above a servant to
  the dignity of a brother beloved, "BOTH IN THE FLESH AND IN THE
  LORD;"[36] as a man and Christian, in all the relations,
  circumstances, and responsibilities of life.

[Footnote 31: Philemon, 18.]

[Footnote 32: Verse 11, 18.]

[Footnote 33: Verse 18.]

[Footnote 34: Verse 16.]

[Footnote 35: Verse 10, 16, 17.]

[Footnote 36: Verse 16.]

It is easy now with definiteness and certainty to determine in what
sense the apostle in such connections uses the word "_brother_". It
describes a relation inconsistent with and opposite to the _servile_.
It is "NOT" the relation of a "SERVANT." It elevates its subject
"above" the servile condition. It raises him to full equality with
the master, to the same equality, on which Paul and Philemon stood
side by side as brothers; and this, not in some vague, undefined,
spiritual sense, affecting the soul and leaving the body in bonds,
but in every way, "both in the FLESH and in the Lord." This matter
deserves particular and earnest attention. It sheds a strong light
on other lessons of apostolic instruction.

  9. It is greatly to our purpose, moreover, to observe that the
  apostle clearly defines the _moral character_ of his request. It was
  fit, proper, right, suited to the nature and relation of things--a
  thing which _ought_ to be done.[37] On this account, he might have
  urged it upon Philemon in the form of an _injunction_, on apostolic
  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
all the other inhabitants are at the mercy of prowling kidnappers,
because there are multitudes of white as well as black slaves on
Southern plantations, and slavery is no longer fastidious with
regard to the color of its prey.

As soon as that appalling decision of the Supreme Court was
enunciated, in the name of the Constitution, the people of the North
should have risen _en masse_, if for no other cause, and declared the
Union at an end; and they would have done so, if they had not lost
their manhood, and their reverence for justice and liberty.

In the 4th Sect. of Art. IV., the United States guarantee to protect
every State in the Union "_against domestic violence_." By the 8th
Section of Article 1., congress is empowered "to provide for calling
forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, _suppress
insurrections_, and repel invasions." These provisions, however
strictly they may apply to cases of disturbance among the white
population, were adopted with special reference to the slave
population, for the purpose of keeping them in their chains by the
combined military force of the country; and were these repealed, and
the South left to manage her slaves as best she could, a servile
insurrection would ere long be the consequence, as general as it
would unquestionably be successful. Says Mr. Madison, respecting
these clauses:--

  "On application of the legislature or executive, as the case may be,
  the militia of the other States are to be called to suppress
  domestic insurrections. Does this bar the States from calling forth
  their own militia? No; but it gives them a _supplementary_ security
  to suppress insurrections and domestic violence."

The answer to Patrick Henry's objection, as urged against the
constitution in the Virginia convention, that there was no power left
to the States to quell an insurrection of slaves, as it was wholly
vested in congress, George Nicholas asked:--

  "Have they it now? If they have, does the constitution take it away?
  If it does, it must be in one of those clauses which have been
  mentioned by the worthy member. The first part gives the general
  government power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it
  away from the States? No! but _it gives an additional security_;
  for, beside the power in the State government to use their own
  militia, it will be _the duty of the general government_ to aid
  them WITH THE STRENGTH OF THE UNION, when called for."

This solemn guaranty of security to the slave system, caps the
climax of national barbarity, and stains with human blood the
garments of all the people. In consequence of it, that system has
multiplied its victims from five hundred thousand to nearly three
millions--a vast amount of territory has been purchased, in order to
give it extension and perpetuity--several new slave States have been
admitted into the Union--the slave trade has been made one of the
great branches of American commerce--the slave population, though
over-worked, starved, lacerated, branded, maimed, and subjected to
every form of deprivation and every species of torture, have been
over awed and crushed,--or, whenever they have attempted to gain
their liberty by revolt, they have been shot down and quelled by the
strong arm of the national government; as, for example, in the case
of Nat Turner's insurrection in Virginia, when the naval and military
forces of the government were called into active service. Cuban
bloodhounds have been purchased with the money of the people, and
imported and used to hunt slave fugitives among the everglades of
Florida. A merciless warfare has been waged for the extermination or
expulsion of the Florida Indians, because they gave succor to those
poor hunted fugitives--a warfare which has cost the nation several
thousand lives, and forty millions of dollars. But the catalogue
of enormities is too long to be recapitulated in the present address.

We have thus demonstrated that the compact between the North and the
South embraces every variety of wrong and outrage,--is at war with
God and man, cannot be innocently supported, and deserves to be
immediately annulled. In behalf of the Society which we represent,
we call upon all our fellow-citizens, who believe it is right to
obey God rather than man, to declare themselves peaceful
revolutionists, and to unite with us under the stainless banner of
Liberty, having for its motto--"EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL--NO UNION WITH
SLAVEHOLDERS!"

It is pleaded that the Constitution provides for its own amendment;
and we ought to use the elective franchise to effect this object.
True, there is such a proviso; but, until the amendment be made,
that instrument is binding as it stands. Is it not to violate every
moral instinct, and to sacrifice principle to expediency, to argue
that we may swear to steal, oppress and murder by wholesale, because
it may be necessary to do so only for the time being, and because
there is some remote probability that the instrument which requires
that we should be robbers, oppressors and murderers, may at some
future day be amended in these particulars? Let us not palter with
our consciences in this manner--let us not deny that the compact was
conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity--let us not be so
dishonest, even to promote a good object, as to interpret the
Constitution in a manner utterly at variance with the intentions and
arrangements of the contracting parties; but, confessing the guilt
of the nation, acknowledging the dreadful specifications in the bond,
washing our hands in the waters of repentance from all further
participation in this criminal alliance, and resolving that we will
sustain none other than a free and righteous government, let us
glory in the name of revolutionists, unfurl the banner of disunion,
and consecrate our talents and means to the overthrow of all that is
tyrannical in the land,--to the establishment of all that is free,
just, true and holy,--to the triumph of universal love and peace.

If, in utter disregard of the historical facts which have been cited,
it is still asserted, that the Constitution needs no amendment to
make it a free instrument, adapted to all the exigencies of a free
people, and was never intended to give any strength or countenance
to the slave system--the indignant spirit of insulted Liberty
replies:--"What though the assertion be true? Of what avail is a mere
piece of parchment? In itself, though it be written all over with
words of truth and freedom--though its provisions be as impartial and
just as words can express, or the imagination paint--though it be as
pure as the gospel, and breathe only the spirit of Heaven--it is
powerless; it has no executive vitality; it is a lifeless corpse, even
though beautiful in death. I am famishing for lack of bread! How is my
appetite relieved by holding up to my gaze a painted loaf? I am
manacled, wounded, bleeding dying! What consolation is it to know,
that they who are seeking to destroy my life, profess in words to be
my friends?" If the liberties of the people have been betrayed--if
judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off, and
truth has fallen in the streets, and equality cannot enter--if the
princes of the land are roaring lions, the judges evening wolves,
the people light and treacherous persons, the priests covered with
pollution--if we are living under a frightful despotism, which scoffs
at all constitutional restraints, and wields the resources of the
nation to promote its own bloody purposes--tell us not that the
forms of freedom are still left to us! Would such tameness and
submission have freighted the May-Flower for Plymouth Rock? Would it
have resisted the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, or any of those entering
wedges of tyranny with which the British government sought to rive
the liberties of America? The wheel of the Revolution would have
rusted on its axle, if a spirit so weak had been the only power to
give it motion. Did our fathers say, when their rights and liberties
were infringed--"_Why, what is done cannot be undone_. That is the
first thought." No, it was the last thing they thought of: or, rather,
it never entered their minds at all. They sprang to the conclusion at
once--"_What is done_ SHALL _be undone_. That is our FIRST and ONLY
thought."


  "Is water running in our veins? Do we remember still
  Old Plymouth Rock, and Lexington, and famous Bunker Hill?
  The debt we owe our fathers' graves? and to the yet unborn,
  Whose heritage ourselves must make a thing of pride or scorn?"

  "Gray Plymouth Rock hath yet a tongue, and Concord is not dumb;
  And voices from our fathers' graves and from the future come:
  They call on us to stand our ground--they charge us still to be
  Not only free from chains ourselves, but foremost to make free!"


It is of little consequence who is on the throne, if there be behind
it a power mightier than the throne. It matters not what is the
theory of the government, if the practice of the government be unjust
and tyrannical. We rise in rebellion against a despotism
incomparably more dreadful than that which induced the colonists to
take up arms against the mother country; not on account of a
three-penny tax on tea, but because fetters of living iron are
fastened on the limbs of millions of our countrymen, and our most
sacred rights are trampled in the dust. As citizens of the State,
we appeal to the State in vain for protection and redress. As
citizens of the United States, we are treated as outlaws in one
half of the country, and the national government consents to our
destruction. We are denied the right of locomotion, freedom of speech,
the right of petition, the liberty of the press, the right peaceably
to assemble together to protest against oppression and plead for
liberty--at least in thirteen States of the Union. If we venture, as
avowed and unflinching abolitionists, to travel South of Mason and
Dixon's line, we do so at the peril of our lives. If we would escape
torture and death, on visiting any of the slave States, we must
stifle our conscientious convictions, bear no testimony against
cruelty and tyranny, suppress the struggling emotions of humanity,
divest ourselves of all letters and papers of an anti-slavery
character, and do homage to the slaveholding power--or run the risk
of a cruel martyrdom! These are appalling and undeniable facts.

Three millions of the American people are crushed under the American
Union! They are held as slaves--trafficked as merchandise--registered
as goods and chattels! The government gives them no protection--the
government is their enemy--the government keeps them in chains!
There they lie bleeding--we are prostrate by their side--in
their sorrows and sufferings we participate--their stripes are
inflicted on our bodies, their shackles are fastened on our limbs,
their cause is ours!  The Union which grinds them to the dust
rests upon us, and with them we will struggle to overthrow it!
The Constitution, which subjects them to hopeless bondage, is one
that we cannot swear to support!  Our motto is, "NO UNION WITH
SLAVEHOLDERS," either religious or political. They are the fiercest
enemies of mankind, and the bitterest foes of God!  We separate from
them not in anger, not in malice, not for a selfish purpose, not to
do them an injury, not to cease warning, exhorting, reproving them
for their crimes, not to leave the perishing bondman to his fate--O
no! But to clear our skirts of innocent blood--to give the oppressor
no countenance--to signify our abhorrence of injustice and
cruelty--to testify against an ungodly compact--to cease striking
hands with thieves and consenting with adulterers--to make no
compromise with tyranny--to walk worthily of our high profession--to
increase our moral power over the nation--to obey God and vindicate
the gospel of his Son--hasten the downfall of slavery in America,
and throughout the world!

We are not acting under a blind impulse.  We have carefully counted
the cost of this warfare, and are prepared to meet its consequences.
It will subject us to reproach, persecution, infamy--it will prove a
fiery ordeal to all who shall pass through it--it may cost us our
lives.  We shall be ridiculed as fools, accused as visionaries,
branded as disorganizers, reviled as madmen, threatened and perhaps
punished as traitors.  But we shall bide our time.  Whether safety
or peril, whether victory or defeat, whether life or death be ours,
believing that our feet are planted on an eternal foundation, that
our position is sublime and glorious, that our faith in God is
rational and steadfast, that we have exceeding great and precious
promises on which to rely, THAT WE ARE IN THE RIGHT, we shall not
falter nor be dismayed, "though the earth be removed, and though the
mountains be carried into the midst of the sea,"--though our ranks
be thinned to the number of "three hundred men." Freemen! are you
ready for the conflict? Come what may, will you sever the chain that
binds you to a slaveholding government, and declare your independence?
Up, then, with the banner of revolution! Not to shed blood--not to
injure the person or estate of any oppressor--not by force and arms
to resist any law--not to countenance a servile insurrection--not to
wield any carnal weapons! No--ours must be a bloodless strife,
excepting _our_ blood be shed--for we aim, as did Christ our leader,
not to destroy men's lives, but to save them--to overcome evil with
good--to conquer through suffering for righteousness' sake--to set
the captive free by the potency of truth!

Secede, then, from the government. Submit to its exactions, but pay
it no allegiance, and give it no voluntary aid. Fill no offices
under it. Send no senators or representatives to the national or
State legislature; for what you cannot conscientiously perform
yourself, you cannot ask another to perform as your agent. Circulate
a declaration of DISUNION FROM SLAVEHOLDERS, throughout the country.
Hold mass meetings--assemble in conventions--nail your banners to
the mast!

Do you ask what can be done, if you abandon the ballot-box? What did
the crucified Nazarene do without the elective franchise? What did
the apostles do? What did the glorious army of martyrs and
confessors do? What did Luther and his intrepid associates do? What
can women and children do? What has Father Mathew done for teetotalism?
What has Daniel O'Connell done for Irish repeal? "Stand, having your
loins girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate of
righteousness," and arrayed in the whole armor of God!

The form of government that shall succeed the present government of
the United States, let time determine. It would be a waste of time
to argue that question, until the people are regenerated and turned
from their iniquity. Ours is no anarchical movement, but one of
order and obedience. In ceasing from oppression, we establish liberty.
What is now fragmentary, shall in due time be crystallized, and
shine like a gem set in the heavens, for a light to all coming ages.

Finally--we believe that the effect of this movement will be,--First,
to create discussion and agitation throughout the North; and these
will lead to a general perception of its grandeur and importance.

Secondly, to convulse the slumbering South like an earthquake, and
convince her that her only alternative is, to abolish slavery, or be
abandoned by that power on which she now relies for safety.

Thirdly, to attack the slave power in its most vulnerable point, and
to carry the battle to the gate.

Fourthly, to exalt the moral sense, increase the moral power, and
invigorate the moral constitution of all who heartily espouse it.

We reverently believe that, in withdrawing from the American Union,
we have the God of justice with us. We know that we have our
enslaved countrymen with us. We are confident that all free hearts
will be with us. We are certain that tyrants and their abettors will
be against us.

In behalf of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery
Society,

WM. LLOYD GARRISON, _President_.

  WENDELL PHILLIPS,     } _Secretaries_.
  MARIA WESTON CHAPMAN, }

  _Boston, May_ 20, 1844.

       *       *       *       *       *


LETTER FROM FRANCIS JACKSON.

BOSTON, 4TH July, 1844

_To His Excellency George N. Briggs_:

SIR--Many years since, I received from the Executive of the
Commonwealth a commission as Justice of the Peace. I have held the
office that it conferred upon me till the present time, and have
found it a convenience to myself, and others. It might continue to
be so, could I consent longer to hold it. But paramount
considerations forbid, and I herewith transmit to you my commission,
respectfully asking you to accept my resignation.

While I deem it a duty to myself to take this step, I feel called on
to state the reasons that influence me.

In entering upon the duties of the office in question, I complied
with the requirements of the law, by taking an oath "_to support the
Constitution of the United States_." I regret that I ever took that
oath. Had I then as maturely considered its full import, and the
obligations under which it is understood, and meant to lay those who
take it, as I have done since, I certainly never would have taken it,
seeing, as I now do, that the Constitution of the United States
contains provisions calculated and intended to foster, cherish,
uphold and perpetuate _slavery_. It pledges the country to guard and
protect the slave system so long as the slaveholding States choose
to retain it. It regards the slave code as lawful in the States
which enact it. Still more, "it has done that, which, until its
adoption, was never before done for African slavery. It took it out
of its former category of municipal law and local life, adopted it
as a national institution, spread around it the broad and sufficient
shield of national law, and thus gave to slavery a national existence."
Consequently, the oath to support the Constitution of the United
States is a solemn promise to do that which is morally wrong; that
which is a violation of the natural rights of man, and a sin in the
sight of God.

I am not, in this matter, constituting myself a judge of others. I
do not say that no honest man can take such an oath, and abide by it.
I only say, that _I_ would not now deliberately take it; and that,
having inconsiderately taken it, I can no longer suffer it to lie
upon my soul. I take back the oath, and ask you, sir, to take back
the commission, which was the occasion of my taking it.

I am aware that my course in this matter is liable to be regarded as
singular, if not censurable; and I must, therefore, be allowed to
make a more specific statement of those _provisions of the
Constitution_ which support the enormous wrong, the heinous sin of
slavery.

The very first Article of the Constitution takes slavery at once
under its legislative protection, as a basis of representation in
the popular branch of the National Legislature. It regards slaves
under the description "of all other _persons_"--as of only
three-fifths of the value of free persons; thus to appearance
undervaluing them in comparison with freemen. But its dark and
involved phraseology seems intended to blind us to the consideration,
that those underrated slaves are merely a _basis_, not the _source_
of representation; that by the laws of all the States where they live,
they are regarded not as _persons_; but as _things_; that they are
not the _constituency_ of the representative, but his property; and
that the necessary effect of this provision of the Constitution is,
to take legislative power out of the hands of _men_, as such, and
give it to the mere possessors of goods and chattels. Fixing upon
thirty thousand persons, as the smallest number that shall send one
member into the House of Representatives, it protects slavery by
distributing legislative power in a free and in a slave State thus:
To a congressional district in South Carolina, containing fifty
thousand slaves, claimed as the property of five hundred whites, who
hold, on an average, one hundred apiece, it gives one Representative
in Congress; to a district in Massachusetts containing a population
of thirty thousand five hundred, one Representative is assigned. But
inasmuch as a slave is never permitted to vote, the fifty thousand
persons in a district in Carolina form no part of "the constituency;"
that is found only in the five hundred free persons. Five hundred
freemen of Carolina could send one Representative to Congress, while
it would take thirty thousand five hundred freemen of Massachusetts,
to do the same thing: that is, one slaveholder in Carolina is
clothed by the Constitution with the same political power and
influence in the Representatives Hall at Washington, as sixty
Massachusetts men like you and me, who "eat their bread in the sweat
of their own brows."

According to the census of 1830, and the ratio of representation
based upon that, slave property added twenty-five members to the
House of Representatives. And as it has been estimated, (as an
approximation to the truth,) that the two and a half million slaves
in the United States are held as property by about two hundred and
fifty thousand persons--giving an average of ten slaves to each
slaveholder, those twenty-five Representatives, each chosen, at most,
by only ten thousand voters, and probably by less than three-fourths
of that number, were the representatives, not only of the two
hundred and fifty thousand persons who chose them; but of _property_
which, five years ago, when slaves were lower in market, than at
present, were estimated, by the man who is now the most prominent
candidate for the Presidency, at twelve hundred millions of dollars--a
sum, which, by the natural increase of five years, and the enhanced
value resulting from a more prosperous state of the planting
interest, cannot now be less than fifteen hundred millions of dollars.
All this vast amount of property, as it is "peculiar," is also
identical in its character. In Congress, as we have seen, it is
animated by one spirit, moves in one mass, and is wielded with one
aim; and when we consider that tyranny is always timid, and despotism
distrustful, we see that this vast money power would be false to
itself, did it not direct all its eyes and hands, and put forth all
its ingenuity and energy, to one end--self-protection and
self-perpetuation. And this it has ever done. In all the vibrations
of the political scale, whether in relation to a Bank or Sub-Treasury,
Free Trade or a Tariff, this immense power has moved, and will
continue to move, in one mass, for its own protection.

While the weight of the slave influence is thus felt in the House of
Representatives, "in the Senate of the Union," says John Quincy Adams,
"the proportion of slaveholding power is still 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
fifty-two members of the federal Senate, twenty-six are owners of
slaves, and are as effectually representatives of that interest, as
the eighty-eight members elected by them to the House."

The dominant power which the Constitution gives to the slave interest,
as thus seen and exercised in the _Legislative Halls_ of our nation,
is equally obvious and obtrusive in every other department of the
National government.

In the _Electoral colleges_, the same cause produces the same
effect--the same power is wielded for the same purpose, as in the
Halls of Congress. Even the preliminary nominating conventions, before
they dare name a candidate for the highest office in the gift of the
people, must ask of the Genius of slavery, to what votary she will
show herself propitious. This very year, we see both the great
political parties doing homage to the slave power, by nominating
each a slaveholder for the chair of the State. The candidate of one
party declares. "I should have opposed, and would continue to oppose,
any scheme whatever of emancipation, either gradual or immediate;"
and adds, "It is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, that
either of the two great parties of this country has any design or
aim at abolition. I should deeply lament it, if it were true."[94]

[Footnote 94: Henry Clay's speech in the United States Senate in 1839,
and confirmed at Raleigh, N.C. 1844.]


The other party nominates a man who says, "I have no hesitation in
declaring that I am in favor of the immediate re-annexation of Texas
to the territory and government of the United States."

Thus both the political parties, and the candidates of both, vie
with each other, in offering allegiance to the slave power, as a
condition precedent to any hope of success in the struggle for the
executive chair; a seat that, for more than three-fourths of the
existence of our constitutional government, has been occupied by a
slaveholder.

The same stern despotism overshadows even the sanctuaries of
_justice_. Of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United
States, five are slaveholders, and of course, must be faithless to
their own interest, as well as recreant to the power that gives them
place, or must, so far as _they_ are concerned, give both to law and
constitution such a construction as shall justify the language of
John Quincy Adams, when he says--"The legislative, executive, and
judicial authorities, are all in their hands--for 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."

Thus by merely adverting but briefly to the theory and the practical
effect of this clause of the Constitution, that I have sworn to
support, it is seen that it throws the political power of the nation
into the hands of the slaveholders; a body of men, which, however it
may be regarded by the Constitution as "persons," is in fact and
practical effect, a vast moneyed corporation, bound together by an
indissoluble unity of interest, by a common sense of a common danger;
counselling at all times for its common protection; wielding the
whole power, and controlling the destiny of the nation.

If we look into the legislative halls, slavery is seen in the chair
of the presiding officer of each, and controlling the action of both.
Slavery occupies, by prescriptive right, the Presidential chair. The
paramount voice that comes from the temple of national justice,
issues from the lips of slavery. The army is in the hands of slavery,
and at her bidding, must encamp in the everglades of Florida, or
march from the Missouri to the borders of Mexico, to look after her
interests in Texas.

The navy, even that part that is cruising off the coast of Africa, to
suppress the foreign slave trade, is in the hands of slavery.

Freemen of the North, who have even dared to lift up their voice
against slavery, cannot travel through the slave States, but at the
peril of their lives.

The representatives of freemen are forbidden, on the floor of
Congress, to remonstrate against the encroachments of slavery, or to
pray that she would let her poor victims go.

I renounce my allegiance to a Constitution that enthrones such a
power, wielded for the purpose of depriving me of my rights, of
robbing my countrymen of their liberties, and of securing its own
protection, support and perpetuation.

Passing by that clause of the Constitution, which restricted Congress
for twenty years, from passing any law against the African slave
trade, and which gave authority to raise a revenue on the stolen
sons of Africa, I come to that part of the fourth article, which
guarantees protection against "_domestic violence_," and which
pledges to the South the military force of the country, to protect
the masters against their insurgent slaves: binds us, and our
children, to shoot down our fellow-countrymen, who may rise, in
emulation of our revolutionary fathers, to vindicate their inalienable
"right to life, _liberty_ and the pursuit of happiness,"--this
clause of the Constitution, I say distinctly, I never will
support.

That part of the Constitution which provides for the surrender of
fugitive slaves, I never have supported and never will. I will join
in no slave-hunt. My door shall stand open, as it has long stood, for
the panting and trembling victim of the slave-hunter. When I shut it
against him, may God shut the door of his mercy against me! Under
this clause of the Constitution, and designed to carry it into effect,
slavery has demanded that laws should be passed, and of such a
character, as have left the free citizen of the North without
protection for his own liberty. The question, whether a man seized
in a free State as a slave, _is_ a slave or not, the law of Congress
does not allow a jury to determine: but refers it to the decision of
a Judge of a United States' Court, or even of the humblest State
magistrate, it may be, upon the testimony or affidavit of the party
most deeply interested to support the claim. By virtue of this law,
freemen have been seized and dragged into perpetual slavery--and
should I be seized by a slave-hunter in any part of the country
where I am not personally known, neither the Constitution nor laws
of the United States would shield me from the same destiny.

These, sir, are the specific parts of the Constitution of the United
States, which in my opinion are essentially vicious, hostile at once
to the liberty and to the morals of the nation. And these are the
principal reasons of my refusal any longer to acknowledge my
allegiance to it, and of my determination to revoke my oath to
support it. I cannot, in order to keep the law of man, break the law
of God, or solemnly call him to witness my promise that I will break
it.

It is true that the Constitution provides for its own amendment, and
that by this process, all the guarantees of Slavery may be expunged.
But it will be time enough to swear to support it when this is done.
It cannot be right to do so, until these amendments are made.

It is also true that the framers of the Constitution did studiously
keep the words "Slave" and "Slavery" from its face. But to do our
constitutional fathers justice, while they forebore--from very
shame--to give the word "Slavery" a place in the Constitution, they
did not forbear--again to do them justice--to give place in it to
the _thing_. They were careful to wrap up the idea, and the substance
of Slavery, in the clause for the surrender of the fugitive, though
they sacrificed justice in doing so.

There is abundant evidence that this clause touching "persons held
to service or labor," not only operates practically, under the
judicial construction, for the protection of the slave interest; but
that it was intended so to operate by the framers of the
Constitution. The highest judicial authorities--Chief Justice Shaw,
of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in the Latimer case, and
Mr. Justice Story, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the
case of _Prigg_ vs. _The State of Pennsylvania_,--tell us, I know
not on what evidence, that without this "compromise," this security
for Southern slaveholders, "the Union could not have been formed."
And there is still higher evidence, not only that the framers of the
Constitution meant by this clause to protect slavery, but that they
did this, knowing that slavery was wrong. Mr. Madison[95] informs us
that the clause in question, as it came out of the hands of Dr.
Johnson, the chairman of the "committee on style," read thus: "No
person legally held to service, or labor, in one State, escaping into
another, shall," &c., and that the word "legally" was struck out, and
the words "under the laws thereof" inserted after the word "State," in
compliance with the wish of some, who thought the term _legal_
equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal "_in a moral
view_." A conclusive proof that, although future generations might
apply that clause to other kinds of "service or labor," when slavery
should have died out, or been killed off by the young spirit of
liberty, which was _then_ awake and at work in the land; still,
slavery was what they were wrapping up in "equivocal" words; and
wrapping it up for its protection and safe keeping: a conclusive proof
that the framers of the Constitution were more careful to protect
themselves in the judgment of coming generations, from the charge
of ignorance, than of sin; a conclusive proof that they knew that
slavery was _not_ "legal in a moral view," that it was a violation
of the moral law of God; and yet knowing and confessing its
immorality, they dared to make this stipulation for its support and
defence.

[Footnote 95: Madison Papers, p. 1589]

This language may sound harsh to the ears of those who think it a
part of their duty, as citizens, to maintain that whatever the
patriots of the Revolution did, was right; and who hold that we are
bound to _do_ all the iniquity that they covenanted for us that we
_should_ do. But the claims of truth and right are paramount to
all other claims.

With all our veneration for our constitutional fathers, we must
admit,--for they have left on record their own confession of it,--that
in this part of their work they intended to hold the shield of
their protection over a wrong, knowing that it was a wrong. They
made a "compromise" which they had no right to make--a compromise of
moral principle for the sake of what they probably regarded as
"political expediency." I am sure they did not know--no man could
know, or can now measure, the extent, or the consequences of the
wrong, that they were doing. In the strong language of John Quincy
Adams,[96] in relation to the article fixing the basis of
representation, "Little did the members of the Convention, from the
free States, imagine or foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden
under the mask of this concession."

[Footnote 96: See his Report on the Massachusetts Resolutions.]


I verily believe that, giving all due consideration to the benefits
conferred upon this nation by the Constitution, its national unity,
its swelling masses of wealth, its power, and the external
prosperity of its multiplying millions; yet the _moral_ injury that
has been done, by the countenance shown to slavery by holding over
that tremendous sin the shield of the Constitution, and thus
breaking down in the eyes of the nation the barrier between right
and wrong; by so tenderly cherishing slavery as, in less than the
life of man, to multiply her children from half a million to nearly
three millions; by exacting oaths from those who occupy prominent
stations in society, that they will violate at once the rights of
man and the law of God; by substituting itself as a rule of right,
in place of the moral laws of the universe;--thus in effect,
dethroning the Almighty in the hearts of this people and setting up
another sovereign in his stead--more than outweighs it all. A
melancholy and monitory lesson this, to all timeserving and
temporising statesmen! A striking illustration of the _impolicy_ of
sacrificing _right_ to any considerations of expediency! Yet, what
better than the evil effects that we have seen, could the authors of
the Constitution have reasonably expected, from the sacrifice of
right, in the concessions they made to slavery? Was it reasonable in
them to expect that after they had introduced a vicious element into
the very Constitution of the body politic which they were calling
into life, it would not exert its vicious energies? Was it reasonable
in them to expect that, after slavery had been corrupting the public
morals for a whole generation, their children would have too much
virtue to _use_ for the defence of slavery, a power which they
themselves had not too much virtue to _give_? It is dangerous for
the sovereign power of a State to license immorality; to hold the
shield of its protection over any thing that is not "legal in a moral
view." Bring into your house a benumbed viper, and lay it down upon
your warm hearth, and soon it will not ask you into which room it
may crawl. Let Slavery once lean upon the supporting arm, and bask
in the fostering smile of the State, and you will soon see, as we
now see, both her minions and her victims multiply apace till the
politics, the morals, the liberties, even the religion of the nation,
are brought completely under her control.


To me, it appears that the virus of slavery, introduced into the
Constitution of our body politic, by a few slight punctures, has now
so pervaded and poisoned the whole system of our National Government,
that literally there is no health in it. The only remedy that I can
see for the disease, is to be found in the _dissolution of the
patient_.

The Constitution of the United States, both in theory and practice,
is so utterly broken down by the influence and effects of slavery,
so imbecile for the highest good of the nation, and so powerful for
evil, that I can give no voluntary assistance in holding it up any
longer.

Henceforth it is dead to me, and I to it. I withdraw all profession
of allegiance to it, and all my voluntary efforts to sustain it. The
burdens that it lays upon me, while it is held up by others, I shall
endeavor to bear patiently, yet acting with reference to a higher law,
and distinctly declaring, that while I retain my own liberty, I will
be a party to no compact, which helps to rob any other man of his.

Very respectfully, your friend,

FRANCIS JACKSON.


       *       *       *       *       *

FROM MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH AT NIBLO'S GARDENS.

"We have slavery, already, amongst us. The Constitution found it
among us; it recognized it and gave it SOLEMN GUARANTIES. To the
full extent of these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in
justice, and by the Constitution. All the stipulations, contained in
the Constitution, _in favor of the slaveholding States_ which are
already in the Union, ought to be fulfilled, and so far as depends
on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fullness of their spirit, and to
the exactness of their letter."!!!

       *       *       *       *       *

EXTRACTS FROM JOHN Q. ADAMS'S ADDRESS

AT NORTH BRIDGEWATER, NOV. 6, 1844.

The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the
restoration of credit and reputation, to the country--the revival of
commerce, navigation, and ship-building--the acquisition of the
means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection
and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the
country. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was
insufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to
the adoption of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was
_protection_.--Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of
Indians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the most
terrible of wars--and protection from their own negroes--protection
from their insurrections--protection from their escape--protection
even to the trade by which they were brought into the
country--protection, shall I not blush to say, protection to the very
bondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be denied--the
slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a condition of their
assent to the Constitution, three special provisions to secure the
perpetuity of their dominion over their slaves. The first was the
immunity for twenty years of preserving the African slave-trade; the
second was the stipulation to surrender fugitive slaves--an
engagement positively prohibited by the laws of God, delivered from
Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction fatal to the principles of popular
representation, of a representation for slaves--for articles of
merchandise, under the name of persons.

The reluctance with which the freemen of the North submitted to the
dictation of these conditions, is attested by the awkward and
ambiguous language in which they are expressed. The word slave is
most cautiously and fastidiously excluded from the whole instrument.
A stranger, who should come from a foreign land, and read the
Constitution of the United States, would not believe that slavery or
a slave existed within the borders of our country. There is not a
word in the Constitution _apparently_ bearing upon the condition of
slavery, nor is there a provision but would be susceptible of
practical execution, if there were not a slave in the land.

The delegates from South Carolina and Georgia distinctly avowed that,
without this guarantee of protection to their property in slaves,
they would not yield their assent to the Constitution; and the
freemen of the North, reduced to the alternative of departing from
the vital principle of their liberty, or of forfeiting the Union
itself, averted their faces, and with trembling hand subscribed the
bond.

Twenty years passed away--the slave markets of the South were
saturated with the blood of African bondage, and from midnight of the
31st of December, 1807, not a slave from Africa was suffered ever
more to be introduced upon our soil. But the internal traffic was
still lawful, and the _breeding_ States soon reconciled themselves to
a prohibition which gave them the monopoly of the interdicted trade,
and they joined the full chorus of reprobation, to punish with death
the slave-trader from Africa, while they cherished and shielded and
enjoyed the precious profits of the American slave-trade exclusively
to themselves.

Perhaps this unhappy result of their concession had not altogether
escaped the foresight of the freemen of the North; but their intense
anxiety for the preservation of the whole Union, and the habit
already formed of yielding to the somewhat peremptory and overbearing
tone which the relation of master and slave welds into the nature of
the lord, prevailed with them to overlook this consideration, the
internal slave-trade having scarcely existed while that with Africa
had been allowed. But of one consequence which has followed from the
slave representation, pervading the whole organic structure of the
Constitution, they certainly were not prescient; for if they had been,
never--no, never would they have consented to it.

The representation, ostensibly of slaves, under the name of persons,
was in its operation an exclusive grant of power to one class of
proprietors, owners of one species of property, to the detriment of
all the rest of the community. This species of property was odious
in its nature, held in direct violation of the natural and
inalienable rights of man, and of the vital principles of
Christianity; it was all accumulated in one geographical section of
the country, and was all held by wealthy men, comparatively small in
numbers, not amounting to a tenth part of the free white population
of the States in which it was concentrated.

In some of the ancient, and in some modern republics, extraordinary
political power and privileges have been invested in the owners of
horses; but then these privileges and these powers have been granted
for the equivalent of extraordinary duties and services to the
community, required of the favoured class. The Roman knights
constituted the cavalry of their armies, and the bushels of rings
gathered by Hannibal from their dead bodies, after the battle of
Cannae, amply prove that the special powers conferred upon them were
no gratuitous grants. But in the Constitution of the United States,
the political power invested in the owners of slaves is entirely
gratuitous. No extraordinary service is required of them; they are,
on the contrary, themselves grievous burdens upon the community,
always threatened with the danger of insurrections, to be smothered
in the blood of both parties, master and slave, and always
depressing the condition of the poor free laborer, by competition
with the labor of the slave. The property in horses was the gift of
God to man, at the creation of the world; the property in slaves is
property acquired and held by crimes, differing in no moral aspect
from the pillage of a freebooter, and to which no lapse of time can
give a prescriptive right. You are told that this is no concern of
yours, and that the question of freedom and slavery is exclusively
reserved to the consideration of the separate States. But if it be so,
as to the mere question of right between master and slave, it is of
tremendous concern to you that this little cluster of slave-owners
should possess, besides their own share in the representative hall
of the nation, the exclusive privilege of appointing two-fifths of
the whole number of the representatives of the people. This is now
your condition, under that delusive ambiguity of language and of
principle, which begins by declaring the representation in the
popular branch of the legislature a representation of persons, and
then provides that one class of persons shall have neither part not
lot in the choice of their representatives; but their elective
franchise shall be transferred to their masters, and the oppressors
shall represent the oppressed. The same perversion of the
representative principle pollutes the composition of the colleges of
electors of President and Vice President of the United States, and
every department of the government of the Union is thus tainted at
its source by the gangrene of slavery.

Fellow-citizens,--with a body of men thus composed, for legislators
and executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been
your legislation?  The numbers of freemen constituting your nation
are much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free.
You have at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union.
Your influence on the legislation and the administration of the
government ought to be in the proportion of three to two.--But how
stands the fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence
exercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers,
here is an intrusive influence in every department, by a
representation nominally of persons, but really of property,
ostensibly of slaves, but effectively of their masters,
overbalancing your superiority of numbers, adding two-fifths of
supplementary power to the two-fifths fairly secured to them by the
compact, CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR
GOVERNMENT AT HOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to the sordid private
interest and oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of slaves.

From the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United
States, the institution of domestic slavery has been becoming more
and more the abhorrence of the civilized world. But in proportion as
it has been growing odious to all the rest of mankind, it has been
sinking deeper and deeper into the affections of the holders of
slaves themselves. The cultivation of cotton and of sugar, unknown
in the Union at the establishment of the Constitution, has added
largely to the pecuniary value of the slave. And the suppression of
the African slave-trade as piracy upon pain of death, by securing
the benefit of a monopoly to the virtuous slaveholders of the
ancient dominion, has turned her heroic tyrannicides into a
community of slave-breeders for sale, and converted the land of
George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas
Jefferson, into a great barracoon--a cattle-show of human beings, an
emporium, of which the staple articles of merchandise are the flesh
and blood, the bones and sinews of immortal man.

Of the increasing abomination of slavery in the unbought hearts of
men at the time when the Constitution of the United States was formed,
what clearer proof could be desired, than that the very same year in
which that charter of the land was issued, the Congress of the
Confederation, with not a tithe of the powers given by the people to
the Congress of the new compact, actually abolished slavery for ever
throughout the whole Northwestern territory, without a remonstrance
or a murmur. But in the articles of confederation, there was no
guaranty for the property of the slaveholder--no double representation
of him in the Federal councils--no power of taxation--no stipulation
for the recovery of fugitive slaves. But when the powers of
_government_ came to be delegated to the Union, the South--that
is, South Carolina and Georgia--refused their subscription to
the parchment, till it should be saturated with the infection
of slavery, which no fumigation could purify, no quarantine could
extinguish. The freemen of the North gave way, and the deadly
venom of slavery was infused into the Constitution of freedom. Its
first consequence has been to invert the first principle of Democracy,
that the will of the majority of numbers shall rule the land. By
means of the double representation, the minority command the whole,
and a KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW AND PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF
THE COUNTRY. To acquire this superiority of a large majority of
freemen, a persevering system of engrossing nearly all the seats
of power and place, is constantly for a long series of years
pursued, and you have seen, in a period of fifty-six years, the
Chief-magistracy of the Union held, during forty-four of them, by
the owners of slaves. The Executive departments, the Army and Navy,
the Supreme Judicial Court and diplomatic missions abroad, all
present the same spectacle:--an immense majority of power in the
hands of a very small minority of the people--millions made for a
fraction of a few thousands.

*       *       *       *       *

From that day (1830), SLAVERY, SLAVEHOLDING, SLAVE-BREEDING AND
SLAVE-TRADING, HAVE FORMED THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE POLICY OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and of the slaveholding States, at home and
abroad; and at the very time when a new census has exhibited a large
increase upon the superior numbers of the free States, it has
presented the portentous evidence of increased influence and
ascendancy of the slaveholding power.

Of the prevalence of that power, you have had continual and
conclusive evidence in the suppression for the space of ten years of
the right of petition, guarantied, if there could be a guarantee
against slavery, by the first article amendatory of the Constitution.



No. 13.

THE
ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

       *       *       *       *       *

ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR
IN THE UNITED STATES.

       *       *       *       *       *

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.

1839.

       *       *       *       *       *

This No. contains 1-1/2 sheet.--Postage, under 100 miles,
2-1/2 cts. over 100, 3 cts.

Please Read and circulate.




  ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR.

       *       *       *       *       *

It appears from the census of 1830, that there were then 319,467
free colored persons in the United States. At the present time the
number cannot be less than 360,000. Fifteen States of the Federal
Union have each a smaller population than this aggregate. Hence if
the whole mass of human beings inhabiting Connecticut, or New Jersey,
or any other of these fifteen States, were subjected to the ignorance,
and degradation, and persecution and terror we are about to describe,
as the lot of this much injured people, the amount of suffering would
still be numerically less than that inflicted by a professedly
Christian and republican community upon the free negroes. Candor,
however, compels us to admit that, deplorable as is their condition,
it is still not so wretched as Colonizationists and slaveholders,
for obvious reasons, are fond of representing it. It is not true
that free negroes are "more vicious and miserable than slaves _can_
be,"[97] nor that "it would be as humane to throw slaves from the
decks of the middle passage, as to set them free in this country,"[98]
nor that "a sudden and universal emancipation without
colonization, would be a greater CURSE to the slaves themselves,
than the bondage in which they are held."

[Footnote 97: Rev. Mr. Bacon, of New Haven, 7 Rep. Am. Col. Soc.
p. 99.]

[Footnote 98: African Repository, Vol. IV. p. 226.]


It is a little singular, that in utter despite of these rash
assertions slaveholders and colonizationists unite in assuring us,
that the slaves are rendered _discontented_ by _witnessing_ the
freedom of their colored brethren; and hence we are urged to assist
in banishing to Africa these sable and dangerous mementoes of liberty.

We all know that the wife and children of the free negro are not
ordinarily sold in the market--that he himself does not toil under
the lash, and that in certain parts of our country he is permitted
to acquire some intelligence, and to enjoy some comforts, utterly
and universally denied to the slave. Still it is most unquestionable,
that these people grievously suffer from a cruel and wicked
prejudice--cruel in its consequences; wicked in its voluntary
adoption, and its malignant character.

Colonizationists have taken great pains to inculcate the opinion that
prejudice against color is implanted in our nature by the Author of
our being; and whence they infer the futility of every effort to
elevate the colored man in this country, and consequently the duty
and benevolence of sending him to Africa, beyond the reach of our
cruelty.[99] The theory is as false in fact as it is derogatory to
the character of that God whom we are told is LOVE.  With what
astonishment and disgust should we behold an earthly parent exciting
feuds and animosities among his own children; yet we are assured,
and that too by professing Christians, that our heavenly Father has
implanted a principle of hatred, repulsion and alienation between
certain portions of his family on earth, and then commanded them, as
if in mockery, to "love one another."

[Footnote 99: "Prejudices, which neither refinement, nor argument,
nor education, NOR RELIGION ITSELF can subdue, mark the people of
color, whether bond or free, as the subjects of a degradation
_inevitable and incurable_."--_Address of the Connecticut Col.
Society_. "The managers consider it clear that causes exist, and are
now operating, to prevent their improvement and elevation to any
considerable extent as a class in this country, which are fixed, not
only beyond the control of the friends of humanity, but of _any
human power_: CHRISTIANITY cannot do for them here, what it will do
for them in Africa. This is not the _fault_ of the colored man,
_nor of the white man_, but an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE, _and no
more to be changed than the laws of nature_."--15 Rep. Am. Col. Soc.
p. 47.

"The people of color must, in this country, remain for ages,
probably for ever, a separate and distinct caste, weighed down by
causes powerful, universal, invincible, which neither legislation
nor CHRISTIANITY can remove."--African Repository Vol. VIII. p. 196.

"Do they (the abolitionists) not perceive that in thus confounding
all the distinctions which GOD himself has made, they arraign the
wisdom and goodness of Providence itself? It has been His divine
pleasure, to make the black man black, and the white man white, and
to distinguish them by other _repulsive_ constitutional
differences."--Speech in Senate of the United States, February 7,
1839, by HENRY CLAY, PRESIDENT OF THE AM. COL. SOC.]


In vain do we seek in nature, for the origin of this prejudice. Young
children never betray it, and on the continent of Europe it is
unknown. We are not speaking of matters of taste, or of opinions of
personal beauty, but of a prejudice against complexion, leading to
insult, degradation and oppression. In no country in Europe is any
man excluded from refined society, or deprived of literary, religious,
or political privileges on account of the tincture of his skin. If
this prejudice is the fiat of the Almighty, most wonderful is it,
that of all the kindreds of the earth, none have been found
submissive to the heavenly impulse, excepting the white inhabitants
of North America; and of these, it is no less strange than true,
that this divine principle of repulsion is most energetic in such
persons as, in other respects, are the least observant of their
Maker's will.  This prejudice is sometimes erroneously regarded as
the _cause_ of slavery; and some zealous advocates of emancipation
have flattered themselves that, could the prejudice be destroyed,
negro slavery would fall with it.  Such persons have very inadequate
ideas of the malignity of slavery.  They forget that the slaves in
Greece and Rome were of the same hue as their masters; and that at
the South, the value of a slave, especially of a female, rises, as
the complexion recedes from the African standard.

Were we to inquire into the geography of this prejudice, we should
find that the localities in which it attains its rankest luxuriance,
are not the rice swamps of Georgia, nor the sugar fields of Louisiana,
but the hills and valleys of New England, and the prairies of Ohio!
It is a fact of acknowledged notoriety, that however severe may be
the laws against colored people at the South, the prejudice against
their _persons_ is far weaker than among ourselves.

It is not necessary for our present purpose, to enter into a
particular investigation of the condition of the free negroes in the
slave States. We all know that they suffer every form of oppression
which the laws can inflict upon persons not actually slaves. That
unjust and cruel enactments should proceed from a people who keep
two millions of their fellow men in abject bondage, and who believe
such enactments essential to the maintenance of their despotism,
certainly affords no cause for surprise.

We turn to the free States, where slavery has not directly steeled
our hearts against human suffering, and where no supposed danger of
insurrection affords a pretext for keeping the free blacks in
ignorance and degradation; and we ask, what is the character of the
prejudice against color _here_?  Let the Rev. Mr. Bacon, of
Connecticut, answer the question.  This gentleman, in a vindication
of the Colonization Society, assures us, "The _Soodra_ is not
farther separated from the _Brahim_ in regard to all his privileges,
civil, intellectual, and moral, than the negro from the white man by
the prejudices which result from the difference made between them by
THE GOD OF NATURE."--(_Rep. Am. Col. Soc._ p. 87.)

We may here notice the very opposite effect produced on Abolitionists
and Colonizationists, by the consideration that this difference
_is_ made by the GOD OF NATURE; leading the one to discard the
prejudice, and the other to banish its victims.

With these preliminary remarks we will now proceed to take a view of
the condition of the free people of color in the non-slaveholding
States; and will consider in order, the various disabilities and
oppressions to which they are subjected, either by law or the
customs of society.


1. GENERAL EXCLUSION FROM THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.

Were this exclusion founded on the want of property, or any other
qualification deemed essential to the judicious exercise of the
franchise, it would afford no just cause of complaint; but it is
founded solely on the color of the skin, and is therefore irrational
and unjust. That taxation and representation should be inseparable,
was one of the axioms of the fathers of our revolution; and one of
the reasons they assigned for their revolt from the crown of Britain.
But _now_, it is deemed a mark of fanaticism to complain of the
disfranchisement of a whole race, while they remain subject to the
burden of taxation. It is worthy of remark, that of the thirteen
original States, only _two_ were so recreant to the principles of
the Revolution, as to make a _white skin_ a qualification for
suffrage. But the prejudice has grown with our growth, and
strengthened with our strength; and it is believed that in _every_
State constitution subsequently formed or revised,[excepting
Vermont and Maine, and the Revised constitution of Massachusetts,]
the crime of a dark complexion has been punished, by debarring its
possessor from all approach to the ballot-box.[100] The necessary
effect of this proscription in aggravating the oppression and
degradation of the colored inhabitants must be obvious to all who
call to mind the solicitude manifested by demagogues, and
office-seekers, and law makers, to propitiate the good will of all
who have votes to bestow.

[Footnote 100: From this remark the revised constitution of New York
is _nominally_ an exception; colored citizens, possessing a _freehold_
worth two hundred and fifty dollars, being allowed to vote; while
suffrage is extended to _white_ citizens without any property
qualification.]


2. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF LOCOMOTION.

It is in vain that the Constitution of the United States expressly
guarantees to "the citizens of each State, all the privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several States:"--It is in vain that
the Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly decided that this
clause confers on every citizen of one State the right to "pass
through, or reside in any other State for the purposes of trade,
agriculture, professional pursuits, or _otherwise_." It is in vain
that "the members of the several State legislatures" are required to
"be bound by oath or affirmation to support" the constitution
conferring this very guarantee. Constitutions, and judicial decisions,
and religious obligations are alike outraged by our State enactments
against people of color. There is scarcely a slave State in which a
citizen of New York, with a dark skin, may visit a dying child
without subjecting himself to legal penalties. But in the slave
States we look for cruelty; we expect the rights of humanity and the
laws of the land to be sacrificed on the altar of slavery. In the
free States we had reason to hope for a greater deference to decency
and morality. Yet even in these States we behold the effects of a
miasma wafted from the South. The Connecticut Black Act, prohibiting,
under heavy penalties, the instruction of any colored person from
another State, is well known. It is one of the encouraging signs of
the times, that public opinion has recently compelled the repeal of
this detestable law. But among all the free States, OHIO stands
pre-eminent for the wickedness of her statutes against this class of
our population. These statutes are not merely infamous outrages on
every principle of justice and humanity, but are gross and palpable
violations of the State constitution, and manifest an absence of
moral sentiment in the Ohio legislature as deplorable as it is
alarming. We speak the language, not of passion, but of sober
conviction; and for the truth of this language we appeal, first, to
the Statutes themselves, and then to the consciences of our readers.
We shall have occasion to notice these laws under the several
divisions of our subject to which they belong; at present we ask
attention to the one intended to prevent the colored citizens of
other States from removing into Ohio. By the constitution of New York,
the colored inhabitants are expressly recognized as "citizens." Let
us suppose then a New York freeholder and voter of this class,
confiding in the guarantee given by the Federal constitution removes
into Ohio. No matter how much property he takes with him; no matter
what attestations he produces to the purity of his character, he is
required by the Act of 1807, to find, within twenty days, two
freehold sureties in the sum of five hundred dollars for his _good
behavior_; and likewise for his _maintenance_, should he at any
future period from any cause whatever be unable to maintain himself,
and in default of procuring such sureties he is to be removed by the
overseers of the poor. The legislature well knew that it would
generally be utterly impossible for a stranger, and especially a
_black_ stranger, to find such sureties. It was the _design_ of
the Act, by imposing impracticable conditions, to prevent colored
emigrants from remaining within the State; and in order more
certainly to effect this object, it imposes a pecuniary penalty on
every inhabitant who shall venture to "harbor," that is, receive
under his roof, or who shall even "employ" an emigrant who has not
given the required sureties; and it moreover renders such inhabitant
so harboring or employing him, legally liable for his future
maintenance!!

We are frequently told that the efforts of the abolitionists have in
fact aggravated the condition of the colored people, bond and free.
The _date_ of this law, as well as the date of most of the laws
composing the several slave codes, show what credit is to be given
to the assertion. If a barbarous enactment is _recent_, its odium is
thrown upon the friends of the blacks--if _ancient_, we are assured
it is _obsolete_. The Ohio law was enacted only four years after the
State was admitted into the Union. In 1800 there were only three
hundred and thirty-seven free blacks in the territory, and in 1830
the number in the State was nine thousand five hundred. Of course a
very large proportion of the present colored population of the State
must have entered it in ignorance of this iniquitous law, or in
defiance of it. That the law has not been universally enforced,
proves only that the people of Ohio are less profligate than their
legislators--that it has remained in the statute book for thirty-two
years, proves the depraved state of public opinion and the horrible
persecution to which the colored people are legally exposed. But let
it not be supposed that this vile law is in fact obsolete, and its
very existence forgotten.

In 1829, a very general effort was made to enforce this law, and
about _one thousand free blacks_ were in consequence of it driven
out of the State; and sought a refuge in the more free and Christian
country of Canada. Previous to their departure, they sent a
deputation to the Governor of the Upper Province, to know if they
would be admitted, and received from Sir James Colebrook this
reply,--"Tell the _republicans_ on your side of the line, that we
royalists do not know men by their color. Should you come to us, you
will be entitled to all the privileges of the rest of his majesty's
subjects." This was the origin of the Wilberforce colony in Upper
Canada.

We have now before us an Ohio paper, containing a proclamation by
John S. Wiles, overseer of the poor in the town of Fairfield, dated
12th March, 1838. In this instrument notice is given to all
"black or mulatto persons" residing in Fairfield, to comply with the
requisitions of the Act of 1807 within twenty days, or the law would
be enforced against them. The proclamation also addresses the white
inhabitants of Fairfield in the following terms,--"Whites, look out!
If any person or persons _employing_ any black or mulatto person,
contrary to the 3d section of the above law, you may look out for
the breakers." The extreme vulgarity and malignity of this notice
indicates the spirit which gave birth to this detestable law, and
continues it in being.

Now what says the constitution of Ohio? "ALL are born free and
independent, and have certain natural, inherent, inalienable rights;
among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty,
_acquiring, possessing, and protecting property_, and pursuing and
attaining happiness and safety." Yet men who had called their Maker
to witness, that they would obey this very constitution, require
impracticable conditions, and then impose a pecuniary penalty and
grievous liabilities on every man who shall give to an innocent
fellow countryman a night's lodging, or even a meal of victuals in
exchange for his honest labor!


3. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION.

We explicitly disclaim all intention to imply that the several
disabilities and cruelties we are specifying are of universal
application. The laws of some States in relation to people of color
are more wicked than others; and the spirit of persecution is not in
every place equally active and malignant. In none of the free States
have these people so many grievances to complain of as in Ohio, and
for the honor of our country we rejoice to add, that in no other
State in the Union, has their right to petition for a redress of
their grievances been denied.

On the 14th January, 1839, a petition for relief from certain legal
disabilities, from colored inhabitants of Ohio, was presented to the
_popular_ branch of the legislature, and its rejection was moved
by George H. Flood.[101] This rejection was not a denial of the prayer,
but an _expulsion of the petition itself_, as an intruder into the
house. "The question presented for our decision," said one of the
members, "is simply this--Shall human beings, who are bound by every
enactment upon our statute book, be _permitted_ to _request_ the
legislature to modify or soften the laws under which they live?" To
the Grand Sultan, crowded with petitions as he traverses the streets
of Constantinople, such a question would seem most strange; but
American democrats can exert a tyranny over _men who have no votes_,
utterly unknown to Turkish despotism. Mr. Flood's motion was lost by
a majority of only _four_ votes; but this triumph of humanity and
republicanism was as transient as it was meagre. The _next_ day, the
House, by a large majority, resolved: "That the blacks and mulattoes
who may be residents within this State, have no constitutional right
to present their petitions to the General Assembly for any purpose
whatsoever, and that any reception of such petitions on the part of
the General Assembly is a mere act of privilege or policy, and not
imposed by any expressed or implied power of the Constitution."

[Footnote 101: It is sometimes interesting to preserve the names of
individuals who have perpetrated bold and unusual enormities.]


The phraseology of this resolution is as clumsy as its assertions are
base and sophistical. The meaning intended to be expressed is simply,
that the Constitution of Ohio, neither in terms nor by implication,
confers on such residents as are negroes or mulattoes, any right
to offer a petition to the legislature for any object whatever; nor
imposes on that body any obligation to notice such a petition; and
whatever attention it may please to bestow upon it, ought to be
regarded as an act not of duty, but merely of favor or expediency.
Hence it is obvious, that the _principle_ on which the resolution is
founded is, that the reciprocal right and duty of offering and
hearing petitions _rest solely on constitutional enactment_, and not
on moral obligation. The reception of negro petitions is declared
to be a mere act of _privilege or policy_. Now it is difficult to
imagine a principle more utterly subversive of all the duties of
rulers, the rights of citizens, and the charities of private life.
The victim of oppression or fraud has no _right_ to appeal to the
constituted authorities for redress; nor are those authorities under
any obligation to consider the appeal--the needy and unfortunate
have no right to implore the assistance of their more fortunate
neighbors: and all are at liberty to turn a deaf ear to the cry of
distress. The eternal and immutable principles of justice and
humanity, proclaimed by Jehovah, and impressed by him on the
conscience of man, have no binding force on the legislature of Ohio,
unless expressly adopted and enforced by the State Constitution!

But as the legislature has thought proper thus to set at defiance the
moral sense of mankind, and to take refuge behind the enactments of
the Constitution, let us try the strength of their entrenchments. The
words of the Constitution, which it is pretended sanction the
resolution we are considering are the following, viz.--"The _people_
have a right to assemble together in a peaceable manner to consult
for their common good, to _instruct their representatives_, and to
apply to the legislature for a redress of grievances." It is obvious
that this clause confers no rights, but is merely declaratory of
existing rights. Still, as the right of the people to apply for a
redress of grievances is coupled with the right of _instructing
their representatives_, and as negroes are not electors and
consequently are without representatives, it is inferred that they
are not part of _the people_. That Ohio legislators are not
Christians would be a more rational conclusion. One of the members
avowed his opinion that "none but voters had a right to petition." If
then, according to the principle of the resolution, the Constitution
of Ohio denies the right of petition to all but electors, let us
consider the practical results of such a denial. In the first place,
every female in the State is placed under the same disability with
"blacks and mulattoes." No wife has a right to ask for a divorce--no
daughter may plead for a father's life. Next, no man under
twenty-one years--no citizen of any age, who from want of sufficient
residence, or other qualification, is not entitled to vote--no
individual among the tens of thousands of aliens in the
State--however oppressed and wronged by official tyranny or
corruption, has a right to seek redress from the representatives of
the people, and should he presume to do so, may be told, that, like
"blacks and mulattoes," he "has no constitutional right to present
his petition to the General Assembly for any purpose whatever."
Again--the State of Ohio is deeply indebted to the citizens of other
States, and also to the subjects of Great Britain for money borrowed
to construct her canals. Should any of these creditors lose their
certificates of debt, and ask for their renewal; or should their
interest be withheld, or paid in depreciated currency, and were they
to ask for justice at the hands of the legislature, they might be
told, that any attention paid to their request must be regarded as a
"mere act of privilege or policy, and not imposed by any expressed
or implied power of the Constitution," for, not being voters, they
stood on the same ground as "blacks and mulattoes." Such is the
folly and wickedness in which prejudice against color has involved
the legislators of a republican and professedly Christian State in
the nineteenth century.


4. EXCLUSION FROM THE ARMY AND MILITIA.

The Federal Government is probably the only one in the world that
forbids a portion of its subjects to participate in the national
defence, not from any doubts of their courage, loyalty, or physical
strength, but merely on account of the tincture of their skin! To
such an absurd extent is this prejudice against color carried, that
some of our militia companies have occasionally refused to march to
the sound of a drum when beaten by a black man. To declare a certain
class of the community unworthy to bear arms in defence of their
native country, is necessarily to consign that class to general
contempt.


5. EXCLUSION FROM ALL PARTICIPATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

No colored man can be a judge, juror, or constable. Were the talents
and acquirements of a Mansfield or a Marshall veiled in a sable skin,
they would be excluded from the bench of the humblest court in the
American republic. In the slave States generally, no black man can
enter a court of justice as a witness against a white one. Of course
a white man may, with perfect impunity, defraud or abuse a negro to
any extent, provided he is careful to avoid the presence of any of
his own caste, at the execution of his contract, or the indulgence of
his malice. We are not aware that an outrage so flagrant is
sanctioned by the laws of any _free_ State, with one exception. That
exception the reader will readily believe can be none other than OHIO.
A statute of this State enacts, "that no black or mulatto _person_ or
_persons_ shall hereafter be permitted to be sworn, or give evidence
in any court of Record or elsewhere, in this State, in any cause
depending, or matter of controversy, when either party to the same
is a WHITE person; or in any prosecution of the State against any
WHITE person."

We have seen that on the subject of petition the legislature regards
itself as independent of all obligation except such as is imposed by
the Constitution. How mindful they are of the requirements even of
that instrument, when obedience to them would check the indulgence of
their malignity to the blacks, appears from the 7th Section of the
8th Article, viz.--"All courts shall be open, and every _person_, for
any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall
have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered
without denial or delay."

Ohio legislators may deny that negroes and mulattoes are citizens, or
people; but they are estopped by the very words of the statute just
quoted, from denying that they are "_persons_." Now, by the
Constitution every _person_, black as well as white, is to have
justice administered to him without denial or delay. But by the law,
while any unknown _white_ vagrant may be a witness in any case
whatever, no black suitor is permitted to offer a witness of his own
color, however well established may be his character for
intelligence and veracity, to prove his rights or his wrongs; and
hence in a multitude of cases, justice is denied in despite of the
Constitution; and why denied? Solely from a foolish and wicked
prejudice against color.


6. IMPEDIMENTS TO EDUCATION.

No people have ever professed so deep a conviction of the importance
of popular education as ourselves, and no people have ever resorted
to such cruel expedients to perpetuate abject ignorance. More than
one third of the whole population of the slave States are prohibited
from learning even to read, and in some of them free men, if with
dark complexions, are subject to stripes for teaching their own
children. If we turn to the free States, we find that in all of them,
without exception, the prejudices and customs of society oppose
almost insuperable obstacles to the acquisition of a liberal
education by colored youth. Our academies and colleges are barred
against them. We know there are instances of young men with dark
skins having been received, under peculiar circumstances, into
northern colleges; but we neither know nor believe, that there have
been a dozen such instances within the last thirty years.

Colored children are very generally excluded from our common schools,
in consequence of the prejudices of teachers and parents. In some of
our cities there are schools _exclusively_ for their use, but in the
country the colored population is usually too sparse to justify such
schools; and white and black children are rarely seen studying under
the same roof; although such cases do sometimes occur, and then they
are confined to elementary schools. Some colored young men, who
could bear the expense, have obtained in European seminaries the
education denied them in their native land.

It may not be useless to cite an instance of the malignity with
which the education of the blacks is opposed. The efforts made in
Connecticut to prevent the establishment of schools of a higher order
than usual for colored pupils, are too well known to need a recital
here; and her BLACK ACT, prohibiting the instruction of colored
children from other States, although now expunged from her statute
book through the influence of abolitionists, will long be remembered
to the opprobrium of her citizens. We ask attention to the following
illustration of public opinion in another New England State.

In 1834 an academy was built by subscription in CANAAN, New Hampshire,
and a charter granted by the legislature; and at a meeting of the
proprietors it was determined to receive all applicants having
"suitable moral and intellectual recommendations, without other
distinctions;" in other words, without reference to _complexion_.
When this determination was made known, a TOWN MEETING was forthwith
convened, and the following resolutions adopted, viz.

"RESOLVED, That we view with _abhorrence_ the attempt of the
Abolitionists to establish in this town a school for the instruction
of the sable sons and daughters of Africa, in common with our sons
and daughters.

"RESOLVED, That we will not associate with, nor in any way
countenance, any man or woman who shall hereafter persist in
attempting to establish a school in this town for the _exclusive_
education of blacks, _or_ for their education in conjunction with
the whites."

The frankness of this last resolve is commendable. The inhabitants
of Canaan, assembled in legal town meeting, determined, it seems,
that the blacks among them should in future have no education
whatever--they should not be instructed in company with the whites,
neither should they have schools exclusively for themselves.

The proprietors of the academy supposing, in the simplicity of their
hearts, that in a free country they might use their property in any
manner not forbidden by law, proceeded to open their school, and in
the ensuing spring had twenty-eight white, and fourteen colored
scholars. The crisis had now arrived when the cause of prejudice
demanded the sacrifice of constitutional liberty and of private
property. Another town meeting was convoked, at which, without a
shadow of authority, and in utter contempt of law and decency, it
was ordered, that the academy should be forcibly removed, and a
committee was appointed to execute the abominable mandate. Due
preparations were made for the occasion, and on the 10th of August,
three hundred men, with about 200 oxen, assembled at the place, and
taking the edifice from off its foundation, dragged it to a distance,
and left it a ruin. No one of the actors in this high-handed outrage
was ever brought before a court of justice to answer for this
criminal and riotous destruction of the property of others.

The transaction we have narrated, expresses in emphatic terms the
deep and settled hostility felt in the free States to the education
of the blacks. The prejudices of the community render that hostility
generally effective without the aid of legal enactments. Indeed,
some remaining regard to decency and the opinion of the world, has
restrained the Legislatures of the free States, with _one exception_,
from consigning these unhappy people to ignorance by "decreeing
unrighteous decrees," and "framing mischief by a law." Our readers,
no doubt, feel that the exception must of course be OHIO.

We have seen with what deference Ohio legislators profess to regard
their _constitutional_ obligations; and we are now to contemplate
another instance of their shameless violation of them. The
Constitution which these men have sworn to obey declares, "NO LAW
SHALL BE PASSED to prevent the poor of the several townships and
counties in this State from an _equal_ participation in the schools,
academies, colleges, and universities in this State, which are
endowed in whole, or _in part_, from the revenue arising from
_donations_ made by the United States, for the support of _colleges
and schools_--and the door of said schools, academies, and
universities shall be open for the reception of scholars, students,
and teachers of every _grade_, without ANY DISTINCTION OR PREFERENCE
WHATEVER."

Can language be more explicit or unequivocal? But have any donations
been made by the United States for the support of colleges and
schools in Ohio? Yes--by an act of Congress, the sixteenth section of
land in _each_ originally surveyed township in the State, was set
apart as a donation for the express purpose of endowing and
supporting common schools. And now, how have the scrupulous
legislators of Ohio, who refuse to acknowledge any other than
constitutional obligations to give ear to the cry of distress--how
have they obeyed this injunction of the Constitution respecting the
freedom of their schools? They enacted a law in 1831, declaring that,
"when any appropriation shall be made by the directors of any school
district, from the treasury thereof, for the payment of a teacher,
the school in such district shall be open"--to whom? "_to scholars,
students, and teachers of every grade, without distinction or
preference whatever_," as commanded by the Constitution? Oh no!
"Shall be open to all the WHITE children residing therein!!" Such is
the impotency of written constitutions, where a sense of moral
obligation is wanting to enforce them.

We have now taken a review of the Ohio laws against free people of
color. Some of them are of old, and others of recent date. The
opinion entertained of all these laws, new and old, by the _present_
legislators of Ohio, may be learned by a resolution adopted in
January last, (1839) by both houses of the legislature. "RESOLVED,
That in the opinion of this general assembly it is unwise, impolitic,
and inexpedient to repeal _any_ law now in force imposing
disabilities upon black or mulatto persons, thus placing them upon
an equality with the whites, so far as this legislature can do, and
indirectly inviting the black population of other States to emigrate
to this, to the manifest injury of the public interest." The best
comment on the _spirit_ which dictated this resolve is an enactment
by the _same_ legislature, abrogating the supreme law which requires
us to "Do unto others as we would they should do unto us," and
prohibiting every citizen of Ohio from _harboring or concealing_ a
fugitive slave, under the penalty of fine or imprisonment. General
obedience to this vile statute is alone wanting to fill to the brim
the cup of Ohio's iniquity and degradation. She hath done what she
could to oppress and crush the free negroes within her borders. She
is now seeking to rechain the slave who has escaped from his fetters.


7. IMPEDIMENTS TO RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

It is unnecessary to dwell here on the laws of the slave States
prohibiting the free people of color from learning to read the Bible,
and in many instances, from assembling at discretion to worship their
Creator. These laws, we are assured, are indispensable to the
perpetuity of that "peculiar institution," which many masters in
Israel are now teaching, enjoys the sanction of HIM who "will have
all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth," and
who has left to his disciples the injunction, "search the Scriptures."
We turn to the free States, in which no institution requires, that
the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should be prevented from
shining on any portion of the population, and inquire how far
prejudice here supplies the place of southern statutes.

The impediments to education already mentioned, necessarily render
the acquisition of religious knowledge difficult, and in many
instances impracticable. In the northern cities, the blacks have
frequently churches of their own, but in the country they are too few,
and too poor to build churches and maintain ministers. Of course they
must remain destitute of public worship and religious instruction,
unless they can enjoy these blessings in company with the whites.
Now there is hardly a church in the United States, not exclusively
appropriated to the blacks, in which one of their number owns a pew,
or has a voice in the choice of a minister. There are usually, indeed,
a few seats in a remote part of the church, set apart for their use,
and in which no white person is ever seen. It is surely not
surprising, under all the circumstances of the case, that these
seats are rarely crowded.

Colored ministers are occasionally ordained in the different
denominations, but they are kept at a distance by their white
brethren in the ministry, and are very rarely permitted to enter
their pulpits; and still more rarely, to sit at their tables,
although acknowledged to be ambassadors of Christ. The distinction
of _caste_ is not forgotten, even in the celebration of the Lord's
Supper, and seldom are colored disciples permitted to eat and drink
of the memorials of the Redeemer's passion till after every white
communicant has been served.


8. IMPEDIMENTS TO HONEST INDUSTRY.

In this country ignorance and poverty are almost inseparable
companions; and it is surely not strange that those should be poor
whom we compel to be ignorant. The liberal professions are virtually
sealed against the blacks, if we except the church, and even in that
admission is rendered difficult by the obstacles placed in their way
in acquiring the requisite literary qualifications;[102] and when once
admitted, their administrations are confined to their own color.
Many of our most wealthy and influential citizens have commenced
life as ignorant and as pennyless as any negro who loiters in our
streets. Had their complexion been dark, notwithstanding their
talents, industry, enterprize and probity, they would have continued
ignorant and pennyless, because the paths to learning and to wealth,
would then have been closed against them. There is a conspiracy,
embracing all the departments of society, to keep the black man
ignorant and poor. As a general rule, admitting few if any exceptions,
the schools of literature and of science reject him--the counting
house refuses to receive him as a bookkeeper, much more as a
partner--no store admits him as a clerk--no shop as an apprentice.
Here and there a black man may be found keeping a few trifles on a
shelf for sale; and a few acquire, as if by stealth, the knowledge
of some handicraft; but almost universally these people, both in
town and country, are prevented by the customs of society from
maintaining themselves and their families by any other than menial
occupations.

[Footnote 102: Of the truth of this remark, the trustees of the
Episcopal Theological Seminary at New-York, lately (June, 1839)
afforded a striking illustration. A young man, regularly
acknowledged by the Bishop as a candidate for orders, and in
consequence of such acknowledgment entitled, by an _express statute_
of the seminary, to admission to its privileges, presented himself
as a pupil. But God had given him a dark complexion, and _therefore_
the trustees, regardless of the statute, barred the doors against him,
by a formal and deliberate vote. As a compromise between conscience
and prejudice, the professors offered to give him _private_
instruction--to do in secret what they were ashamed to do openly--to
confer as a favor, what he was entitled to demand as a right. The
offer was rejected.

It is worthy of remark, that of the trustees who took an _active_
part against the _colored_ candidate, one is the PRESIDENT _of the
New York Colonization Society_; another a MANAGER, and a third, one
of its public champions; and that the Bishop of the diocese, who
wished to exclude his candidate from the theological school of which
he is both a trustee and a professor, lately headed a recommendation
in the newspapers for the purchase of a packet ship for Liberia, as
likely to "render far more efficient than heretofore, the enterprize
of colonization."]

In 1836, a black man of irreproachable character, and who by his
industry and frugality had accumulated several thousand dollars, made
application in the City of New York for a carman's license, and was
refused solely and avowedly on account of his complexion! We have
already seen the effort of the Ohio legislature, to consign the
negroes to starvation, by deterring others from employing them.
Ignorance, idleness, and vice, are at once the punishments we
inflict upon these unfortunate people for their complexion; and the
crimes with which we are constantly reproaching them.


9. LIABILITY TO BE SEIZED, AND TREATED AS SLAVES.

An able-bodied colored man sells in the southern market for from
eight hundred to a thousand dollars; of course he is worth stealing.
Colonizationists and slaveholders, and many northern divines,
solemnly affirm, that the situation of a slave is far preferable to
that of a free negro; hence it would seem an act of humanity to
convert the latter into the former. Kidnapping being both a
lucrative and a benevolent business, it is not strange it should be
extensively practised. In many of the States this business is
regulated by law, and there are various ways in which the
transmutation is legally effected. Thus, in South Carolina, if a
free negro "entertains" a runaway slave, it may be his own wife or
child, he himself is turned into a slave. In 1827, a _free woman
and her three children_ underwent this benevolent process, for
_entertaining_ two fugitive children of six and nine years old. In
Virginia all emancipated slaves remaining twelve months in the State,
are kindly restored to their former condition. In Maryland a free
negro who marries a white woman, thereby acquires all the privileges
of a slave--and generally, throughout the slave region, including
the District of Columbia, every negro not known to be free, is
mercifully considered as a slave, and if his master cannot be
ascertained, he is thrown into a dungeon, and there kept, till by a
public sale a master can be provided for him. But often the law
grants to colored men, _known to be free_, all the advantages of
slavery. Thus, in Georgia, every _free_ colored man coming into the
State, and unable to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, becomes a
slave for life; in Florida, insolvent debtors, if _black_, are SOLD
for the benefit of their creditors; and in the District of Columbia
a free colored man, thrown into jail on suspicion of being a slave
and proving his freedom, is required by law to be sold as a slave,
if too poor to pay his jail fees. Let it not be supposed that these
laws are all obsolete and inoperative. They catch many a northern
negro, who, in pursuit of his own business, or on being decoyed
by others ventures to enter the slave region; and who, of course,
helps to augment the wealth of our southern brethren. On the 6th
of March, 1839, a report by a Committee was made to the House of
Representatives of the Massachusetts Legislature, in which are given
the _names_ of seventeen free colored men who had been enslaved at
the south. It also states an instance in which twenty-five colored
citizens, belonging to Massachusetts, were confined at one time in a
southern jail, and another instance in which 75 free colored persons
from different free States were confined, all preparatory to their
sale as slaves according to law.

The facts disclosed in this report induced the Massachusetts
Legislature to pass a resolution protesting against the kidnapping
laws of the slave States, "as invading the sacred rights of citizens
of this commonwealth, as contrary to the Constitution of the United
States, and in utter derogation of that great principle of the
common law which presumes every person to be innocent until proved
to be guilty;" and ordered the protest to be forwarded to the
Governors of the several States.

But it is not at the south alone that freemen may be converted into
slaves "according to law." The Act of Congress respecting the
recovery of fugitive slaves, affords most extraordinary facilities
for this process, through official corruption and individual perjury.
By this Act, the claimant is permitted to _select_ a justice of the
peace, before whom he may bring or send his alleged slave, and even
to prove his property by _affidavit_. Indeed, in almost every State
in the Union, a slaveholder may recover at law a human being as his
beast of burden with far less ceremony than he could his pig from
the possession of his neighbor. In only three States is a man,
claimed as a slave, entitled to a trial by jury. At the last session
of the New York Legislature a bill allowing a jury trial in such
cases was passed by the lower House, but rejected by a _democratic_
vote in the Senate, democracy in that State, being avowedly only
_skin_ deep, all its principles of liberty, equality, and human rights
depending on complexion.

Considering the wonderful ease and expedition with which fugitives
may be recovered by law, it would be very strange if mistakes did not
sometimes occur. _How_ often they occur cannot, of course, be known,
and it is only when a claim is _defeated_, that we are made sensible
of the exceedingly precarious tenure by which a poor friendless
negro at the north holds his personal liberty. A few years since, a
girl of the name of Mary Gilmore was arrested in Philadelphia, as a
fugitive slave from Maryland. Testimony was not wanting in support
of the claim; yet it was most conclusively proved that she was the
daughter of poor _Irish_ parents--having not a drop of negro blood
in her veins--that the father had absconded, and that the mother had
died a drunkard in the Philadelphia hospital, and that the infant
had been kindly received and _brought up in a colored family_. Hence
the attempt to make a slave of her. In the spring of 1839, a colored
man was arrested in Philadelphia, on a charge of having absconded
from his owner _twenty-three_ years before. This man had a wife and
family depending upon him, and a home where he enjoyed their society;
and yet, unless he could find witnesses who could prove his freedom
for more than this number of years, he was to be torn from his wife,
his children, his home, and doomed for the remainder of his days to
toil under the lash. _Four_ witnesses for the claimant swore to his
identity, although they had not seen him before for twenty-three years!
By a most extraordinary coincidence, a New England Captain, with
whom this negro had sailed _twenty-nine_ years before, in a sloop
from Nantucket, happened at this very time to be confined for debt
in the same prison with the alleged slave, and the Captain's
testimony, together with that of some other witnesses, who had
known the man previous to his pretended elopement, so fully
established his freedom, that the Court discharged him.

Another mode of legal kidnapping still remains to be described. By
the Federal Constitution, fugitives from _justice_ are to be
delivered up, and under this constitutional provision, a free negro
may be converted into a slave without troubling even a Justice of
the Peace to hear the evidence of the captor's claim. A fugitive
slave is, of course, a felon--he not only steals himself, but also
the rags on his back which belong to his master. It is understood he
has taken refuge in New York, and his master naturally wishes to
recover him with as little noise, trouble, and delay as possible.
The way is simple and easy. Let the Grand Jury indict A.B. for
stealing wearing apparel, and let the indictment, with an affidavit
of the criminal's flight, be forwarded by the Governor of the State,
to his Excellency of New York, with a requisition for the delivery
of A.B., to the agent appointed to receive him. A warrant is, of
course, issued to "any Constable of the State of New York," to
arrest A.B. For what purpose?--to bring him before a magistrate
where his identity may be established?--no, but to deliver him up to
the foreign agent. Hence, the Constable may pick up the first likely
negro he finds in the street, and ship him to the south; and should
it be found, on his arrival on the plantation, that the wrong man
has come, it will also probably be found that the mistake is of no
consequence to the planter. A few years since, the Governor of New
York signed a warrant for the apprehension of 17 Virginia negroes,
as fugitives from justice.[103] Under this warrant, a man who had
lived in the neighborhood for three years, and had a wife and
children, and who claimed to be free, was seized, on a Sunday evening,
in the public highway, in West Chester County, N.Y., and without
being permitted to take leave of his family, was instantly
hand-cuffed, thrown into a carriage, and hurried to New York, and
the next morning was on his voyage to Virginia.

[Footnote 103: There is no evidence that he knew they were negroes;
or that he acted otherwise than in perfect good faith. The alleged
crime was stealing a boat. The _real_ crime, it is said, was
stealing themselves and escaping in a boat. The most horrible abuses
of these warrants can only be prevented by requiring proof of
identity before delivery.]

Free colored men are converted into slaves not only by law, but also
contrary to law. It is, of course, difficult to estimate the extent
to which illegal kidnapping is carried, since a large number of
cases must escape detection. In a work published by Judge Stroud, of
Philadelphia, in 1827, he states, that it had been _ascertained_
that more than _thirty_ free colored persons, mostly children, had
been kidnapped in that city within the last two years.[104]

[Footnote 104: Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws, p. 94.]



10. SUBJECTION TO INSULT AND OUTRAGE.

The feeling of the community towards these people, and the contempt
with which they are treated, are indicated by the following notice,
lately published by the proprietors of a menagerie, in New York.
"The proprietors wish it to be understood, that people of color are
not permitted to enter, _except when in attendance upon children and
families_." For two shillings, any white scavenger would be freely
admitted, and so would negroes, provided they came in a capacity
that marked their dependence--their presence is offensive, _only_
when they come as independent spectators, gratifying a laudable
curiosity.

Even death, the great leveller, is not permitted to obliterate, among
Christians, the distinction of caste, or to rescue the lifeless form
of the colored man from the insults of his white brethren. In the
porch of a Presbyterian Church, in Philadelphia, in 1837, was
suspended a card, containing the form of a deed, to be given to
purchasers of lots in a certain burial ground, and to enhance the
value of the property, and to entice buyers, the following clause was
inserted, "No person of _color_, nor any one who has been the
subject of _execution_, shall be interred in said lot."

Our colored fellow-citizens, like others, are occasionally called to
pass from one place to another; and in doing so are compelled to
submit to innumerable hardships and indignities. They are frequently
denied seats in our stage coaches; and although admitted upon the
_decks_ of our steam boats, are almost universally excluded from
the cabins. Even women have been forced, in cold weather, to pass
the night upon deck, and in one instance the wife of a colored
clergyman lost her life in consequence of such an exposure.

The contempt poured upon these people by our laws, our churches, our
seminaries, our professions, naturally invokes upon their heads the
fierce wrath of vulgar malignity. In order to exhibit the actual
condition of this portion of our population, we will here insert
some _samples_ of the outrages to which they are subjected, taken
from the ordinary public journals.

In an account of the New York riots of 1834, the _Commercial
Advertiser_ says--"About twenty poor African (native American)
families, have had their all destroyed, and have neither bed,
clothing, nor food remaining. Their houses are completely eviscerated,
their furniture a wreck, and the ruined and disconsolate tenants of
the devoted houses are reduced to the necessity of applying to the
corporation for bread."

The example set in New York was zealously followed in Philadelphia.
"Some arrangement, it appears, existed between the mob and the white
inhabitants, as the dwelling houses of the latter, contiguous to the
residences of the blacks, were illuminated and left undisturbed,
while the huts of the negroes were singled out with unerring
certainty. The furniture found in these houses was generally broken
up and destroyed--beds ripped open and their contents scattered in
the streets.... The number of houses assailed was not less than
twenty. In one house there was a _corpse, which was thrown from the
coffin, and in another a dead infant was taken out of the bed, and
cast on the floor, the mother being at the same time barbarously
treated_."--_Philadelphia Gazette_.

"No case is reported of an attack having been _invited_ or _provoked_
by the residents of the dwellings assailed or destroyed. The extent
of the depredations committed on the _three_ evenings of riot and
outrage can only be judged of by the number of houses damaged or
destroyed. So far as ascertained, this amounts to FORTY-FIVE. One of
the houses assaulted was occupied by an unfortunate cripple--who,
unable to fly from the fury of the mob, was so beaten by some of the
ruffians, that he has since died in consequence of the bruises and
wounds inflicted ... For the last two days the Jersey steam boats
have been loaded with numbers of the colored population, who,
fearful their lives were not safe in this, determined to seek refuge
in another State. On the Jersey side, tents were erected, and the
negroes have taken up a temporary residence, until a prospect shall
be offered for their perpetual location in some place of security
and liberty."--_National Gazette_.

The facts we have now exhibited, abundantly prove the extreme
cruelty and sinfulness of that prejudice against color which we are
impiously told is an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE. Colonizationists,
assuming the prejudice to be natural and invincible, propose to
remove its victims beyond its influence. Abolitionists, on the
contrary, remembering with the Psalmist, that "It is HE that hath
made us, and not we ourselves," believe that the benevolent Father
of us all requires us to treat with justice and kindness every
portion of the human family, notwithstanding any particular
organization he has been pleased to impress upon them. Instead,
therefore, of gratifying and fostering this prejudice, by
continually banishing from our country those against whom it is
directed, Abolitionists are anxious to destroy the prejudice itself;
feeling, to use the language of another, that--"It is time to
recognize in the humblest portions of society, partakers of our
nature with all its high prerogatives and awful destinies--time to
remember that our distinctions are _exterior_ and evanescent, our
resemblance real and permanent--that all is transient but what is
moral and spiritual--that the only graces we can carry with us into
another world, are graces of divine implantation, and that amid the
rude incrustations of poverty and ignorance there lurks an
imperishable jewel--a SOUL, susceptible of the highest spiritual
beauty, destined, perhaps, to adorn the celestial abodes, and to
shine for ever in the mediatorial diadem of the Son of God--_Take
heed that ye despise not one of these little ones_."




No. 13.

THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

       *       *       *       *       *
CAN ABOLITIONISTS VOTE OR TAKE OFFICE UNDER
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

"The preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery
is the vital and animating spirit of the National Government."

NEW YORK:
AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
142 NASSAU STREET

1815.





INTRODUCTION.

The American Anti-Slavery Society, at its Annual Meeting in May, 1844,
adopted the following Resolution:

_Resolved_, That secession from the present United States
government is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take
office, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the United
States Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles,
and rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin.

The passage of this Resolution has caused two charges to be brought
against the Society: _First_, that it is a _no-government_ body,
and that the whole doctrine of non-resistance is endorsed by this
vote:--and _secondly_, that the Society transcended its proper
sphere and constitutional powers by taking such a step.

The logic which infers that because a man thinks the Federal
Government bad, he must necessarily think _all_ government so, has
at least, the merit and the charm of novelty. There is a spice of
arrogance just perceptible, in the conclusion that the Constitution
of these United States is so perfect, that one who dislikes it could
never be satisfied with any form of government whatever!

Were O'Connell and his fellow Catholics non-resistants, because for
two hundred years they submitted to exclusion from the House of
Lords and the House of Commons, rather than qualify themselves for a
seat by an oath abjuring the Pope? Were the _non-juring_ Bishops of
England non-resistants, when they went down to the grave without
taking their seats in the House of Lords, rather than take an oath
denying the Stuarts and to support the House of Hanover? Both might
have purchased power at the price of one annual falsehood. There are
some in this country who do not seem to think that price at all
unreasonable. It were a rare compliment indeed to the non-resistants,
if every exhibition of rigid principle on the part of an individual
is to make the world suspect him of leaning towards their faith.

The Society is not opposed to government, but only to _this_
Government based upon and acting for slavery.

With regard to the second charge, of exceeding its proper limits and
trespassing on the rights of the minority, it is enough to say, that
the object of the American Anti-Slavery Society is the "entire
abolition of slavery in the United States." Of course it is its duty
to find out all the sources of pro-slavery influence in the land. It
is its right, it is its duty to try every institution in the land,
no matter how venerable, or sacred, by the touchstone of
anti-slavery principle; and if it finds any one false, to proclaim
that fact to the world, with more or less of energy, according to
its importance in society. It has tried the Constitution, and
pronounced it unsound.

No member's conscience need be injured--The qualification for
membership remains the same, "the belief that slave-holding is a
heinous crime"--No new test has been set up--But the majority of the
Society, for the time being, faithful to its duty of trying every
institution by the light of the present day--of uttering its opinion
on every passing event that touches the slave's welfare, has seen it
to be duty to sound forth its warning,


NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS.

No one who did not vote for the Resolution is responsible for it. No
one is asked to quit our platform. We, the majority, only ask him to
extend to our opinions the same toleration that we extend to him,
and agreeing to differ on this point, work together where we can. We
proscribe no man for difference of opinion.

It is said, that having refused in 1840, to say that a man _ought to
vote_, on the ground that such a resolution would be tyrannical and
intolerant, the Society is manifestly inconsistent now in taking
upon itself to say that no abolitionist _can_ consistently vote. But
the inconsistency is only apparent and not real.

There may he a thousand reasons why a particular individual ought
not to do an act, though the act be innocent in itself. It would be
tyranny therefore in a society which can properly take notice of but
one subject, slavery, to promulgate the doctrine that all its
members ought to do any particular act, as for instance, to vote, to
give money, to lecture, to petition, or the like. The particular
circumstances and opinions of each one must regulate his actions.
All we have a right to ask is, that he do for the slave's cause as
much as he does for any other of equal importance. But when an act
is wrong, it is no intolerance to say to the whole world that it
ought _not to be done_. After the abolitionist has granted that
slavery is wrong, we have the right to judge him by his own
principles, and arraign him for inconsistency that, so believing, he
helps the slaveholder by his oath.

The following pages have been hastily thrown together in explanation
of the vote above recited. They make no pretension to a full
argument of the topic. I hope that in a short time I shall get
leisure sufficient to present to our opponents, unless some one does
it for me, a full statement of the reasons which have led us to this
step.

I am aware that we non-voters are rather singular. But history, from
the earliest Christians downwards, is full of instances of men who
refused all connection with government, and all the influence which
office could bestow, rather than deny their principles, or aid in
doing wrong. Yet I never heard them called either idiots or
over-scrupulous. Sir Thomas More need never have mounted the scaffold,
had he only consented to take the oath of supremacy. He had only to
tell a lie with solemnity, as we are asked to do, and he might not
only have saved his life, but, as the trimmers of his day would have
told him, doubled his influence. Pitt resigned his place as Prime
Minister of England, rather than break faith with the Catholics of
Ireland. Should I not resign a petty ballot rather than break faith
with the slave? But I was specially glad to find a distinct
recognition of the principle upon which we have acted, applied to a
different point, in the life of that Patriarch of the Anti-Slavery
enterprise, Granville Sharpe. It is in a late number of the
Edinburgh Review. While an underclerk in the War Office, he
sympathized with our fathers in their struggle for independence.
"Orders reached his office to ship munitions of war to the revolted
colonies. If his hand had entered the account of such a cargo, it
would have contracted in his eyes the stain of innocent blood. To
avoid this pollution, he resigned his place and his means of
subsistence at a period of life when be could no longer hope to find
any other lucrative employment." As the thoughtful clerk of the War
Office takes his hat down from the peg where it has used to hang for
twenty years, methinks I hear one of our opponents cry out,
"Friend Sharpe, you are absurdly scrupulous." "You may innocently
aid Government in doing wrong," adds another. While Liberty Party
yelps at his heels, "My dear Sir, you are quite losing your influence!"
And indeed it is melancholy to reflect how, from that moment the
mighty underclerk of the War Office(!) dwindled into the mere
Granville Sharpe of history! the man of whom Mansfield and Hargrave
were content to learn law, and Wilberforce, philanthropy.

One friend proposes to vote for men who shall be pledged not to take
office unless the oath to the Constitution is dispensed with, and
who shall then go on to perform in their offices only such duties as
we, their constituents, approve. He cites, in support of his view,
the election of O'Connell to the House of Commons, in 1828, I believe,
just one year before the "Oath of Supremacy," which was the
objectionable one to the Catholics, was dispensed with. Now, if we
stood in the same circumstances as the Catholics did in 1828, the
example would be in point. When the public mind is thoroughly
revolutionized, and ready for the change, when the billow has
reached its height and begins to crest into foam, then such a
measure may bring matters to a crisis. But let us first go through,
in patience, as O'Connell did, our twenty years of agitation.
Waiving all other objections, this plan seems to me mere playing at
politics, and an entire waste of effort.

It loses our high position as moral reformers; it subjects us to all
that malignant opposition and suspicion of motives which attend the
array of parties; and while thus closing up our access to the
national conscience, it wastes in fruitless caucussing and party
tactics, the time and the effort which should have been directed to
efficient agitation.

The history of our Union is lesson enough, for every candid mind, of
the fatal effects of every, the least, compromise with evil. The
experience of the fifty years passed under it, shows us the slaves
trebling in numbers;--slaveholders monopolizing the offices and
dictating the policy of the Government;--prostituting the strength
and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and
elsewhere;--trampling on the rights of the free States, and making
the courts of the country their tools. To continue this disastrous
alliance longer is madness. The trial of fifty years only proves
that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms,
without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the
sin of slavery. Why prolong the experiment? Let every honest man
join in the outcry of the American Anti-Slavery Society,


NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS.

WENDELL PHILLIPS.

_Boston, Jan_. 15, 1845.




THE NO-VOTING THEORY.


"God never made a CITIZEN, and no one will escape as a man, from the
sins which he commits as a citizen."


Can an abolitionist consistently take office, or vote, under the
Constitution of the United States?

1st. What is an abolitionist?

One who thinks slaveholding a sin in all circumstances, and desires
its abolition. Of course such an one cannot consistently aid another
in holding his slave;--in other words, I cannot innocently aid a man
in doing that which I think wrong. No amount of fancied good will
justify me in joining another in doing wrong, unless I adopt the
principle "of doing evil that good may come."

2d. What do taking office and voting under the Constitution imply?

The President swears "to execute the office of president," and
"to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States." The judges "to discharge the duties incumbent upon them
agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States."

All executive, legislative, and judicial officers, both of the
several States and of the General Government, before entering on the
performance of their official duties, are bound to take an oath or
affirmation, "_to support the Constitution of the United States_."
This is what every office-holder expressly _promises in so many
words_. It is a contract between him and the _whole nation_. The
voter, who, by voting, sends his fellow citizen into office as his
representative, knowing beforehand that the taking of this oath is
the first duty his agent will have to perform, does by his vote,
request and authorize him to take it. He therefore, by voting,
impliedly engages to support the Constitution. What one does by his
agent he does himself. Of course no honest man will authorize and
request another to do an act which he thinks it wrong to do himself!
Every voter, therefore, is bound to see, _before voting_, whether he
could himself honestly swear to _support_ the constitution. Now what
does this oath of office-holders relate to and imply? "It applies,"
says Chief Justice Marshall, "in an especial manner, to their conduct
in their official character." Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the
Constitution, speaks of it as "a solemn obligation to the due
execution of the trusts reposed in them, and to support the
Constitution." It is universally considered throughout the country,
by common men and by the courts, as a promise to do what the
Constitution bids, and to avoid what it forbids. It was in the
spirit of this oath, under which he spake, that Daniel Webster said
in New York, "The Constitution gave it (slavery) SOLEMN GUARANTIES.
To the full extent of these guaranties we are all bound by the
Constitution. All the stipulations contained in the Constitution in
favor of the slaveholding States ought to be fulfilled; and so far
as depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit
and to the exactness of their letter."

It is more than an oath of allegiance; more than a mere promise that
we will not resist the laws. For it is an engagement to "support them";
as an _officer_ of government, to carry them into effect. Without
such a promise on the part of its functionaries, how could
government exist? It is more than the expression of that obligation
which rests on all peaceable citizens to _submit_ to laws, even
though they will not actively _support_ them. For it is the promise
which the judge makes, that he will actually _do_ the business of
the courts; which the sheriff assumes, that he will actually _execute_
the laws.

Let it be remarked, that it is an oath to support _the_
Constitution--that is, _the whole of it_; there are no exceptions.
And let it be remembered, that by it each _one_ makes a contract
with the _whole_ nation, that he will do certain acts.

3d. What is the Constitution which each voter thus engages to support?

It contains the following clauses:

Art. 1, Sect. 2. 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_.

Art. 1, Sect. 8. Congress shall have power ... to suppress
insurrections.

Art. 4, Sec. 2. 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.

Art. 4, Sect. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in
this Union a republican form of government; and shall protect each
of them against invasion; and, on application of the legislature, or
of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) _against
domestic violence_.

The first of these clauses, relating to representation, gives to
10,000 inhabitants of Carolina equal weight in the government with
40,000 inhabitants of Massachusetts, provided they are rich enough
to hold 50,000 slaves:--and accordingly confers on a slaveholding
community additional political power for every slave held among them,
thus tempting them to continue to uphold the system.

Its result has been, in the language of John Quincy Adams, "to make
the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery the vital
and animating spirit of the National Government;" and again, to
enable "a knot of slaveholders to give the law and prescribe the
policy of the country." So that "since 1830 slavery, slaveholding,
slavebreeding, and slavetrading have formed the whole foundation of
the policy of the Federal Government." The second and the last
articles relating to insurrection and domestic violence, perfectly
innocent in themselves--yet being made with the fact directly in
view that slavery exists among us, do deliberately pledge the whole
national force against the unhappy slave if he imitate our fathers
and resist oppression--thus making us partners in the guilt of
sustaining slavery: the third is a promise, on the part of the whole
North, to return fugitive slaves to their masters; a deed which
God's law expressly condemns, and which every noble feeling of our
nature repudiates with loathing and contempt.

These are the clauses which the abolitionist, by voting or taking
office, engages to uphold. While he considers slaveholding to be sin,
he still rewards the master with additional political power for
every additional slave that he can purchase. Thinking slaveholding
to be sin, he pledges to the master the aid of the whole army and
navy of the nation to reduce his slave again to chains, should he at
any time succeed a moment in throwing them off. Thinking
slaveholding to be sin, he goes on, year after year, appointing by
his vote judges and marshals to aid in hunting up the fugitives, and
seeing that they are delivered back to those who claim them! How
beautifully consistent are his _principles_ and his _promises_!



OBJECTIONS.


OBJECTION I.

Allowing that the clause relating to representation and that relating
to insurrections are immoral, it is contended that the article which
orders the return of fugitive slaves was not meant to apply to slaves,
but has been misconstrued and misapplied!

ANSWER. The meaning of the other two clauses, settled as it has been
by the unbroken practice and cheerful acquiescence of the Government
and people, no one has attempted to deny. This also has the same
length of practice, and the same acquiescence, to show that it
relates to slaves. No one denies that the Government and Courts have
so construed it, and that the great body of the people have freely
concurred in and supported this construction. And further, "The
Madison Papers" (containing the debates of those who framed the
Constitution, at the time it was made) settle beyond all doubt what
meaning the framers intended to convey.

Look at the following extracts from those Papers:

  _Tuesday, August 28th_, 1787.

  Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved to require "fugitive slaves and
  servants to be delivered up like criminals."

  Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it,
  at the public expense.

  Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety in the public seizing and
  surrendering a slave or servant, than a horse.

  Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular
  provision might be made, apart from this article.

  Article 15, as amended, was then agreed to, _nem. con._--Madison
  papers, pp. 1447-8.

  _Wednesday, August_ 29, 1787.

  Mr. Butler moved to insert after Article 15, "If any person bound to
  service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into
  another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service
  or labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State
  to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly
  claiming their service or labor,"--which was agreed to, _nem.
  con._--p. 1456.

And again, after the wording of the above article had been slightly
changed, and the clause newly numbered, as in the present
Constitution, we find another statement most clearly showing to what
subject the whole was intended to refer:

  _Saturday, September_ 15, 1787.

  Article 4, Section 2, (the third paragraph,) the term "legally" was
  struck out; and the words, "under the laws thereof," inserted after
  the word "State," in compliance with the wish of some who thought
  the term legal equivocal, and favoring the idea that SLAVERY was
  _legal_ in a moral view.--p. 1589.

Is it not hence evident that SLAVERY was the subject referred to by
the whole article?

The debates of the Convention held in the several States to ratify
the Constitution, at the same time show clearly what meaning it was
thought the framers had conveyed:--In Virginia Mr. Madison said,

  Another clause secures to us that property which we now possess. At
  present, if any slave elopes to any of 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, 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." This clause was expressly inserted to
  enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is a better security
  than any that now exists.

Patrick Henry, in reply observed,

  The clause which had been adduced by the gentleman was no more than
  this--that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New
  York.

Governor Randolph said,

  But another clause of the Constitution proves the absurdity of the
  supposition. The words of the clause are, "No person held to service
  or labor in one State," &c. Every one knows that slaves are held to
  service and labor. If a citizen of this State, in consequence of
  this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, &c.

General Pinckney in South Carolina Convention observed,

  "We have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of
  America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before."

In North Carolina, Mr. Iredell

  Begged leave to explain the reason of this clause. In some of the
  Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any of
  our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain time, they
  would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that
  their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely
  prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States, and to
  prevent it, this clause is inserted in the Constitution. Though the
  word _slave_ be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The
  Northern delegates, owing to their particular scruples on the
  subject of slavery, did not choose the word _slave_ to be mentioned.

But even if TWO clauses are immoral that is enough for our purpose,
and shews that no honest man should engage to uphold them. Who has
the right to construe and expound the laws? Of course the Courts of
the Nation. The Constitution provides (Article 3, Section 2,) that
the Supreme Court shall be the final and only interpreter of its
meaning. What says the Supreme Court? That this clause does relate
to slaves, and order their return. All the other courts concur in
this opinion. But, say some, the courts are corrupt on this question.
Let us appeal to the people. Nine hundred and ninety-nine out of
every thousand answer, that the courts have construed it rightly,
and almost as many cheerfully support it. If the unanimous,
concurrent, unbroken practice of every department of the Government,
judicial, legislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the
people for fifty years, do not prove which is the true construction,
then how and where can such a question ever be settled? If the
people and the courts of the land do not know what they themselves
mean, who has authority to settle their meaning for them?

If the Constitution is not what history, unbroken practice, and the
courts prove that our fathers intended to make it, and what too,
their descendants, this nation say they did make it, and agree to
uphold,--who shall decide what the Constitution is?

This is the sense then in which the Nation understand that the
promise is made to them. The Nation _understand_ that the judge
pledges himself to return fugitive slaves. The judge knows this when
he takes the oath. And Paley expresses the opinion of all writers on
morals, as well as the conviction of all honest men, when he says,
"that a promise is binding in that sense in which the promiser
thought at the time that the other party understood it."


OBJECTION II.

A promise to do an immoral act is not binding: therefore an oath to
support the Constitution of the United States, does not bind one to
support any provisions of that instrument which are repugnant to his
ideas of right. And an abolitionist, thinking it wrong to return
slaves, may as an office-holder, innocently and properly take an
oath to support a Constitution which commands such return.

ANSWER. Observe that this objection allows the Constitution to be
pro-slavery, and admits that there are clauses in it which no
abolitionist ought to carry out or support.

And observe, further, that we all agree, that a bad promise is
better broken than kept--that every abolitionist, who has before now
taken the oath to the Constitution, is bound to break it, and
disobey the pro-slavery clauses of that instrument. So far there is
no difference between us. But the point in dispute now is, whether a
man, having found out that certain requirements of the Constitution
are wrong, can, after that, innocently swear to support and obey them,
_all the while meaning not to do so_.

Now I contend that such loose construction of our promises is
contrary alike to honor, to fair dealing, and to truthfulness--that
it tends to destroy utterly that confidence between man and man
which binds society together, and leads, in matters of government,
to absolute tyranny.

The Constitution is a series of contracts made by each individual
with every other of the fourteen millions. A man's oath is evidence
of his assent to this contract. If I offer a man the copy of an
agreement, and he, after reading, swears to perform it, have I not a
right to infer from his oath that he assents to the _rightfulness_
of the articles of that paper? What more solemn form of expressing
his assent could he select? A man's oath expresses his conviction of
the rightfulness of the actions he promises to do, as well as his
determination to do them. If this be not so, I can have no trust in
any man's word. He may take my money, promise to do what I wish in
return, and yet, keeping my money, tell me, on the morrow, that he
shall not keep his promise, and never meant to, because the act, his
conscience tells him, is wrong. Who would trust property to such men,
or such maxims in the common affairs of life? Shall we not be as
honest in the Senate House as on 'Change? The North makes a contract
with the South by which she receives certain benefits, and agrees to
render certain services. The benefits she carefully keeps--but the
services she refuses to render, because immoral contracts are not
binding! Is this fair dealing? It is the rule alike of law and
common sense, that if we are not able, from _any cause_, to furnish
the article we have agreed to, we ought to return the pay we have
received. If power is put into our hands on certain conditions, and
we find ourselves unable to comply with those conditions, we ought
to surrender the power back to those who gave it.

Immoral laws are doubtless void, and should not be obeyed. But the
question is here, whether one knowing a law to be immoral, may
innocently promise to obey it in order to get into office? The
people have settled the conditions on which one may take office. The
first is, that he assent to their Constitution. Is it honest to
accept power with the intention at the time of not keeping the
conditions?--The rightfulness of those conditions is not here the
question.


OBJECTION III.

I swear to support the Constitution, _as I understand it_. Certain
parts of it, in my opinion, contradict others and are therefore void.

ANSWER. Will any one take the title deed of his house and carry it
to the man he bought of, and let him keep the covenants of that
paper as he says "he understands them?" Do we not all recognize the
justice of having some third, disinterested party to judge between
two disputants about the meaning of contracts? Who ever heard of a
contract of which each party was at liberty to keep as much as he
thought proper?

As in all other contracts, so in that of the Constitution, there is
a power provided to affix the proper construction to the instrument,
and that construction both parties are bound to abide by, or
repudiate the _whole_ contract. That power is the Supreme Court of
the United States.

Do we seek the common sense, practical view of this question? Go to
the Exchange and ask any broker how many dollars he will trust any
man with, who avows his right to make promises with the design, at
the time, of breaking some parts, and not feeling called upon to
state which those parts will be?

Do you seek the moral view of the point, which philosophers have
taken? Paley says, "A promise is binding in that sense in which the
promiser thought at the time of making that the other party
understood it." Is there any doubt what meaning the great body of
the American people attach to the Constitution and the official oath?
They are that party to whom the promise is made.

But, say some, our lives are notice to the whole people what meaning
we attach to the oath, and we will protest when we swear, that we do
not include in our oath the pro-slavery clauses. You may as well
utter the protest now, as when you are swearing--or at home, equally
as well as within the State House. For no such protest can be of any
avail. The Chief Justice stands up to administer to me the oath of
some office, no matter which. "Sir," say I, "I must take that oath
with a qualification, excluding certain clauses." His reply will be,
"Sir, I have no discretion in this matter. I am here merely to
administer a prescribed form of oath. If you assent to it, you are
qualified for your station. If you do not, you cannot enter. I have
no authority given me to listen to exceptions. I am a servant--the
people are my masters--here is what they require that you support,
not this or that part of the Constitution, but '_the Constitution_,'
that is, the _whole_."

Baffled here, I turn to the people. I publish my opinions in
newspapers. I proclaim them at conventions, I spread them through
the country on the wings of a thousand presses. Does this avail me?
Yes, says Liberty party, if after this, men choose to vote for you,
it is evident they mean you shall take the oath as you have given
notice that you understand it.

Well, the voters in Boston, with this understanding, elect me to
Congress, and I proceed to Washington. But here arises a
difficulty,--my constituents at home have assented--but when I get
to Congress, I find I am not the representative of Boston only, but
of the whole country. The interests of Carolina are committed to my
hands as well as those of Massachusetts; I find that the contract I
made by my oath was not with Boston, but with the whole nation. It
is the _nation_ that gives me the power to declare war and make
peace--to lay taxes on cotton, and control the commerce of New
Orleans. The nation prescribed the conditions in 1789, when the
Constitution was settled, and though Boston may be willing to accept
me on other terms, Carolina is not willing. Boston has accepted my
protest, and says, "Take office." Carolina says, "The oath you swear
is sworn to me, as well as to the rest--I demand the whole bond."
In other words, when I have made my protest, what evidence is there
that _the nation_, the other party to the contract, assents to it?
There can be none until that nation amends its Constitution.
Massachusetts when she accepted that Constitution, bound herself to
send only such men as could swear to return slaves. If by an underhand
compromise with some of her citizens, she sends persons of other
sentiments, she is perjured, and any one who goes on such an errand
is a partner in the perjury. Massachusetts has no right to assent to
my protest--she has no right to send representatives, except on
certain conditions. She cannot vary those conditions, without
leave from those whose interests are to be affected by the change,
that is, the whole nation. Those conditions are written down in the
Constitution. Do she and South Carolina differ, as to the meaning?
The Court will decide for them.

But, says the objector, do you mean to say that I swear to support
the Constitution, not as I understand it, but as some judge
understands it? Yes, I do--otherwise there is no such thing as law.
This right of private judgment, for which he contends, exists in
religion--but not in Government. Law is a rule _prescribed_. The
party prescribing must have the right to construe his own rule,
otherwise there would be as many laws as there are individual
consciences. Statutes would be but recommendations if every man was
at liberty to understand and obey them as he thought proper. But I
need not argue this. The absurdity of a Government that has no right
to govern--and of laws which have no fixed meaning--but which each
man construes to mean what he pleases and obeys accordingly--must be
evident to every one.

What more power did the most despotic of the English Stuarts ask,
than the right, after having sworn to laws, to break such as their
consciences disapproved? It is the essence of tyranny.

What is the Constitution of the United States? In good old fashioned
times we thought we knew, when we had read it and listened to the
court's exposition. But we have improved upon that. The Liberty
party man says, it is for him "what he understands it." John C.
Calhoun, of course, has the same right, and instead of "Liberty
regulated by law," we have liberty regulated by fourteen millions of
understandings!

The Liberty party man takes office on conditions, which, he says,
are not binding upon him. He gives us notice that he shall use the
power as he thinks right, without any regard to these conditions of
his oath. Well, if this is law, it is good for all. John C. Calhoun
can of course take office with the same broad liberty, and swear to
support the Constitution "as _he_ understands it." He has told us
often what that "understanding" is--"to sustain Slavery." Of course
having made this public, if, after that, Carolina sends him,
according to Liberty party logic, it is evidence that Massachusetts
assents to his "understanding," and accepts his oath with that
meaning! Why I thought I had fathomed the pro-slavery depths of the
Constitution when I read over all its wicked clauses--but that is
skimming only the surface, if the Constitution allows every man, to
whom it commits power to use it, as he chooses to "understand" the
conditions, and not as the nation understands them. If with this
right, Abolitionists may take office and help Liberty, we must
remember that by the same rule, slaveholders may take office and
lawfully use all their power to help Slavery. If this be so, how
absurd to keep crying out of this and the other thing it is
"unconstitutional."

Away with such logic! If we have a Constitution, let us remember
Jefferson's advice, and not make it "waste paper by construction."
The man who tampers thus with the sacred obligation of an
oath,--swears, and Jesuit like, keeps "reserved meanings" in his own
breast,--does more harm to society by loosening the foundations of
morals, than he would do good, did his one falsehood free every
slave from the Potomac to the Del Norte.


OBJECTION IV.

"The oath does not mean that I will positively do what I swear to do,
but only that I will do it, _or submit_ to the penalty the law awards.
If my actions in office don't suit the nation, let them impeach me."

ANSWER. That is, John Tyler may, without consulting Congress, plunge
us into war with Mexico--incur fifty millions of public debt--lose a
hundred thousand lives--and the _sufficient recompense_ to this
nation will be to impeach John Tyler, Esq., and send him home to his
slaves! These are the wise safeguards of Constitutional liberty! He
has faithfully kept it "as he understands it." What is a Russian
slave? One who holds life, property, and all, at the mercy of the
Czar's idea of right. Does not this description of the power every
officer has here, under our Constitution, reduce Americans to the
same condition?

But, is it true that the bearing of the penalty is an excuse for
breach of our official oaths?

The Judge who, in questions of divorce, has trifled with the
sanctity of the marriage tie--who, in matters of property has
decided unjustly, and taken bribes--in capital cases has so dealt
judgment as to send innocent men to the gallows--may cry out,
"If you don't like me, impeach me." But will impeachment restore the
dead to life, or the husband to his defamed wife? Would the community
consider his submission to impeachment as equivalent to the keeping
of his oath of office, and thenceforward view him as an honest,
truth-speaking, unperjured man? It is idle to suppose so. Yet the
interests committed to some of our officeholders' keeping, are more
important often than even those which a Judge controls. And we must
remember that men's ideas of right always differ. To admit such a
principle into the construction of oaths, if it enable one man to do
much good, will enable scoundrels who creep into office to do much
harm, "according to _their_ consciences." But yet the rule, if it be
admitted, must be universal. Liberty becomes, then, matter of
accident.


OBJECTION V.

I shall resign whenever a case occurs that requires me to aid in
returning a fugitive slave.

ANSWER. "The office-holder has promised active obedience to the
Constitution in every exigency which it has contemplated and sought
to provide for. If he promised, not meaning to perform in certain
cases, is he not doubly dishonest? Dishonest to his own conscience
in promising to do wrong, and to his fellow-citizens in purposing
from the first to break his oath, as he knew they understood it? If
he had sworn, not regarding anything as immoral which he bound
himself to do, and afterwards found in the oath something against
his conscience of which he was not at first aware, or if by change
of views he had come to deem sinful what before he thought right,
then doubtless, by promptly resigning, he might escape guilt. But is
not the case different, when among the acts promised are some known
at the time to be morally wrong? 'It is a sin to swear unto sin,'
says the poet, although it be, as he truly adds, 'a greater sin to
keep the sinful oath.'"

The captain has no right to put to sea, and resign when the storm
comes. Besides what supports a wicked government more than good men
taking office under it, even though they secretly determine not to
carry out all its provisions? The slave balancing in his lonely
hovel the chance of escape, knows nothing of your secret reservations,
your future intentions. He sees only the swarming millions at the
North ostensibly sworn to restore him to his master, if he escape a
little way. Perchance it is your false oath, which you don't mean to
keep, that makes him turn from the attempt in despair. He knows you
only--the world knows only by your _actions_, not your _intentions_,
and those side with his master. The prayer which he lifts to Heaven,
in his despair, numbers you rightly among his oppressors.


OBJECTION VI.

I shall only take such an office as brings me into no connection
with slavery.

ANSWER. Government is a whole; unless each in his circle aids his
next neighbor, the machine will stand still. The Senator does not
himself return the fugitive slave, but he appoints the Marshal,
whose duty it is to do so. The State representative does not himself
appoint the Judge who signs the warrant for the slave's recapture,
but he chooses the United States Senator who does appoint that Judge.
The elector does not himself order out the militia to resist
"domestic violence," but he elects the President, whose duty requires,
that a case occurring, he should do so.

To suppose that each of these may do that part of his duty that
suits him, and leave the rest undone, is _practical anarchy_. It is
bringing ourselves precisely to that state which the Hebrew describes.
"In those days there was no king in Israel, but each man did what
was right in his own eyes." This is all consistent in us, who hold
that man is to do right, even if anarchy follows. How absurd to set
up such a scheme, and miscall it a _government_,--where nobody
governs, but everybody does as he pleases.


OBJECTION VII.

As men and all their works are imperfect, we may innocently
"support a Government which, along with many blessings, assists in
the perpetration of some wrong."

ANSWER. As nobody disputes that we may rightly assist the worst
Government in doing good, provided we can do so without at the same
time aiding it in the wrong it perpetrates, this must mean, of course,
that it is right to aid and obey a Government _in doing wrong_, if
we think that, on the whole, the Government effects more good than
harm. Otherwise the whole argument is irrelevant, for this is the
point in dispute; since every office of any consequence under the
United States Constitution has some immediate connection with Slavery.
Let us see to what lengths this principle will carry one. Herod's
servants, then, were right in slaying every child in Bethlehem, from
two years old and under, provided they thought Herod's Government,
on the whole, more a blessing than a curse to Judea! The soldiers of
Charles II. were justified in shooting the Covenanters on the muirs
of Scotland, if they thought his rule was better, on the whole, for
England, than anarchy! According to this theory, the moment the
magic wand of Government touches our vices, they start up into
virtues! But has Government any peculiar character or privilege in
this respect? Oh, no--Government is only an association of
individuals, and the same rules of morality which govern my conduct
in relation to a thousand men, ought to regulate my conduct to any
one. Therefore, I may innocently aid a man in doing wrong, if I
think that, on the whole, he has more virtues than vices. If he
gives bread to the hungry six days in the week, I may rightly help
him, on the seventh, in forging bank notes, or murdering his father!
The principle goes this length, and every length, or it cannot be
proved to exist at all. It ends at last, practically, in the old
maxim, that the subject and the soldier have no right to keep any
conscience, but have only to obey the rulers they serve: for there
are few, if any, Governments this side of Satan's, which could not,
in some sense, be said to do more good than harm. Now I candidly
confess, that I had rather be covered all over with inconsistencies,
in the struggle to keep my hands clean, than settle quietly down on
such a principle as this. It is supposing that we may--

  "To do a great right, do a little wrong;"

a rule, which the master poet of human nature has rebuked. It is
doing evil that good may come--a doctrine, of which an Apostle has
pronounced the condemnation.

And let it be remembered that in dealing with the question of slavery,
we are not dealing with extreme cases. Slavery is no minute evil
which lynx-eyed suspicion has ferreted out. Every sixth man is a
slave. The ermine of justice is stained. The national banner clings
to the flag-staff heavy with blood. "The preservation of slavery,"
says our oldest and ablest statesman, "is the vital and animating
_spirit_ of the National Government."

Surely IF it be true that a man may justifiably stand connected with
a government in which he sees some slight evils--still it is also
true, even then, that governments _may_ sin so atrociously, so
enormously, may make evil so much the _purpose_ of their being, as
to render it the duty of honest men to wash their hands of them.

I may give money to a friend whose life has some things in it which
I do not fully approve--but when his nights are passed in the brothel,
and his days in drunkenness, when he uses his talents to seduce
others, and his gold to pave their road to ruin, surely the case is
changed.

I may perhaps sacrifice health by staying awhile in a room rather
overheated, but I shall certainly see it to be my duty to rush out,
when the whole house is in full blaze.


OBJECTION VIII.

God intended that society and governments should exist. We therefore
are bound to support them. He has conferred upon us the rights of
citizenship in this country, and we cannot escape from the
responsibility of exercising them. God made us _citizens_.

ANSWER. This reminds me of an old story I have heard. When the
Legislature were asked to set off a portion of the town of
Dorchester and call it South Boston, the old minister of the town is
said to have objected, saying, "God made it Dorchester, and
Dorchester it ought to be."

God made us social beings, it is true, but _society_ is not
necessarily the Constitution of the United States! Because God meant
some form of government should exist, does not at all prove that we
are justified in supporting a wicked one. Man confers the rights and
regulates the duties of citizenship. God never made a _citizen_, and
no one will escape, as a man, from the sins he commits as a citizen.
This is the first time that it has ever been held an excuse for sin
that we "went with the multitude to do evil!"

Certainly we can be under no _such_ responsibility to become and
remain _citizens_, as will excuse us from the sinful acts which as
such citizens we are called to commit. Does God make obligatory on
his creature the support of institutions which require him to do
acts in themselves wrong? To suppose so, were to confound all the
rules of God's moral kingdom.

President Wayland has lately been illustrating, and giving his
testimony to the principle, that a combination of men cannot change
the moral character of an act, which is in itself sinful--that the
law of morals is binding the same on communities, corporations, &c.
as on individuals.

After describing slavery, and saying that to hold a man in such a
state is wrong--he goes on:

  "I will offer but one more supposition. Suppose that any number, for
  instance one half of the families in our neighborhood, should by law
  enact that the weaker half should be slaves, that we would exercise
  over them the authority of masters, prohibit by law their
  instruction, and concert among ourselves means for holding them
  permanently in their present situation. In what manner would this
  alter the moral aspect of the case?"

  A law in this case is merely a determination of one party, in which
  all unite, to hold the other party in bondage; and a compact by
  which the whole party bind themselves to assist every individual of
  themselves to subdue all resistance from the other party, and
  guaranteeing to each other that exercise of this power over the
  weaker party which they now possess.

  Now I cannot see that this in any respect changes the nature of the
  parties. They remain, as before, human beings, possessing the same
  intellectual and moral nature, holding the same relations to each
  other and to God, and still under the same unchangeable law, Thou
  shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. By the act of holding a man in
  bondage, this law is violated. Wrong is done, moral evil is
  committed. In the former case it was done by the individual; now it
  is done by the individual and the society. Before, the individual
  was responsible only for his own wrong; now he is responsible both
  for his own, and also, as a member of the society, for all the wrong
  which the society binds itself to uphold and render perpetual.

  The scriptures frequently allude to the fact, that wrong done by
  law, that is by society, is amenable to the same retribution as
  wrong done by the individual. Thus, Psalm 94:20-23. 'Shall the
  throne of iniquity have fellowship with them which frame mischief by
  a law, and gather themselves together against the soul of the
  righteous, and condemn the innocent blood? But the Lord is my
  defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge. And he shall bring
  upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own
  wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off' So also
  Isaiah 10:1-4. 'Wo unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and
  that write grievousness which they have prescribed.' &c. Besides,
  persecution for the sake of religious opinion is always perpetrated
  by law; but this in no manner affects its moral character.

  There is, however, one point of difference, which arises from the
  fact that this wrong has been established by law. It becomes a
  social wrong. The individual, or those who preceded him, may have
  surrendered their individual right over it to the society. In this
  case it may happen that the individual cannot act as he might act,
  if the law had not been made. In this case the evil can only be
  eradicated by changing the opinions of the society, and inducing
  them to abolish the law. It will however be apparent that this, as I
  said before, does not change the relation of the parties either to
  each other or to God. The wrong exists as before. The individual act
  is wrong. The law which protects it is wrong. The whole society, in
  putting the law into execution, is wrong. Before only the
  individual, now, the whole society, becomes the wrong doer, and
  for that wrong, both the individuals and the society are held
  responsible in the sight of God."

If such "individual act is wrong," the man who knowingly does it is
surely a sinner. Does God, through society, require men to sin?


OBJECTION IX.

If not being non-resistants, we concede to mankind the right to
frame Governments, which must, from the very nature of man, be more
or less evil, the right or duty to support them, when framed,
necessarily follows.

ANSWER. I do not think it follows at all. Mankind, that is, any
number of them, have a right to set up such forms of worship as they
see fit, but when they have done so, does it necessarily follow that
I am in duty bound to support any one of them, whether I approve it
or not? Government is precisely like any other voluntary association
of individuals--a temperance or anti-slavery society, a bank or
railroad corporation. I join it, or not, as duty dictates. If a
temperance society exists in the village where I am, that love for
my race which bids me seek its highest good, commands me to join it.
So if a Government is formed in the land where I live, the same
feeling bids me to support it, if I innocently can. This is the
whole length of my duty to Government. From the necessity of the case,
and that constitution of things which God has ordained, it follows
that in any specified district, the majority must rule--hence
results the duty of the minority to submit. But we must carefully
preserve the distinction between _submission_ and _obedience_
--between _submission_ and _support_. If the majority set up an
immoral Government, I obey those laws which seem to me good, because
they are good--and I submit to all the penalties which my
disobedience of the rest brings on me. This is alike the dictate of
common sense, and the command of Christianity. And it must be the
true doctrine, since any other obliges me to obey the majority if
they command me to commit murder, a rule which even the Tory
Blackstone has denied. Of course for me to do anything I deem wrong,
is the same, in quality, as to commit murder.


OBJECTION X.

But it is said, your theory results in good men leaving government
to the dishonest and wicked.

ANSWER. Well, if to sustain government we must sacrifice honesty,
government could not be in a more appropriate place, than in the
hands of dishonest men.

But it by no means follows, that if I go out of government, I leave
nothing but dishonest men behind. An act may be sin to me, which
another may sincerely think right--and if so, let him do it, till he
changes his mind. I leave government in the hands of those whom I do
not think as clear-sighted as myself, but not necessarily in the
hands of the dishonest. Whether it be so in this country now, is not,
at present, the question, but whether it would be so necessarily, in
all cases. The real question is, what is the duty of those who
presume to think that God has given them clearer views of duty than
the bulk of those among whom they live?

Don't think us conceited in supposing ourselves a little more
enlightened than our neighbors. It is no great thing after all to be a
little better than a lynching--mobocratic--slaveholding--debt
repudiating community.

What then is the duty of such men? Doubtless to do all they can to
extend to others the light they enjoy.

Will they best do so by compromising their principles? by letting
their political life give the lie to their life of reform? Who will
have the most influence, he whose life is consistent, or he who says
one thing to-day, and swears another thing to-morrow--who looks one
way and rows another? My object is to let men _understand me_, and I
submit that the body of the Roman people understood better, and felt
more earnestly, the struggle between the people and the princes,
when the little band of democrats _left the city_ and encamped on
_Mons Sacer, outside_, than while they remained mixed up and
voting with their masters, shoulder to shoulder. _Dissolution_ is
our _Mons Sacer_--God grant that it may become equally famous in the
world's history as the spot where the right triumphed.

It is foolish to suppose that the position of such men, divested of
the glare of official distinction, has no weight with the people. If
it were so, I am still bound to remember that I was not sent into
the world _to have influence_, but to do my duty according to my own
conscience. But it is not so. People do know an honest man when they
see him. (I allow that this is so rare an event now-a-days, as
almost to justify one in supposing they might have forgotten how he
looked.) They will give a man credit, when his life is one manly
testimony to the truthfulness of his lips. Even Liberty party, blind
as she is, has light enough to see that "Consistency is the jewel,
the everything of such a cause as ours." The position of a non-voter,
in a land where the ballot is so much idolized, kindles in every
beholder's bosom something of the warm sympathy which waits on the
persecuted, carries with it all the weight of a disinterested
testimony to truth, and pricks each voter's conscience with an
uneasy doubt, whether after all voting _is_ right. There is
constantly a Mordecai in the gate.

I admit that we should strive to have a _political_ influence--for
with politics is bound up much of the welfare of the people. But
this objection supposes that the ballot box is the _only_ means of
political influence. Now it is a good thing that every man should
have the right to vote. But it is by no means necessary that every
man should actually vote, in order to influence his times. We by no
means necessarily desert our social duty when we refuse to take
office, or to confer it. Lafayette did better service to the cause
of French liberty when he retired to Lagrange and refused to
acknowledge Napoleon, than he could have done had he stood, for years,
at the tyrant's right hand. From the silence of that chamber there
went forth a voice--from the darkness of that retreat there burst
forth a light; feeble indeed at first, like the struggling beams of
the morning, but destined like them to brighten into perfect day.

This objection, that we non-voters shall lose all our influence,
confounds the broad distinction between _influence_ and _power_.
_Influence_ every honest man must and will have, in exact
proportion to his honesty and ability. God always annexes influence
to worth. The world, however unwilling, can never get free from the
influence of such a man. This influence the possession of office
cannot give, nor the want of it take away. For the exercise of such
influence as this, man is responsible. _Power_ we buy of our fellow
men at a certain price. Before making the bargain it is our duty to
see that we do not pay "too dear for our whistle." He who buys it at
the price of truth and honor, buys only weakness--and sins beside.

Of those who go to the utmost verge of honesty in order to reach the
seats of worldly power, and barter a pure conscience for a weighty
name, it may be well said with old Fuller, "They need to have steady
heads who can dive into these gulfs of policy, and come out with a
safe conscience."


OBJECTION XI.

This withdrawing from government is pharisaical--"Shall we, 'weak,
sinful men,'" one says, "perhaps even more sinful than the
slaveholder, cry out, No Union with Slaveholders?" Such a course is
wanting in brotherly kindness.

ANSWER. Because we refuse to aid a wrong-doer in his sin, we by no
means proclaim, or assume, that we think our _whole character_
better than his. It is neither pharisaical to have opinions, nor
presumptuous to guide our lives by them. If I have joined with
others in doing wrong, is it either presumptuous or unkind, when my
eyes are opened, to refuse to go any further with them in their
career of guilt? Does love to the thief require me to help him in
stealing? Yet this is all we refuse to do. We will extend to the
slaveholder all the courtesy he will allow. If he is hungry, we will
feed him; if he is in want, both hands shall be stretched out for
his aid. We will give him full credit for all the good that he does,
and our deep sympathy in all the temptations under whose strength he
falls. But to help him in his sin, to remain partners with him in
the slave-trade, is more than he has a right to ask. He would be a
strange preacher who should set out to reform his circle by joining
in all their sins! It is a principle similar to that which the tipsy
Duke of Norfolk acted on, when seeing a drunken friend in the gutter,
he cried out, "My dear fellow, I can't help you out, but I'll do
better, I'll lie down by your side."


OBJECTION XII.

But consider, the abstaining from all share in Government will leave
bad men to have everything their own way--admit Texas--extend
slavery, &c. &c.

ANSWER. That is no matter of mine. God, the great conservative power
of the Universe, when he established the right, saw to it that it
should always be the safest and best. He never laid upon a poor
finite worm the staggering load of following out into infinity the
complex results of his actions. We may rest on the bosom of
Infinite Wisdom, confident that it is enough for us to do justice,
he will see to it that happiness results.


OBJECTION XIII.

But the same conscientious objection against promising your support
to government, ought to lead you to avoid actually giving your
support to it by paying taxes or sueing in the courts.

ANSWER. This is what logicians call a _reductio ad absurdum_: an
attempt to prove our principle unsound by showing that, fairly
carried out, it leads to an absurdity. But granting all it asks, it
does not saddle us with any absurdity at all. It is perfectly
possible to live without petitioning, sueing, or holding stocks.
Thousands in this country have lived, died, and been buried, without
doing either. And does it load us with any absurdity to prove that
we shall be obliged to do from principle, what the majority of our
fellow-citizens do from choice? We lawyers may think it is an
absurdity to say a man can't sue, for, like the Apostle at Ephesus,
it touches our "craft," but that don't go far to prove it. Then, as
to taxes, doubtless many cases might be imagined, when every one
would allow it to be our duty to resist the slightest taxation, did
Christianity allow it, with "war to the hilt." If such cases may
ever arise, why may not this be one?

Until I become an Irishman, no one will ever convince me that I
ought to vote, by proving that I ought not to pay taxes! Suppose
all these difficulties do really encompass us, it will not be
the first time that the doing of one moral duty has revealed a
dozen others which we never thought of. The child has climbed the
hill over his native village, which he thought the end of the world,
and lo! there are mountains beyond! He won't remedy the matter by
creeping back to his cradle and disbelieving in mountains!

But then, is there any such inconsistency in non-voters sueing and
paying taxes?

Look at it. A. and B. have agreed on certain laws, and appointed C.
to execute them. A. owes me, who am no party to the contract, a just
debt, which his laws oblige him to pay. Do I acknowledge the
rightfulness of his relation to B. and C. by asking C. to use the
power given him, in my behalf? It appears to me that I do not. I may
surely ask A. to pay me my debt--why not then ask the keeper, whom
he has appointed over himself, to make him do so?

I am a prisoner among pirates. The mate is abusing me in some way
contrary to their laws. Do I recognize the rightfulness of the
Captain's authority, by asking him to use the power the mate has
consented to give him, to protect me? It seems to me that I do not
necessarily endorse the means by which a man has acquired money or
power, when I ask him to use either in my behalf.

An alien does not recognize the rightfulness of a government by
living under it. It has always been held that an English subject may
swear allegiance to an usurper and yet not be guilty of treason to
the true king. Because he may innocently acknowledge the king
_de facto_ (the king _in deed_,) without assuming him to be king
_de jure_ (king by _right_.) The distinction itself is as old as
the time of Edward the First. The principle is equally applicable to
suits. It has been universally acted on and allowed. The Catholic,
who shrank from acknowledging the heretical Government of England,
always, I believe, sued in her courts.

Who could convince a common man, that by sueing in Constantinople or
Timbuctoo, he does an act which makes him responsible for the
character of those governments?

Then, as for taxes. It is only our voluntary acts for which we are
responsible. And when did government ever trust tax-paying to the
voluntary good will of its subjects? When it does so, I, for one,
will refuse to pay.

When did any sane man conclude that our Saviour's voluntary payment
of a tax acknowledged the rightfulness of Rome's authority over Judea?

"The States," says Chief Justice Marshall, "have only not to elect
Senators, and this government expires without a struggle."

Every November, then, we _create_ the government anew. Now, what
"instinct" will tell a common-sense man, that the act of a
_sovereign_,--voting--which creates a wicked government, is,
_essentially_ the same as the submission of a
 _subject_,--tax-paying,--an act done without our consent. It should
be remembered, that we vote as _sovereigns_,--we pay taxes as
_subjects_. Who supposes that the humble tax-payer of Austria, who
does not, perhaps, know in what name the charter of his bondage runs,
is responsible for the doings of Metternich? And what sane man likens
his position to that of the voting sovereign of the United States?
My innocent acts may, through others' malice, result in evil. In that
case, it will be for my best judgment to determine whether to continue
or cease them. They are not thereby rendered essentially sinful. For
instance, I walk out on Sabbath morning. The priest over the way will
exclaim, "Sabbath-breaker," and the infidel will delude his followers,
by telling them I have no regard for Christianity. Still, it will be
for me to settle which, in present circumstances, is best,--to
remain in, and not be misconstrued, or to go out and bear a
testimony against the superstitious keeping of the day. Different
circumstances will dictate different action on such a point.

I may often be the _occasion_ of evil when I am not responsible for
it. Many innocent acts _occasion_ evil, and in such case all I am
bound to ask myself before doing such _innocent act_, is, "Shall I
occasion, on the whole, more harm or good." There are many cases
where doing a duty even, we shall occasion evil and sin in others.
To save a slaveholder from drowning, when we know he has made a will
freeing his slaves, would put off, perhaps forever, their
emancipation, but of course that is not my fault. This making a man
responsible for all the evil his acts, _incidentally_, without his
will, occasion, reminds me of that principle of Turkish law which
Dr. Clarke mentions, in his travels, and which they call "homicide
by an intermediate cause." The case he relates is this: A young man
in love poisoned himself, because the girl's father refused his
consent to the marriage. The Cadi sentenced the father to pay a fine
of $80, saying "if you had not had a daughter, this young man had
not loved; if he had not loved, he had never been disappointed; if
not disappointed, he would never have taken poison." It was the same
Cadi possibly, who sentenced the island of Samos to pay for the
wrecking of a vessel, on the principle that "if the island had not
been in the way, the vessel would never have been wrecked!"

Then of taxes on imports. Buying and selling, and carrying from
country to country, is good and innocent. But government, if I trade
here, will take occasion to squeeze money out of me. Very well. I
shall deliberate whether I will cease trading, and deprive them of
the opportunity, or go on and use my wealth to reform them. 'Tis a
question of expediency, not of right, which my judgment, not my
conscience, must settle. An act of mine, innocent in itself, and
done from right motives, no after act of another's can make a sin.
To import, is rightful. After-taxation, against my consent, cannot
make it wrong. Neither am I obliged to smuggle, in order to avoid it.
I include in these remarks, all taxes, whether on property, or
imports, or railroads.

A chemist, hundreds of years ago, finds out how to temper steel. The
art is useful for making knives, lancets, and machinery. But he
knows that the bad will abuse it by making swords and daggers. Is he
responsible? Certainly not.

Similar to this is trading in America,--knowing government will thus
have an opportunity to increase its revenue.

But suppose the chemist to see two men fighting, one has the other
down,--to the first our chemist presents a finely tempered dagger.

Such is voting under the United States Constitution--appointing an
officer to help the oppressor.

The difference between voting and tax-paying is simply this: I may do
an act right in itself, though I know some evil will result. Paul was
bound to preach the gospel to the Jews, though he knew some of them
would thereby be led to add to their sins by cursing and mobbing him.

So I may locate property in Philadelphia, trade there, and ride on
its railroads, though I know government will, without my consent,
thereby enrich itself. Other things being equal, of course I shall
not allow it the opportunity. But the advantages and good results of
my doing so, _may be_ such as would make it my duty there to live
and trade, even subject to such an evil.

But on the other hand, I may not do an act wrong in itself to secure
any amount of fancied good.

Now, appointing a man by my vote to a pro-slavery office, (and such
is every one under the United States Constitution,) is wrong in
itself, and no other good deeds which such officer may do, will
justify an abolitionist in so appointing him.

Let it not be said, that this reasoning will apply to voting--that
voting is the right of every human being, (which I grant only for
the sake of argument,) and innocent in itself.

Voting _under our_ Constitution is appointing a man to swear to
protect, and actually to protect slavery. Now, appointing agents
generally is the right of every man, and innocent in itself, but
appointing an agent to commit a murder is sin.

I trade, and government taxes me; do I authorize it? No.

I vote, and the marshal whom my agent appoints, returns a slave to
South Carolina. Do I authorize it? _Yes_. I knew it would be his
_sworn duty_, when I voted; and I assented to it, by voting under
the Constitution which makes it his duty. If I trade, it is said, I
may foresee that government will be helped by the taxes I pay,
therefore I ought not to trade. But I do not trade _for the purpose_
of paying taxes! And if I am to be charged with all the foreseen
results of my actions, then Garrison is responsible for the Boston
mob!

The reason why I am responsible for the pro-slavery act of a United
States officer, for whom I have voted, is this: I must be supposed
to have _intended_ that which my agent is _bound_ by his contract
with me (that is, his oath of office) to do.

Allow me to request our opposers to keep distinctly in view the
precise point in debate. This is not whether Massachusetts can
rightfully trade and make treaties with South Carolina, although she
knows that such a course will result in strengthening a wrongdoer.
Such are most of the cases which they consider parallel to ours, and
for permitting which they charge us with inconsistency. But the
question really is, whether Massachusetts can join hands and
strength with South Carolina, for the express and avowed purpose of
sustaining Slavery. This she does in the Constitution. For he who
swears to support an instrument of twelve clauses, swears to support
one as well as another,--and though one only be immoral,--still he
swears to do an immoral act. Now, my conviction is, "which fire will
not burn out of me," that to return fugitive slaves is sin--to
promise so to do, and not do it, is, if possible, baser still; and
that any conjunction of circumstances which makes either necessary,
is of the Devil, and not of God.


OBJECTION XIV.

Duty requires of a non-voter to quit the country, and go where his
taxes will not help to build up slavery.

ANSWER. God gave me my birth here. Because bad men about me
"play such tricks before high Heaven, as make the angels weep," does
it oblige me to quit? I have as good right here as they. If they
choose to leave, let them--I Shall remain. 'Twould be a pretty thing,
indeed, if, as often as I found myself next door to a bad man, who
would bring up his children to steal my apples and break my windows,
I were obliged to take the temptation away by cutting down all my
apple trees and moving my house further west, into the wilderness.
This would be, in good John Wesley's phrase, "giving up all the good
times to the devil," with a witness.


OBJECTION XV.

"Society has the right to prescribe the terms, upon the expressed or
implied agreement to comply with which a person may reside within
its limits."

ANSWER. This principle I utterly deny. All that Society has a right
to demand is peaceful submission to its exactions:--_consent_ they
have neither the power nor the right to exact or to imply. Twenty
men live on a lone island. Nineteen set up a government and say,
every man who lives there shall worship idols. The twentieth submits
to all their laws, but refuses to commit idolatry. Have they the
_right_ to say, "Do so, or quit;" or, to say, "If you stay, we
will consider you as impliedly worshipping idols?" Doubtless they
have the _power_, but the majority have no _rights_, except those
which justice sanctions. Will the objector show me the justice of
his principle? I was born here. I ask no man's permission to remain.
All that any man or body of men have a right to infer from my
staying here, is that, in doing this _innocent act_, I think, that on
the whole, I am effecting more good than harm. Lawyers say, I cannot
find this right laid down in the books. That will not trouble me.
Some old play has a character in it who never ties his neckcloth
without a warrant from Mr. Justice Overdo. I claim no relationship
to that very scrupulous individual.


OBJECTION XVI.

These clauses, to which you refer, are inconsistent with the
Preamble of the Constitution, which describes it as made "to
establish justice" and "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity:" And as, when two clauses of the same instrument
are inconsistent, one must yield and be held void--we hold these
three clauses void.

ANSWER. A _specific_ clause is not to be held void on account of
general terms, such as those of the preamble. It is rather to be
taken as an exception, allowed and admitted at the time, to those
general terms.

Again. You say they are inconsistent. But the Courts and the People
do not think so. Now they, being the majority, settle the law. The
question then is, whether the law being settled,--and according to
your belief settled immorally,--you will _volunteer_ your services
to execute it and carry it into effect? This you do by becoming an
officeholder. It seems to me this question can receive but one
answer from honest men.


LAST OF ALL, THE OBJECTOR CRIES OUT,

The Constitution may be _amended_, and I shall vote to have it
changed.

ANSWER. But at present it is necessary to swear to support it
_as it is_. What the Constitution may become, a century hence, we
know not; we speak of it _as it is_, and repudiate it _as it is_.
How long may one promise to do evil, in hope some time or other to
get the power to do good? We will not brand the Constitution of the
United States as pro-slavery, after--it had ceased to be so! This
objection reminds me of Miss Martineau's story of the little boy,
who hurt himself, and sat crying on the sidewalk. "Don't cry!" said
a friend, "it won't hurt you tomorrow."--"Well then," said the child,
"I won't cry tomorrow."

We come then, it seems to me, back to our original conclusion: that
the man who swears to support the Constitution, swears to support
the whole of it, pro-slavery clauses and all,--that he swears to
support it _as it is_, not as it hereafter may become,--that he
swears to support it in the sense given to it by the Courts and the
Nation, not as he chooses to understand it,--and that the Courts and
the Nation expect such an one in office to do his share toward the
suppression of slave, as well as other, insurrections, and to aid
the return of fugitive slaves. After an _abolitionist_ has taken
such an oath, or by his vote sent another to take it for him, I do
not see how he can look his own principles in the face.

Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou lie?

We who call upon the slaveholder to do right, no matter what the
consequences or the cost, are certainly bound to look well to our
own example. At least we can hardly expect to win the master to do
justice by _setting him an example of perjury_. It is almost an
insult in an abolitionist, while not willing to sacrifice even a
petty ballot for his principles, to demand of the slaveholder that
he give up wealth, home, old prejudices and social position at their
call.



EXTRACTS FROM J.Q. ADAMS.


The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the
restoration of credit and reputation, to the country--the revival of
commerce, navigation, and ship building--the acquisition of the
means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection
and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the
country. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was
insufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to
the adoption of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was
_protection_. Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of
Indians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the
most terrible of wars--and protection from their own
negroes--protection from their insurrections--protection from their
escape--protection even to the trade by which they were brought into
this country--protection, shall I not blush to say, protection to
the very bondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be
denied--the slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a
condition of their assent to the Constitution, three special
provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over their
slaves. The first was the immunity for twenty years of preserving
the African slave-trade; the second was the stipulation to surrender
fugitive slaves--an engagement positively prohibited by the laws of
God, delivered from Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction, fatal to the
principles of popular representation, of a representation for
slaves--for articles of merchandise, under the name of persons.

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.
To call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the
understanding of mankind. 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. 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. Its 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.

Fellow-citizens,--with a body of men thus composed, for legislators
and executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been
your legislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation
are much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free.
You have at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union.
Your influence on the legislation and the administration of the
Government ought to be in the proportion of three to two. But how
stands the fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence
exercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers,
here is an intrusive influence in every department, by a
representation, nominally of persons, but really of property,
ostensibly of slaves, but effectively of their masters, overbalancing
your superiority of numbers, adding two-fifths of supplementary
power to the two-fifths fairly secured to them by the compact,
CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AND
HOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to the sordid private interest and
oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of slaves.

In the Articles of Confederation, there was no guaranty for the
property of the slaveholder--no double representation of him in the
Federal councils--no power of taxation--no stipulation for the
recovery of fugitive slaves. But when the powers of _government_ came
to be delegated to the Union, the South--that is, South Carolina and
Georgia--refused their subscription to the parchment, till it should
be saturated with the infection of slavery, which no fumigation
could purify, no quarantine could extinguish. The freemen of the
North gave way, and the deadly venom of slavery was infused into the
Constitution of freedom. Its first consequence has been to invert
the first principle of Democracy, that the will of the majority
shall rule the land. By means of the double representation, the
minority command the whole, and a KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW
AND PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF THE COUNTRY.



THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

  ADDRESS TO THE FRIENDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY,
  ON THE VIOLATION BY THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
  OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION AT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
  OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.


NEW YORK:
PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.

1840.

This No. contains 1 sheet.--Postage, under 100 miles, 1-1/2 ct.
over 100, 2-1/2 cts. Please Read and circulate.


ADDRESS.

  TO THE FRIENDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY:--

There was a time, fellow citizens, when the above address would have
included the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. But, alas! the freedom of
the press, freedom of speech, and the right of petition, are now
hated and dreaded by our Southern citizens, as hostile to the
perpetuity of human bondage; while, by their political influence in
the Federal Government, they have induced numbers at the North to
unite with them in their sacrilegious crusade against these
inestimable privileges.

On the 28th January last, the House of Representatives, on motion of
Mr. Johnson, from Maryland, made it a standing RULE of the House
that "no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper, praying the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or
Territory of the United States, in which it now exists, SHALL BE
RECEIVED BY THE HOUSE, OR ENTERTAINED IN ANY WAY WHATEVER."

Thus has the RIGHT OF PETITION been immolated in the very Temple of
Liberty, and offered up, a propitiatory sacrifice to the demon of
slavery. Never before has an outrage so unblushingly profligate been
perpetrated upon the Federal Constitution. Yet, while we mourn the
degeneracy which this transaction evinces, we behold, in its
attending circumstances, joyful omens of the triumph which awaits
our struggle with the hateful power that now perverts the General
Government into an engine of cruelty and loathsome oppression.

Before we congratulate you on these omens, let us recall to your
recollection the steps by which the enemies of human rights have
advanced to their present rash and insolent defiance of moral and
constitutional obligation.

In 1831, a newspaper was established in Boston, for the purpose of
disseminating facts and arguments in favor of the duty and policy of
immediate emancipation. The Legislature of Georgia, with all the
recklessness of despotism, passed a law, offering a reward of $5000,
for the abduction of the Editor, and his delivery in Georgia. As
there was no law, by which a citizen of Massachusetts could be tried
in Georgia, for expressing his opinions in the capital of his own
State, this reward was intended as the price of BLOOD. Do you start
at the suggestion? Remember the several sums of $25,000, of $50,000,
and of $100,000, offered in Southern papers for kidnapping certain
abolitionists. Remember the horrible inflictions by Southern Lynch
clubs. Remember the declaration, in the United States Senate, by the
brazen-fronted Preston, that, should an abolitionist be caught in
Carolina, he would be HANGED. But, as the Slaveholders could not
destroy the lives of the Abolitionists, they determined to murder
their characters. Hence, the President of the United States was
induced, in his Message of 1835, to Congress, to charge them with
plotting the massacre of the Southern planters; and even to stultify
himself, by affirming that, for this purpose, they were engaged in
sending, by _mail_, inflammatory appeals to the _slaves_--sending
papers to men who could not read them, and by a conveyance through
which they could not receive them! He well knew that the papers
alluded to were appeals on the immorality of converting men, women,
and children, into beasts of burden, and were sent to the masters,
for _their_ consideration. The masters in Charleston, dreading the
moral influence of these appeals on the conscience of the
slaveholding community, forced the Post Office, and made a bonfire
of the papers. The Post Master General, with the sanction of the
President, also hastened to their relief, and, in violation of oaths,
and laws, and the constitution, established ten thousand censors of
the press, each one of whom was authorized to abstract from the mail
every paper which _he_ might think too favorable to the rights of man.

For more than twenty years, petitions have been presented to Congress,
for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. The right
to present them, and the power of Congress to grant their prayer,
were, until recently, unquestioned. But the rapid multiplication of
these petitions alarmed the slaveholders, and, knowing that they
tended to keep alive at the North, an interest in the slave, they
deemed it good policy to discourage and, if possible, suppress all
such applications. Hence Mr. Pinckney's famous resolution, in 1836,
declaring, "that all petitions, or papers, relating _in any way, or
to any extent_ whatever to the _subject of slavery_, shall, without
being printed or referred, be laid on the table; and no further
action, whatever shall be had thereon!"

The peculiar atrocity of this resolution was, that it not merely
trampled upon the rights of the petitioners, but took from each
member of the House his undoubted privilege, as a legislator of the
District, to introduce any proposition he might think proper, for the
protection of the slaves. In every Slave State there are laws
affording, at least, some nominal protection to these unhappy beings;
but, according to this resolution, slaves might be flayed alive in
the streets of Washington, and no representative of the people could
offer even a resolution for inquiry. And this vile outrage upon
constitutional liberty was avowedly perpetrated "to repress agitation,
to allay excitement, and re-establish harmony and tranquillity among
the various sections of the Union!!"

But this strange opiate did not produce the stupefying effects
anticipated from it. In 1836, the petitioners were only 37,000--the
next session they numbered 110,000. Mr. Hawes, of Ky., now essayed
to restore tranquillity, by gagging the uneasy multitude; but, alas!
at the next Congress, more than 300,000 petitioners carried new
terror to the hearts of the slaveholders. The next anodyne was
prescribed by Mr. Patton, of Va., but its effect was to rouse from
their stupor some of the Northern Legislatures, and to induce them
to denounce his remedy as "a usurpation of power, a violation of the
Constitution, subversive of the fundamental principles of the
government, and at war with the prerogatives of the people."[105] It
was now supposed that the people most be drugged by a _northern_ man,
and _Atherton_ was found a fit instrument for this vile purpose; but
the dose proved only the more nauseous and exciting from the foul
hands by which it was administered.

[Footnote 105: Resolutions of Massachusetts and Connecticut, April and
May, 1838.]


In these various outrages, although all action on the petitions was
prohibited, the papers themselves were received and laid on the table,
and _therefore_ it was contended, that the right of petition had
been preserved inviolate. But the slaveholders, maddened by the
failure of all their devices, and fearing the influence which the
mere sight of thousands and tens of thousands of petitions in behalf
of liberty, would exert, and, taking advantage of the approaching
presidential election to operate upon the selfishness of some
northern members, have succeeded in crushing the right of petition
itself.

That you may be the more sensible, fellow citizens, of the exceeding
profligacy of the late RULE and of its palpable violation of both the
spirit and the letter of the Constitution, which those who voted for
it had sworn to support, suffer us to recall to your recollection a
few historical facts.

The framers of the Federal Constitution supposed the right of
petition too firmly established in the habits and affections of the
people, to need a constitutional guarantee. Their omission to notice
it, roused the jealousy of some of the State conventions, called to
pass upon the constitution. The _Virginia_ convention proposed,
as an amendment, "that every _freeman_ has a right to petition,
or apply to the Legislature, for a redress of grievances." And this
amendment, with others, was ordered to be forwarded to the different
States, for their consideration. The Conventions of North Carolina,
New York, and Rhode Island, were held subsequently, and, of course,
had before them the Virginia amendment. The North Carolina Convention
adopted a declaration of rights, embracing the very words of the
proposed amendment; and this declaration was ordered to be submitted
to Congress, before that State would enter the Union. The Conventions
of New York and of Rhode Island incorporated in their _certificates
of ratification_, the assertion that "Every _person_ has a right to
petition or apply to the legislature for a redress of
grievances"--using the Virginia phraseology, merely substituting the
word _person_ for _freeman_, thus claiming the right of petition even
for slaves; while Virginia and North Carolina confined it to freemen.

The first Congress, assembled under the Constitution, gave effect to
the wishes thus emphatically expressed, by proposing, as an amendment,
that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or _abridging_
the freedom of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and _to petition Government_ for a redress of grievances."
This amendment was duly ratified by the States, and when members of
Congress swear to support the Constitution of the United States,
they are as much bound by their oath to refrain from abridging the
right of petition, as they are to fulfil any other constitutional
obligation. And will the slaveholders and their abettors, dare to
maintain that they have not foresworn themselves, because they have
abridged the right of the people to petition for a redress of
grievances, by a RULE of the House, and not by a _law_? If so, they
may by a RULE require every member, on taking his seat, to subscribe
the creed of a particular church, and then call their Maker to
witness that they are guiltless of making a _law_ "respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The right to petition is one thing, and the disposition of a petition
after it is received, is another. But the new rule makes no
disposition of the petitions; it PROHIBITS THEIR RECEPTION; they may
not be brought into the legislative chamber. Hundreds of thousands
of the people are debarred all access to their representatives, for
the purpose of offering them a prayer.

It is said that the manifold abominations perpetrated in the District
are no grievances to the petitioners, and _therefore_ they have no
right to ask for their removal. But the right guaranteed by the
Constitution, is a right to ask for the redress of _grievances_,
whether personal, social, or moral. And who, except a slaveholder,
will dare to contend that it is no grievance that our agents, our
representatives, our servants, in our name and by our authority,
enact laws erecting and licensing markets in the Capital of the
Republic, for the sale of human beings, and converting free men into
slaves, for no other crime, than that of being too poor to pay
United States' officers the JAIL FEES accruing from an iniquitous
imprisonment?

Again, it is pretended that the objects prayed for, are palpably
unconstitutional, and that _therefore_ the petitions ought not to be
received. And by what authority are the people deprived of their
right to petition for any object which a majority of either
House of Congress, for the time being, may please to regard as
unconstitutional? If this usurpation be submitted to, it will not be
confined to abolition petitions. It is well known that most of the
slaveholders _now_ insist, that all protecting duties are
unconstitutional, and that on account of the tariff the Union was
nearly rent by the very men who are now horrified by the danger to
which it is exposed by these _petitions_! Should our Northern
Manufacturers again presume to ask Congress to protect them from
foreign competition, the Southern members will find a precedent,
sanctioned by Northern votes, for a rule that "no petition, memorial,
resolution, or other paper, praying for the IMPOSITION OF DUTIES FOR
THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF MANUFACTURES, shall be received by the House,
or entertained in any way whatever."

It does indeed, require Southern arrogance, to maintain that,
although Congress is invested by the Constitution with "exclusive
jurisdiction, in all cases whatsoever," over the District of Columbia,
yet that it would be so palpably unconstitutional to abolish the
slave-trade, and to emancipate the slaves in the District, that
petitions for these objects ought not to be received. Yet this is
asserted in that very House, on whose minutes is recorded a
resolution, in 1816, appointing a committee, with power to send for
persons and papers, "to inquire into the existence of an inhuman and
illegal traffic in slaves, carried on, in and through the District
of Columbia, and report whether any, and what means are necessary
for putting a stop to the same:" and another, in 1829, instructing
the Committee on the District of Columbia to inquire into the
expediency of providing by law, "for the gradual abolition of
slavery in the District."

In the very first Congress assembled under the Federal Constitution,
petitions were presented, asking its interposition for the
mitigation of the evils, and final abolition of the African
slave-trade, and also praying it, as far as it possessed the power,
to take measures for the abolition of slavery. These petitions
excited the wrath and indignation of many of the slave-holding
members, yet no one thought of refusing to receive them. They were
referred to a select committee, at the instance of Mr. Madison,
himself, who "entered into a critical review of the circumstances
respecting the adoption of the Constitution, and the ideas upon the
limitation of the powers of Congress to interfere in the regulation
of the commerce of slaves, and showed that they undoubtedly were not
precluded from interposing in their importation; and generally to
regulate the mode in which every species of business shall be
transacted. He adverted to the western country, and the Cession of
Georgia, in which Congress have certainly the power to _regulate the
subject of slavery_; which shows that gentlemen are mistaken in
supposing, that Congress cannot constitutionally interfere in the
business, in any degree, whatever. He was in favor of committing the
petition, and justified the measure by repeated precedents in the
proceedings of the House."--_U.S. Gazette, 17th Feb._, 1790.

Here we find one of the earliest and ablest expounders of the
Constitution, maintaining the power of Congress to "regulate the
subject of slavery" in the national territories, and urging the
reference of abolition petitions to a special committee.

The committee made a report; for which, after a long debate, was
substituted a declaration, by the House, that Congress could not
abolish the slave trade prior to the year 1808, but had a right so
to regulate it as to provide for the humane treatment of the slaves
on the passage; and that Congress could not interfere in the
emancipation or treatment of slaves in the _States_.

This declaration gave entire satisfaction, and no farther abolition
petitions were presented, till after the District of Columbia had
been placed under the "exclusive jurisdiction" of the General
Government.

You all remember, fellow citizens, the wide-spread excitement which
a few years since prevailed on the subject of SUNDAY MAILS. Instead
of attempting to quiet the agitation, by outraging the rights of the
petitioners, Congress referred the petitions to a committee, and
made no attempt to stifle discussion.

Why, then, we ask, with such authorities and precedents before them,
do the slaveholders in Congress, regardless of their oaths, strive to
gag the friends of freedom, under _pretence_ of allaying agitation?
Because conscience does make cowards of them all--because they know
the accursed system they are upholding will not bear the
light--because they fear, if these petitions are discussed, the
abominations of the American slave trade, the secrets of the
prison-houses in Washington and Alexandria, and the horrors of the
human shambles licensed by the authority of Congress, will be
exposed to the score and indignation of the civilized world.

Unquestionably the late RULE surpasses, in its profligate contempt of
constitutional obligation, any act in the annals of the Federal
Government. As such it might well strike every patriot with dismay,
were it not that attending circumstances teach us that it is the
expiring effort of desperation. When we reflect on the past
subserviency of our northern representatives to the mandates of the
slaveholders, we may well raise, on the present occasion, the shout
of triumph, and hail the vote on the recent RULE as the pledge of a
glorious victory. Suffer us to recall to your recollection the
majorities by which the successive attempts to crush the right of
petition and the freedom of debate have been carried.


Pinckney's Gag was passed May, 1836, by a majority of 51
Hawes's                   Jan. 1837,                  58
Patton's                  Dec. 1837,                  48
Atherton's                Dec. 1838,                  48
JOHNSON's                 Jan. 1840,                   6


Surely, when we find the majority against us reduced from 58 to
6, we need no new incentive to perseverance.

Another circumstance which marks the progress of constitutional
liberty, is the gradual diminution in the number of our northern
_serviles_. The votes from the free States in favor of the several
gags were as follows:--


For Pinckney's             62
For Hawes's                70
For Patton's               52
For Atherton's             49
For JOHNSON's              28


There is also another cheering fact connected with the passage of
the RULE which deserves to be noticed. Heretofore the slaveholders
have uniformly, by enforcing the previous question, imposed their
several gags by a silent vote. On the present occasion they were
twice baffled in their efforts to stifle debate, and were, for days
together, compelled to listen to speeches on a subject which they
have so often declared should not be discussed.

A base strife for southern votes has hitherto, to no small extent,
enlisted both the political parties at the north in the service of
the slaveholders. The late unwonted independence of northern
politicians, and the deference paid by them to the wishes of their
own constituents, in preference to those of their southern colleagues,
indicates the advance of public opinion. No less than 49 northern
members of the administration party voted for the Atherton gag,
while only 27 dared to record their names in favor of Johnson's; and
of the representation of SIX States, _every vote_ was given _against_
the rule, without distinction of party. The tone in which opposite
political journals denounce the late outrage may warn the
slaveholders that they will not much longer hold the north in bonds.
The leading administration paper in the city of New York regards the
RULE with "utter abhorrence;" while the official paper of the
opposition, edited by the state printer, trusts that the names of
the recreant northerners who voted for it may be "handed down to
eternal infamy and execration."

The advocates of abolition are no longer consigned to unmitigated
contempt and obloquy. Passing by the various living illustrations of
our remark, we appeal for our proofs to the dead. The late WILLIAM
LEGGETT, the editor of a Democratic Journal in the city of New York,
was denounced, in 1835, by the "Democratic Republican General
Committee," for his abolition doctrines. Far from faltering in his
course, on account of the censure of his own party, he exclaimed,
with a presentiment almost amounting to prophecy, "The stream of
public opinion now sets against us, but it is about to turn, and the
regurgitation will be tremendous. Proud in that day may well be the
man who can float in triumph on the first refluent wave, swept
onward by the deluge which he himself, in advance of his fellows,
had largely shared in occasioning. Such be my fate; and, living or
dying, it will in some measure be mine. I have written my name in
ineffaceable letters on the abolition record." And he did live to
behold the first swelling of the refluent wave. The denounced
abolitionist was honored by a democratic President with a diplomatic
mission; and since his death, the resolution condemning him has been
EXPUNGED from the minutes of the democratic committee.

Of the many victims of the recent awful calamity in our waters, what
name has been most frequently uttered by the pulpit and the press in
the accents of lamentation and panegyric? On whose tomb have freedom,
philanthropy, and letters been invoked to strew their funeral wreaths?
All who have heard of the loss of the Lexington are familiar with
the name of CHARLES FOLLEN. And who was he? One of the men
officially denounced by President Jackson as a gang of miscreants,
plotting insurrection and murder--and, recently, a member of the
Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society.

Let us then, fellow citizens, in view of all these things, thank God
and take courage. We are now contending, not merely for the
emancipation of our unhappy fellow men, kept in bondage under the
authority of our own representatives--not merely for the overthrow
of the human shambles erected by Congress on the national
domain--but also for the preservation of those great constitutional
rights which were acquired by our fathers, and are now assailed by
the slaveholders and their northern auxiliaries. That you may
remember these auxiliaries and avoid giving them new opportunities
of betraying your rights, we annex a list of their dishonored names.

The following twenty-eight members from the Free States voted in the
affirmative on the recent GAG RULE.


  MAINE.

  Virgil D. Parris
  Albert Smith

  NEW HAMPSHIRE.

  Charles G. Atherton
  Edmund Burke
  Ira A. Eastman
  Tristram Shaw

  NEW YORK.

  Nehemiah H. Earle
  John Fine
  Nathaniel Jones
  Governeur Kemble
  James de la Montayne
  John H. Prentiss
  Theron R. Strong

  PENNSYLVANIA.

  John Davis
  Joseph Fornance
  James Gerry
  George M'Cullough
  David Petriken
  William S. Ramsey

  OHIO.

  D.P. Leadbetter
  William Medill
  Isaac Parrish
  George Sweeney
  Jonathan Taylor
  John B. Weller

  INDIANA.

  John Davis
  George H. Proffit

  ILLINOIS.

  John Reynolds.


Let us turn to our more immediate representatives, and we trust more
faithful servants. Our State Legislatures will not refuse to hear
our prayers. Let us petition them immediately to rebuke the treason
by which the Constitution has been surrendered into the hands of the
slaveholders--let us implore them to demand from Congress, in the
name of the free States, that they shall neither destroy nor abridge
the right of petition--a right without which our government would be
converted into a despotism.

We call on you, fellow citizens of every religious faith and party
name, to unite with us in guarding the citadel of our country's
freedom. If there are any who will not co-operate with us in
laboring for the emancipation of the slave, surely there are none
who will stand aloof from us while contending for the liberty of
themselves, their children, and their children's children.

To the rescue, then, fellow citizens! and, trusting in HIM without
whom all human effort is weakness, let us not doubt that our faithful
endeavors to preserve the rights HE has given us will, through HIS
blessing, be crowned with success.


  ARTHUR TAPPAN,
  JAMES G. BIRNEY,
  JOSHUA LEAVITT,
  LEWIS TAPPAN,
  SAMUEL E. CORNISH,
  SIMEON S. JOCELYN,
  LA ROY SUNDERLAND,
  THEODORE S. WRIGHT,
  DUNCAN DUNBAR,
  JAMES S. GIBBONS,
  HENRY B. STANTON

  _Executive Committee
  of the
  American
  Anti-Slavery Society_.




_New York, February_ 13, 1840.